Gene Fuller wrote:
There is no justification for saying that interference causes
superposition or that superposition causes interference or any such
combinations.

That's really good because I didn't say anything like that.
Please don't try to imply that I did.

Superposition can occur with or without interference.

Interference can occur with or without wave cancellation.

If you were to read Born and Wolf you would find that they deal with the
multiple interference problem (antireflective glass) in exactly the same
manner. They never even mention constructive or destructive interference.

I've moved and can't find my Born and Wolf but Hecht certainly
holds constructive/destructive interference in central
position in his classic book. He devotes an entire chapter
to interference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
There is no justification for saying that interference causes
superposition or that superposition causes interference or any such
combinations.

That's really good because I didn't say anything like that.
Please don't try to imply that I did.

Superposition can occur with or without interference.

Interference can occur with or without wave cancellation.


Cecil,

Your exact words we

The decrease to zero in reflected energy flow toward the source
is known as "total destructive interference" in the noun version
of the word as used by Hecht. The increase in energy flow
toward the load is known as constructive interference. One need
not refer to superposition as the cause of interference since
the interference *event* implies superposition of two (or more)
coherent waves as the *cause* of the interference *process*.


# Is this not written in English?

# Is there some other interpretation of *cause* in the last sentence?

# Just what do you mean by, "superposition of two (or more)
coherent waves as the *cause* of the interference *process*"?

# Are you playing some sort of word game by using *event* and *process*?

# Do you have a reference for the rules of that word game?


73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
# Is this not written in English?

You have obviously misunderstood what I was trying
to say.

# Just what do you mean by, "superposition of two (or more)
coherent waves as the *cause* of the interference *process*"?

Superposition is necessary for interference to exist.
Superposition is not sufficient for interference to exist.
Superposition and interference are both in the cause and
effect chain of events.

# Are you playing some sort of word game by using *event* and *process*?

No, just responding to Jim Kelley's assertion that interference
is only an end result. Eugene Hecht says the "intricate color
patterns shimmering across an oil slick ... result from ...
the phenomenon of interference." The intricate color patterns
are the *result* of interference.

# Do you have a reference for the rules of that word game?

It's no word game - it's just English as plain as I can make it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com