Cecil Moore wrote:

In the past, you have said that redistribution of energy
from canceled waves is absolutely NOT a reflection yet
above you seem to say the redirection is a reflection.
Are you changing your mind about wave cancellation
resulting in reflections?

Hi Cecil -

Please, I've asked you this many times, quote me directly when you
want to refer to something I've said. I am able to explain those
things. I concede that I am unable to explain the convoluted ideas
that you often attribute to me - although I do think I know why you
write them the way you do. For the sake of clarity and simplicity
could we instead try to restrict our dialog to the present discussion,
and include relevant text that is quoted from the post we wish to
comment upon? I think that's how it's customarily done in the newsgroups.

Nothing from the University of Florida contradicts what I said, and I
can find nothing there to object to. My comments were directed
strictly toward some of the things that you wrote. (As a courtesy I
included the text I was referring to). I would like to suggest that
you take more careful note of those areas where your words differ from
those contained in the papers that you cite; in particular, with
regard to interference as a *cause* for the redirection of energy. Do
not infer, as you then risk inferring incorrectly. If you're honest
about it, you will find that interference is the manifestation of a
redirection of energy. It is the form; the envelope of the
distribution. It is a result; the result of the superposition of
waves. Nowhere in the literature will you find anyone describing
interference as a cause of reflection, as you have done. That is
because it is not a factual accounting of the natural phenomena.

Thanks and 73,

Jim AC6XG