Gene Fuller wrote:
Yes, there was something technically wrong. The message I responded to
had a glaring violation of conservation of energy. Your follow-up
corrected the problem.

Gene, as you know, there is no such thing as a violation of
conservation of energy. But the reflectance at the thin-film
surface is 0.01 and a reflection is unavoidable. So how does
the reflected 0.01 watts/unit-area of irradiance keep from
violating the conservation of energy principle? Where does
that energy go? My follow-up answered those questions. Two
rearward pointing power flow vectors are associated with
wave cancellation of the EM fields. That's destructive
interference resulting in constructive interference in the
opposite direction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com