Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
What did I say that was incorrect?

Suppose that the "standard output" is at a constructive maximum.

That supposition is incorrect because it supposes that
the standard output can contain more energy than the
source is supplying. That supposition violates the
conservation of energy principle.


Why would anyone make such a supposition that violates conservation of
energy? I certainly did not. I merely said the output was at a maximum.
Do you think that "maximum" is an illegal concept? Does "maximum" imply
some specific numerical value?

Frankly, I have no idea what your objection is, and I have even less
interest. I gave a standard textbook solution in a straightforward
manner that gives the correct result, violates nothing, and is not
complicated by all sorts of artificial constraints. If you want
something more, have at it.

73
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
Why would anyone make such a supposition that violates conservation of
energy? I certainly did not. I merely said the output was at a maximum.

No, you didn't. Here's what you said:

Suppose that the "standard output" is at a *constructive maximum*.

Now do you remember what you said? You implied that
constructive interference is present.

Do you think that "maximum" is an illegal concept? Does "maximum" imply
some specific numerical value?

Sorry, you did NOT say "maximum". You said "constructive
maximum".

A "constructive maximum" is greater than the average
output of the source, by definition. If you just said
"maximum", it would have been OK. When you added
"constructive" it means that, by definition, the output
is greater than the average source power.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Why would anyone make such a supposition that violates conservation of
energy? I certainly did not. I merely said the output was at a maximum.

No, you didn't. Here's what you said:

Suppose that the "standard output" is at a *constructive maximum*.

Now do you remember what you said? You implied that
constructive interference is present.

Do you think that "maximum" is an illegal concept? Does "maximum"
imply some specific numerical value?

Sorry, you did NOT say "maximum". You said "constructive
maximum".

A "constructive maximum" is greater than the average
output of the source, by definition. If you just said
"maximum", it would have been OK. When you added
"constructive" it means that, by definition, the output
is greater than the average source power.

OK, remove the word "constructive" and simply leave "maximum". The same
description still holds.

Feel better now?

Since you are reduced to nit-picking the exact choice of words, it
appears you have nothing constructive to add (pun intended).

I gotta get one of the special dictionaries you have. The one that
contains all of those "by definition" statements you like to use.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
OK, remove the word "constructive" and simply leave "maximum".
Feel better now?

Correcting conceptual violations of the conservation
of energy principle always makes me feel better.
Thank you for your rational response.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com