Cecil Moore wrote:

[snip]


That statement is a violation of the wave reflection
model. Do you really believe that when you look
yourself in the mirror that those reflections are
devoid of energy? If so, please feel free to prove
your assertion.


[snip]


Yes, perhaps the wave reflection model is wrong but
that makes your argument not with me, but with Ramo,
Whinnery, Johnson, Chipman, Slater, Hecht, and Walter
Maxwell. Good luck on winning that one.

Cecil,

I have completely stayed away from any comments in this thread, but one
thing has caught my attention. You repeatedly refer to the "wave
reflection model" almost as if it was the equivalent of the Grand
Unified Theory.

I did a little bit of the cheap modern day replacement for research by
Googling "wave reflection model". Some 455 references came back. Of
course many of those references are irrelevant to the topic at hand, but
of the ones that seemed to be related to transmission lines and/or RF,
it appears that all of the references come back to you.

I tried adding Ramo, Whinnery, Johnson, Chipman, Slater, Hecht, and
Walter Maxwell to the search (one at a time) and came up with no hits,
other than your references.

Perhaps your specific interpretation of the writings of the masters to
form your "wave reflection model" is part of the source of the disagreement.

Do you have a concise reference to exactly what you mean by "wave
reflection model"?

There is no need to explain reflection, interference, conservation of
energy, or any other standard wave phenomenon. I am merely seeking the
definition of "wave reflection model" or a lead to any other reference
that uses that terminology.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
I am merely seeking the
definition of "wave reflection model" or a lead to any other reference
that uses that terminology.

The wave reflection model is, of course, the body of
mathematics encompassing the reflection mechanics for
EM waves. Everywhere except on r.r.a.a, it is a subset
of the distributed network model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gene Fuller wrote:
I did a little bit of the cheap modern day replacement for research by
Googling "wave reflection model". Some 455 references came back.

That's strange. When I did the identical thing, 1,970,000
references came back. Wonder what is wrong with your computer?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I did a little bit of the cheap modern day replacement for research by
Googling "wave reflection model". Some 455 references came back.

That's strange. When I did the identical thing, 1,970,000
references came back. Wonder what is wrong with your computer?

When quotes are used, I get 455. Without quotes, I get about 297,000.
Since I am looking for the exact expression, not just the three words
somewhere in a web page, I use the quotes.

I am using Firefox with plain 'ol Google. No special setups.

In any case, you answered my question. "Wave reflection model" means
nothing beyond ordinary electromagnetic theory. Big deal.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
In any case, you answered my question. "Wave reflection model" means
nothing beyond ordinary electromagnetic theory. Big deal.

It is a big deal when someone asserts that there is
no energy in a reflected EM wave or that the energy
in a reflected EM wave doesn't have to be conserved
or that a reflected wave doesn't obey the rules
of the wave reflection model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I did a little bit of the cheap modern day replacement for research by
Googling "wave reflection model". Some 455 references came back.

That's strange. When I did the identical thing, 1,970,000
references came back. Wonder what is wrong with your computer?

I used the quote marks around the words and got 266 references.
Few of them, other than yours, relate to electronics at all, much less
radio.

Dave K8MN