Jim Kelley wrote:
Perhaps I was deluded by all your arguing about it. :-)

I'm saying, "I agree" and you are saying, "No, you don't"
so who's doing the arguing? Here's an example from a posting
way back in 2004:

************************************************** ***********************
Jim Kelley wrote:
The crux of
the phenomenological problem is that power does not flow or move, nor is
it something that is reflected.

But energy does flow and move and is something that can be reflected.
************************************************** ************************

In that posting, I am agreeing with you but your delusions make
you assert to this very day that I was arguing with you.

Power components do not interfere.

Glad you finally agree.

I have never said otherwise. I often identify the wave component
by the power figure, but it is *only a name* used to identify
an EM wave. When I say, "The 50 watt wave interferes with the
25 watt wave", I'm not saying that 50 watts interferes with
25 watts. It's the *waves* that interfere, not the watts!
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(phi)
where phi is the phase angle between the two E-fields.

Right. That's simply because P is proportional to E^2.

I'm glad you finally agree after arguing against it for years.
(See, two can play your junevile game.)

The last
term in that equation is well known as the "interference term".

Basically, yes. Two times the product of the two fields is the
interference term.

The interference is in the units of power, e.g. joules/sec.
It is two times the square root of the product of the two powers
associated with the two interferring waves. It is the result
of superposition of two coherent EM waves. As I said before,
it is the waves that interfere, NOT the powers.

The product of two things which don't interfere is
probably inappropriately referred to as an interference term.

Your argument is with Hecht and other scientists, physicists,
and engineers who use that convention, not just with me. You
would have made a good lawyer since you seem to object to
virtually everything. :-)

Like I said before, the only disagreement that we have left is
whether dt is zero or infinitessimally small.

As I recall, my disagreement with you was about your claim that
"interference causes energy to reverse direction and go the other way".
That's what it's always been about, Cecil.

Destructive interference in one direction in a transmission line
results in constructive interference in the opposite direction.
Anything else would violate the conservation of energy principle.
Our argument is whether destructive interference has time to happen,
i.e. how many calculus dt's can dance on the head of a pin. :-)

Whether interference can cause energy to reverse direction or not
depends upon whether dt equals zero as you imply, or whether dt equals
an infinitessimally small amount of time as I say. That's what it's
always been about, Jim.

Do you still insist that's what happens? If not, then we're in
agreement - unless you disagree, of course.

If dt is an infinitessimally small amount of time, then that is
exactly what happens. If dt equals zero, then it doesn't have
time to happen. Your argument is that it doesn't have time to
happen because "there is no before and after". (a quote from your
email). I say there is a before, now, and after divided into
infinitessimally small dt's of time and when added together,
actually perform the function of representing the flow of time.
So are you going to assert that time also doesn't flow?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---