Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The idea that interference *causes* effects (such as
standing waves) was not originated by me.

It must have taken great courage to admit that. Perhaps there's some
consolation in the fact that you can still take credit for originating
the idea that interference causes waves to reflect. :-)

I have *never* said I was uttering anything original. I
am on record for learning all this in college 50 years
ago. Any prudent physicist would be forced by reality to
admit that the principle of conservation principle is valid
and the wave reflection model is valid. If you accept the
validity of those two models, you cannot help but realize
that wave cancellation results in reflections.

If two coherent waves are canceled in one direction in a
transmission line, where do their energy components go?
It's a no-brainer. There is only one other direction
available.

The idea that waves *bring* energy and that there is actual
energy in a reflected wave was not originated by me.

Believe it or not, even prior to the advent of radio it was presumed
that waves transport energy, from the Sun to the Earth for example.
Still, it must be a humbling concession to make. :-)

I have never asserted that anything I have presented was
original. I have said I learned it all in college 50 years ago.

Some have asserted that reflected waves must not contain any
energy because they don't care where the energy goes. Such are
the delusions of grandeur exhibited by some on this newsgroup.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com