Tom Donaly wrote:
You still got it wrong.

It's easy to say someone is wrong - why don't you
post the correct equation so we can discuss it?

Whether the (kx) term is a sine or cosine is a
function of where x=0. Whether the (wt) term
is a sine or cosine function is arbitrary.

Hecht in "Optics" uses this equation for a pure
standing wave:

E(x,t) = 2Eo1*sin(kx)*cos(wt)

Ramo and Whinnery write it a little differently:

E(z,t) = 2E+*sin(kz)*sin(wt)

My definition of Eo in my previous equation is
Eo = |E+|+|E-| = 2Eo1 = 2E+

E(x,t) = Eo*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

I fail to see anything wrong with that equation
for a pure standing wave.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
You still got it wrong.

It's easy to say someone is wrong - why don't you
post the correct equation so we can discuss it?

Whether the (kx) term is a sine or cosine is a
function of where x=0. Whether the (wt) term
is a sine or cosine function is arbitrary.

Hecht in "Optics" uses this equation for a pure
standing wave:

E(x,t) = 2Eo1*sin(kx)*cos(wt)

Ramo and Whinnery write it a little differently:

E(z,t) = 2E+*sin(kz)*sin(wt)

My definition of Eo in my previous equation is
Eo = |E+|+|E-| = 2Eo1 = 2E+

E(x,t) = Eo*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

I fail to see anything wrong with that equation
for a pure standing wave.

In the past, Cecil, I've learned that trying to discuss anything with
you has been a complete waste of time. There's no discussing anything
with someone who makes things up in his head, cherry picks phrases
from authorities to justify his fantasies, and then doggedly keeps
repeating himself - without understanding, by the way - not in an
effort to promote whatever truth that may lie in his assumptions, but to
always, and perpetually, and dogmatically crush all doubts about the
wisdom of his assertions by other people. If you would spend anywhere
near the time studying your subject as you do defending it, you might
even have something intelligent to say about it, in which case, your
posts might even be worth reading. In the meantime, they are mere
cheap red wine: plonk.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
plonk.

Aha, one more guru who can't stand to be proved wrong.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com