Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

For those reading along, here are the remarks Cecil is characterizing
as nasty and obscene:


Please don't be ridiculous. No, the remarks I am characterizing
as nasty and obscene are commonly know as "mind f__king".

That's obscene alright.

Maybe it was when I said that you're describing the match point as if it
were a 100% reflective one-way mirror. A one way mirror is actually not
a bad analogy. Problem is you keep insisting that it must be 100%
reflective - which obviously can't work. I tried to explain that each
reflection is only partial, but each wavefront subsequently experiences
multiple reflections - each time reduced in amplitude by a factor of
rho1*rho2 per round trip. And, that the total amplitude equals the sum
of all previous undamped reflections, which happens to equal the 100%
number. That's what is in the textbooks I referred to you. It's also
what Walt explains in his 1/4 wave transformer diagrams.

If the truth is a vulgar obscenity to you, then I guess I might rightly
be accused of "hurling" that at you.

ac6xg