Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Hecht seems to have sufficient reputation that I trust that he made
this statement in the context of optics and not in the context of
electrical circuits.

EM waves are EM waves, Keith, no matter what the frequency.
EM waves all obey the laws of reflection physics, superposition,
and conservation of energy principle. If you want to prove those
laws to be invalid and replace them with ones of your own design,
be our guest.

Cecil,

It is likely that all of these interference-related items you like to
quote from Hecht are cast in an environment of lossless optical
components. The characteristic impedance is set by the index of
refraction of the various layers, but none of the optical layers have
any absorption.

Soooo, how does any of this optical stuff extend to making arguments
about the absorption or re-reflection of energy in the source resistor
for the HF case?

The laws of physics may be inviolate, but it is not quite so clear that
your derived and extended models share the same characteristic.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
Soooo, how does any of this optical stuff extend to making arguments
about the absorption or re-reflection of energy in the source resistor
for the HF case?

What happens at a flat black interface in optics?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Soooo, how does any of this optical stuff extend to making arguments
about the absorption or re-reflection of energy in the source resistor
for the HF case?

What happens at a flat black interface in optics?

And that would be relevant in what manner? Does Hecht discuss
interference at flat black interfaces?

Nobody is questioning the laws of physics or Hecht's writings. Many are
questioning your extensions to your own models. Name-dropping and
invoking the sacred laws of physics do not automatically validate your
models.

Did you ever wonder why all of the basic phenomena, both optical and RF,
were known to the "ancients", yet you are the first one to pull
everything together in this miraculous new version of a reflection model?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
Did you ever wonder why all of the basic phenomena, both optical and RF,
were known to the "ancients", yet you are the first one to pull
everything together in this miraculous new version of a reflection model?

I am the one quoting the wisdom of those ancients
which seems to have somehow fallen by the wayside
and been replaced by some pseudo scientific religion.
What is it about the conservation of energy principle
that you disagree with? What is it about the wave
reflection model that you disagree with? What is it
about the principle of superposition that you disagree
with?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com