On Jan 9, 3:13 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
On what page has Dr. Hecht written "a standing wave is a different
kind of electromagnetic wave"?

Since I didn't say that Dr. Hecht said that, it must be a rhetorical
question. Here's what Dr. Hecht did say: In "Schaum`s College Physics
Outline" by Bueche & Hecht on page 214 is written: "Standing
Waves:....These might better not be called waves at all since they do
not transport energy and momentum." (Thanks to Richard Harrison for
that quote.) I agree with Dr. Hecht. Standing waves should not be
called waves at all since they do not meet the definition and
requirements for EM waves.

I asserted that expression for the sum of traveling waves and the
expression for the resulting standing wave pattern are related by trig
identity, as per page 140 of the 28th Edition of the CRC Standard
Mathematical Tables Handbook.

Sorry Jim, that's not what you said. You asked if I recognized the
trig identity that (presumably) equated a standing wave to a traveling
wave. If that was not your meaning, it is time to say exactly what
meaning I was supposed to assume.

The 'wave' which stands is merely an amplitude envelope for the waves
which move.

Key word there is "waves". A standing wave is NOT self sufficient - it
requires the superposition of a forward-traveling wave and a reverse-
traveling wave. A standing wave loses its EM wave identity in the
process of that superposition and apparently creates an illusion
capable of mass hysteria. To alleviate that hysteria, one has only to
compare the equations for standing waves and traveling waves or the
corresponding graphs of those functions to see that they are hardly
anything alike.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com