On Mar 14, 12:24 pm, Gene Fuller wrote:
Au contraire, mon frere. You continue to claim that a standing wave MUST
be made up of two traveling waves, but without proof.

On the contrary, I have presented at least three references as proof.
If I remember correctly, it was Ramo, Whinnery, Hecht, and Balanis.
You, OTOH, have presented none.

My contention is that this distinction is merely a matter of
mathematical preference. When standing waves occur, there is absolutely
no physical difference between the standing wave and its traveling wave
constituents.

Obviously false as proven by the different equations for the two types
of waves. We laid that one to rest long ago. In fact, it was you who
pointed out that standing wave phase is completely different from
traveling wave phase and cannot be used to measure phase shift through
a coil. If I remember correctly, it was the difference between
cos(x*wt) and cos(x)*cos(wt), i.e. *very* different.

Water is also a scalar. If you had one gallon per minute flowing into
a barrel and two gallons per minute flowing out of the barrel, would
you argue that there is no water flowing into the barrel and only one
gallon of water flowing out of the barrel? Or would you say the *net*
water flow is one barrel per minute out of the barrel?

This is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Try to keep on task.

No, it is virtually identical to your argument. Saying it is "totally
irrevelent" doesn't change anything. You are arguing that net energy
transfer is primary and the underlying energy components are
irrelevant if nonexistant.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com