Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Exactly! So what does cause the reflection of reflected energy
at the match point? We know it happens and you have given us
no clue as to why it happens.

I assumed you knew. Reflection is caused when a wave encounters a
change in media of some kind.

What I am asserting and you haven't even come close to disproving is
that wave cancellation of RF waves can cause reflections in exactly
the same way as wave cancellation of light waves has been proven
to cause reflections.

Since you're the only person in history to have ever claimed such a
phenomenon occurs, the responsibility rests squarely with you to prove
it exists. As I just got done saying, the only way for electromagnetic
energy to change direction is by reflection. It seemed you understood
that.

What is it about the two following two
technical reference quotes that you don't understand?

I understand them perfectly. You may recall that I introduced you to
the Melles-Griot site. You on the other hand, misunderstand them.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are 180-
degrees out of phase with each other meet, they are not actually
annihilated. All of the photon energy present in these waves must
somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to
the law of energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons
are redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference, so
the effect should be considered as a redistribution of light waves and
photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction
of light."

That's as clear as it can possibly be, Jim. Wave cancellation redistributes
the energy.

And you are clearly reading more into it than it clearly says (as
evidenced by the fact that what you wrote and what it says are clearly
not the same thing). Your interpretation is totally incorrect.
Interference is an effect not a cause. The text desribes the actual
end result, but you're interpretting it to be a allusion to some sort
of bizzarre supernatural phenomenon. You're better off doing what I
have done. Figure out how it works by relying upon natural phenomena
for the explanation. It works out beautifully if you'd at least give
it a try. True, you won't be able to claim to have invented it. But
claiming to have invented the other thing would probably only have
earned you a "Cranky" on crank.net anyway.

73, ac6xg

ps Your article did not appear on my news service, so I'm responding
via Google.