Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
You may or may not already know this, but a lot of detailed optical
analysis these days is done with full 3-D electromagnetic simulation,
starting from Maxwell equations and boundary conditions. Interference,
coherence, energy flow, and all of the other stuff you like to discuss
can be *output* from that analysis, but those items are not part of
the input. The "centuries old" optics simply does not get the job
done. The "centuries old" stuff may work in the (impossible) cases
where everything is completely lossless and ideal, but it doesn't give
the right answers in the real world.

Ideal examples are time-honored ways of discussing concepts
and getting away from the vagaries of the real world. If one
understands the ideal examples, one is in a position to then
proceed to understanding the real world. If one fails to
understand the conceptual principles underlying the ideal
examples, one cannot possibly understand the real world.

Your posting seems to reflect your usual sour grapes attitude.
I will expect you to object to every example that uses lossless
transmission lines from now on including ones by Ramo & Whinnery,
Walter Johnson, Walter Maxwell, J. C. Slater and Robert Chipman.

I don't know why you would choose to accuse me of "sour grapes". That is
a characteristic of someone who has lost an argument. 8-)

You keep referring to the optical masters of old as being a huge
resource that is largely unknown to the RF crowd. I am merely
introducing the 21st century into the discussion.

73,
Gene
W4SZ