Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Partially reflective surfaces can (and are) in fact used to prevent
reflections, just as they are used to 100% re-reflect partial
reflections from a load.

Partially reflective surfaces cannot, by themselves,
reflect 100% of the incident energy. If it's partial,
it's not 100%, by definition. Any partially reflective
surface needs help from interference in order to
achieve 100% reflection. You know, that interference
that you deny exists.

That was the main point of my post, Cecil. The reflective coefficient
DOES NOT CHANGE. You're the one who claims that it does.

You continue to lie about what I said. I have said any
number of times that the physical reflection coefficient,
s11, is fixed and does NOT change. Why does someone who
is technically correct need to stoop to lying?

There is no energy "in" cancelled waves.

The waves existed along with their energy components before
they were canceled. What happens to those energy components
after the waves are canceled. If one sets one phase equal
zero and the other phase equal 180 degrees, what happens to
the energy in the two waves at:

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html


There are two waves on the left existing with their respective
voltage and joules/sec. The result of total destructive interference
is zero voltage and zero joules/sec. What happened to the original
joule/sec components?


Cecil,

I pointed out a few days ago that the FSU Java applet you lean on so
heavily these days is a simple tutorial device designed by a grad
student and a programmer. As shown, it is physically impossible, since
there is no mechanism in place to cause the waves to suddenly jump
together and interfere.

It is a useful picture showing how sine waves with differing phases add
together; no more and no less. It is a simple matter of mathematics. It
is not a new discovery in the world of RF or optics.

73,
Gene
W4SZ