Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Set the two waves to equal magnitudes and opposite phases.
Hint: there can be no wave cancellation without waves.

More to the point, there can be no waves under the conditions you
describe.

Therefore, thin-film anti-reflective coatings are
a waste of time since there were no reflections to
begin with. Again, you have an effect reaching back
in time to change its own cause. If that works in
your mind, who am I to try to change it?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
I don't criticize everyone else's explanations, Cecil.

You criticized Walter Maxwell's explanation and my
explanation without offering any explanation of your
own. Exactly what completely reverses the momentum
of the reflected wave from the load when the power
reflection coefficient is only 0.5?

In considering the transmission line matching transformer scenario (or
the antireflection coating), when we sum up all of the partial
reflections at each interface during the transient period, the sum
ultimately reaches and establishes the steady state conditions. The sum
of the reflections at each iteration show exactly how energy makes its
way from source to load.

The reflection model works just fine for the transient
state *and* for the steady-state. The principles of
superposition tell us that it doesn't matter how the
steady-state signals are divided up. Their sum is
always the same.

You divide it up into transient reflections. It can
just as easily be divided into ten equal parts and
the result will be identical.

I can devise an example using two sources with circulators
with no reflections where steady-state is immediate. The
results are exactly the same as a single source with
reflections.

If you want to see how
energy moves, then power should be calculated after a proper voltage
analysis, not in lieu of one.

Please do a voltage analysis for an anti-reflective coating
tuned for laser light and get back to us. Optical physicists
have been doing irradiance analysis for centuries, Jim. If
you can prove them wrong, have at it. All I am doing is an
irradiance analysis inside a transmission line based on
centuries old techniques from the field of optics. Since
you reject an irradiance analysis, your argument is not
with me but with the physicists who invented the irradiance
analysis and equation.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Dave wrote;
"Art`s magical levitating cosmic diamagnetic particles???"

Art surely realizes his leg is being pulled. We all know we`re only
conglomerations of stardust which are mightily entertained by Art`s
unrestrained theories. We love Art and when his infernal machine is
perfected, Art will find us volunteering to be beamed up!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Jim Kelley wrote:
If you want to see how
energy moves, then power should be calculated after a proper voltage
analysis, not in lieu of one.

Let's return to the graphic that we earlier discussed.

http://www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.GIF

When the first internal reflection (0.009801 watts)
arrives at t3 and first interferes with the external
reflection of 0.01 watts), what is the total reflected
power toward the load? What mechanism caused that
unexpected result?

Feel free to use voltages if you like. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

I don't criticize everyone else's explanations, Cecil.


You criticized Walter Maxwell's explanation and my
explanation without offering any explanation of your
own.

That's everybody? Walter has in fact worked out the very explanation
that you don't seem able to comprehend. It's the same one I pointed
to in the physics books, which you also don't seem to be able to fully
comprehend.

Exactly what completely reverses the momentum
of the reflected wave from the load when the power
reflection coefficient is only 0.5?

Do you have trouble understanding that reflection changes the
direction of the reflected waves? When you work the problem as I
suggested - using real reflection coefficients - you'll note that no
energy is lost. Your explanation is the one that has trouble working
the problem using real reflection coefficients.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you have trouble understanding that reflection changes the direction
of the reflected waves?

If you include wave cancellation as a mechanism for
energy reflection, I agree 100%. See the interferometer
example below.

I understand that a physical power reflection coefficient
of 0.5 cannot cause 100% reflection as you say it does.

One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...eriments.shtml

"Using Dielectric Beamsplitters to find the "missing energy"
in destructive interference - Where is the energy of the light
going in an interferometer adjusted for destructive interference?
Below is a schematic diagram showing a way to detect the non-standard
output of a Michelson interferometer—the light *heading back toward*
*the laser source*. That is, when interference is destructive at
the standard output, it is constructive at the non-standard output.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Do you have trouble understanding that reflection changes the
direction of the reflected waves?


If you include wave cancellation as a mechanism for
energy reflection, I agree 100%.

:-) Of course I don't include wave cancellation as a mechanism for
reflection. Nor would J.C. Maxwell or even Eugene Hecht.

One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

I've used laboratory interferometers for over 20 years, Cecil. It
seems like I've been trying to explain how they work to you for almost
that long.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

I've used laboratory interferometers for over 20 years, Cecil. It seems
like I've been trying to explain how they work to you for almost that long.

Translation: I am so afraid of that web page that I deleted
it and hope nobody notices. I refuse to discuss the interferometer
example because I am afraid to be proven wrong.

Please share your usual mealy-mouthing response about how I
don't understand that web page at:

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...eriments.shtml

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ENERGY REJECTED BY THE DESTRUCTIVE
INTERFERENCE PORT WAS ON ITS WAY BACK TO THE SOURCE BEFORE
IT WAS INTERCEPTED. CAN YOU SPELL R-E-F-L-E-C-T-I-O-N?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Therefore, thin-film anti-reflective coatings are
a waste of time since there were no reflections to
begin with. Again, you have an effect reaching back
in time to change its own cause.

Can you spell A*B*S*U*R*D? :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Therefore, thin-film anti-reflective coatings are
a waste of time since there were no reflections to
begin with. Again, you have an effect reaching back
in time to change its own cause.

Can you spell A*B*S*U*R*D? :-)

Yep, and that describes your strange concepts to a 'T'.
Your concept that "canceled waves never existed in the
first place" requires a time machine to implement, not
to mention the paradox involved with time travel.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com