Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I have said many times that you can choose to analyze the individual
components or you can analyze the superposed combination, i.e., a
standing wave. It is purely a matter of mathematical convenience.
However, if you get different answers, including more or less
completeness, then you have made an error. That is the essence of
superposition. If that property was not true, then superposition would
be of little value.

An energy analysis yields exactly the same results as any
other valid method of analysis and is often much easier.
There are no "different answers", yet you imply there are.
An energy analysis obeys all of the principles of physics.
Optical physicists have been solving energy analysis
problems for centuries.

It's a simply yes/no question: Does the analysis of the
forward wave and reflected wave separately abide by the
rules of the principle of superposition? The answer is
obviously "yes" because identical results are obtained
using either method.

It is rather ironic that you are accusing *me* of allowing only one
valid method when I have repeatedly stated a flexible approach.

Stated, yes. Practiced, no. I don't attack your methods,
Gene, yet you repeatedly attack other valid methods that
yield results identical to yours with less effort. You
only pay lip service to your "flexible approach". Your
practiced approach is pretty narrow-minded - your way or
no way.


Cecil,

You have argued with me many times that my preference of analyzing
standing waves is insufficient; that there is more information contained
in the two component traveling waves than in the standing wave.
Superposition says that is not correct, but I don't suppose you will
accept that.

However, you are in luck. This is Burger King Day. Have it your way.

I think I will drop out of this thread. Feel free to call yourself the
winner. Also, go right ahead and give interference the unit of
watts/meter2 along with all of the other misinterpretations from your
guru-authors.

73,
Gene
W4SZ