Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
2. As for the wave cancellation part, you have many times noted that
stuff happens at interfaces or discontinuities. So why is it that you
never ever consider what is happening inside those interfaces and
discontinuities? Do you suppose the waves simply cancel, reflect, or
whatever without assistance from the materials in the interface or
discontinuity? Do you suppose that any energy or momentum
considerations may need to include the materials?

That's one of the points I have been trying to make. The impedance
discontinuities perform the same function as half-silvered mirrors,
for instance, in interferometers. The impedance discontinuity is a
primitive interferometer.

You are supporting my point exactly. There is little mystery about what
happens *outside* the discontinuity. At the same time, saying something
functions in the manner as half-silvered mirrors adds nothing to the
technical discussion. You continue to argue mechanisms, in the style of
"It [reflection] is canceled immediately *after* it is generated." Yet
there is no discussion or even recognition of the physical processes
that are going on. This leads to endless arguments that are little more
than counting angels dancing on pinheads.


On the other hand there is no possibility of figuring out how the
waves actually "cancel" or what happens to the energy and momentum
without considering the actual physical configuration.

The point is that optical physicists already had it figured
out before any of us were born. The problem is that RF gurus
tend to reject any technical facts from the field of optics.

You, for instance, called me every name in the book while
arguing loud and long against any of those concepts from
the field of optical physics. Now you admit that some of
them are valid but completely unimportant. That is, at least,
an improvement.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I just went back to
look at the messages I sent over the past three months. I could not find
a single case where I called you any name at all, much less every name
in the book. Do you consider it name calling if I disagree with you?
That would explain a lot, including all of the names you have called me.

I have been a physicist working in the optics field for several decades.
I have no particular difficultly with any of the concepts. What I do
have difficultly understanding is someone who extrapolates valid
concepts beyond their realm of applicability. The irradiance equations
work fine for detailing the external effects, but they don't give any
hint of what happens inside the interface. Think Thevenin.

73,
Gene
W4SZ