On Mar 26, 1:37*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Now if the 200 W from the wave from source 1 and the
50 W from the wave from source 2 represent actual
energy flows, then the "interference energy" must
also be an actual energy flow to satisfy conservation
of energy.

One other observation: Although the interference model
will work for a lumped circuit example, there is no
reason to use it as it complicates the computations
and adds nothing to the solution. The wave reflection
model also works for circuits but there is simply no
good reason to use it for lumped circuit analysis.

Except when it can be called into service to disprove
some aspects of *your* "wave reflection model".

Where interference becomes a useful tool is when it
happens away from any compensating source. An analysis
of the interference of two EM light waves in free space
far removed from any source leaves us with two constant
sources of energy, the total energy of which has to go
somewhere. The following two web pages tell us exactly
where the energy goes.

http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...interference/w...

It is unfortunate that they did not expect someone to use
their website to try to understand the behavior of transmission
lines, or they might have taken more care to explain what is
happening at the sub-wavelength level.

Your theory seems to require that the EM waves must
know beforehand whether to carry energy or not from
a star light years away. You apparently have invented
a rather curious "smart wave theory".

That would be nice, but no, not required. Though it is
easy to see how one might be misguided into thinking so.

The question is, can you set aside the mis-guiding
influences long enough to learn about the alternative
explanations?

The question is: How did those two interfering waves
from Alpha Centauri know whether to arrive at the
planet Earth ten years later carrying ExH energy
or not carrying ExH energy?

It is a question, but only seems relevent if *your* model
is incorrect.

...Keith