Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
There is no justification for saying that interference causes
superposition or that superposition causes interference or any such
combinations.

That's really good because I didn't say anything like that.
Please don't try to imply that I did.

Superposition can occur with or without interference.

Interference can occur with or without wave cancellation.


Cecil,

Your exact words we

The decrease to zero in reflected energy flow toward the source
is known as "total destructive interference" in the noun version
of the word as used by Hecht. The increase in energy flow
toward the load is known as constructive interference. One need
not refer to superposition as the cause of interference since
the interference *event* implies superposition of two (or more)
coherent waves as the *cause* of the interference *process*.


# Is this not written in English?

# Is there some other interpretation of *cause* in the last sentence?

# Just what do you mean by, "superposition of two (or more)
coherent waves as the *cause* of the interference *process*"?

# Are you playing some sort of word game by using *event* and *process*?

# Do you have a reference for the rules of that word game?


73,
Gene
W4SZ