Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Let me try this then: Do you still think that interference is what
moves ENERGY from one place to another?

To the best of my knowledge, I addressed all of your objections
in a revision to my energy article which was done many months
ago. The reasons for your objections don't even exist any more.

May we assume that the term "4th mechanism of reflection" will be
avoided in future publications?

You convinced me that power doesn't flow.

Thank you, Jesus.

But the fact that (V1+V2)^2 is equal to V1^2 + V2^2 + 2V1*V2 doesn't
depend in the least on whether "interference has occurred", Cecil.
That was the whole point of my comment about it.

Yes, and you are still wrong according to Hecht.

Well, Hecht and I both understand the 8th grade algebra, and I don't
disagree with him. How then could he disagree with me? I think that's
the symmetric equality property. :-)

One possible way to resolve the apparent dichotomy would be to suppose
that you misunderstand what we are each saying.

Hecht makes no such connection between 'power' and 'interference', Cecil.

But Hecht certainly makes a connection between 'power density' and
'interference'. It is a trivial matter to convert the power density
irradiance equation to the power equation by multiplying by the
cross-sectional area of a transmission line.

The units of irradiance (power density) are joules/sec/unit-area.

Multiply the irradiance equation by the unit-area of the coax,
e.g. 1 in^2, and you get joules/sec = power which is what a
Bird wattmeter indicates.

Which of course explains how it is that your answers come out correctly.
I believe I already mentioned that it does (obviously) produce correct
answers, given all the underlying assumptions are correct.

By the way, what assumptions are you making?

If you want, you can convert the Bird wattmeter reading to
irradiance by dividing by the cross-sectional area of the
coax.

Wouldn't I first have to buy into the idea that power is flowing through
it? :-)

'A' is the angle between the V1 and V2 voltage phasors.

...and NOT between the two 'powers'.

*Nobody* has ever said there is a phase angle between two powers
yet you persist in that false strawman implication.

It's hard to imagine how a simple, mutually agreed upon statement of
fact could be construed as a "false strawman implication", but there it is.

73, ac6xg