Cecil Moore wrote:

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.)

Hi Cecil - please note that Dr. Hecht does not post to this newsgroup.
If you follow this thread back, you will find that you were the one
who wrote "a standing wave is a different kind of electromagnetic wave".

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.

And so do I. But as I said, I am not disputing anything that Dr.
Hecht has written in his textbooks. Though, there are more elegantly
written physics books.

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.

See above.

ac6xg