Hi Jim,

I was going to try to stay out of this recurring silliness, but since
you accidentally pulled me in I will add my spin.

The only mistake made by Steve Best was allowing himself to get dragged
by Cecil into the intellectual landfill. Yes, most people with
rudimentary arithmetic skills would agree that 75 plus 8.33 does not
equal 133.33.

However, anyone even remotely familiar with waves would readily
understand that the component waves Cecil loves to talk about are merely
mathematical conveniences. It is entire possible to set up other model
configurations, such as a combination of a one traveling wave and one
standing wave.

In order to make his model work, Cecil needs to invoke the mythical P3
and P4 on the source side of the reflection discontinuity. He never gets
around to explaining how these two waves, which exactly cancel at all
points in space and at all times, can contain any energy at all.

The reason that most practitioners of wave models solve for the fields
first and then worry about power or energy is:

a - This procedure works correctly all the time.

b - It avoids the problems created by analyzing fictitious extra
components added for mathematical convenience but containing no physical
reality.

I do not expect to change Cecil's mind. Other than his own potential
embarrassment from the silly publications in World Radio, his folly is
harmless.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

You mean like Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(a) ? :-)
The first time I saw that equation was in Dr. Best's QEX article.



Yes, and you didn't believe it when you saw it.


Wave P1 contains 75 watts and Wave P2 contains 8.33 watts.
Without a source of constructive interference energy, they cannot
add up to 133.33 watts.


And obviously he still doesn't believe it, Gene.

73, ac6xg