Jim Kelley wrote:
Certainly a far cry from the idea you tried to sell on this newsgroup
that interference patterns cause northbound vehicles to move in a
southbound direction and southbound vehicles to move in a northbound
direction.

There you go again, Jim, continuing to blame me for a
poor choice of words that, at your urging, I recanted more
than a year ago. I rewrote my energy article to remove any
reference to interference as the cause of anything. The
footnote says: "...since interference can occur with or
without wave cancellation, any reference to interference
as the cause of the redistribution of energy has been removed."

Exactly how long can you hold a grudge about a poor choice
of words that was corrected long ago at your urging? Would
you like for me to change it back so you can justify
continuation of your incessant compulsive bitching?

Or is it that you still don't understand the FSU web page?

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html

"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that
are 180-degrees ... out of phase with each other meet, they
are not actually annihilated, ... All of the photon energy
present in these waves must somehow be recovered or
redistributed in a new direction, according to the law of
energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons
are redistributed to regions that permit constructive
interference, so the effect should be considered as a
redistribution of light waves and photon energy rather
than the spontaneous construction or destruction of light."

That redistribution of energy cannot happen without
interference. For the umteenth time, I apologize for ever
saying that interference causes the redistribution. If
you will mail me a Xerox of your posterior, I will kiss
it and send it back to you if that would help.

Here is how Hecht defines "interference" in "Optics":

"Briefly then, optical Interference corresponds to the
interaction of two or more lightwaves yielding a resultant
irradiance that deviates from the sum of the component
irradiances."

Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Certainly a far cry from the idea you tried to sell on this newsgroup
that interference patterns cause northbound vehicles to move in a
southbound direction and southbound vehicles to move in a northbound
direction.

Or is it that you still don't understand the FSU web page?

:-) Why are there never any examples provided to support these
'suggestions' of yours?

So now you minimize the fact that you argued vehemently with everyone
for endless months over your malformed ideas about how energy moves in
impedance matching systems. After I found the Melles-Griot web page
which seemed to support your idea, I realized the idea was physically
impossible and tried to persuade you away from it. I let you know in
every way I could that you had it wrong, and gave you every possible
example of it that I could think of, and in the process you called me
every nasty insulting thing you could think of. So yeah, I guess I do
have a tendency not to overlook it as easily as you do.

If
you will mail me a Xerox of your posterior, I will kiss
it and send it back to you if that would help.

No, but an admission that for months you behaved like a horse's
posterior would.

Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does. In fact that's one of the many ways I explained it to you
back when you wrote about how stupid, ignorant, and wrong I was about it
and how everyone from Galileo to Eugene Hecht agreed with you. What I
don't recall is ever seeing you take any of that back.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
So now you minimize the fact that you argued vehemently with everyone
for endless months over your malformed ideas about how energy moves in
impedance matching systems.

I apologized over a year ago and changed my article.
Exactly how long are you going to harass me about
a poor choice of words that I used in the distant
past for which I have apologized multiple times?

There was nothing wrong with the ideas and concepts
which have always been valid. The problem was with
the definitions of the words I was using, i.e. 100%
semantic.

I was using definitions of "reflection" and
"interference" that differ from the pure physics
definitions. I have admitted it and changed all my
articles. Do you want me to go to the nearest
police station and confess my semantic capital
offense or just go sit in the electric chair and
wait?

No, but an admission that for months you behaved like a horse's
posterior would.

I will admit to treating you the way you treat me.
Whatever ad hominem label you choose for your harassing
behavior is OK with me. But it is not clear why you
continue that same harassment years after I have repented
of my cardinal sins, been forgiven by God himself,
apologized to you multiple times, and changed my articles
at your urging.

Do you continue to kick your poor dog after he stopped
wetting the floor more than a year ago?

Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does.

Finally.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
So now you minimize the fact that you argued vehemently with everyone
for endless months over your malformed ideas about how energy moves in
impedance matching systems.

I apologized over a year ago and changed my article.

Changed your article, yes. Apology, not as such.

There was nothing wrong with the ideas and concepts
which have always been valid. The problem was with
the definitions of the words I was using, i.e. 100%
semantic.

Most of your ideas and concepts were of course correct, Cecil. Your
conceptual problem was pretty much as I said: that interference causes
northbound cars to travel southbound, and southbound cars to travel
northbound. It provided you with justification for adding, subtracting,
and superposing average power at will. It was related to the belief you
adopted about waves causing other waves to do things. You insisted that
it had to be so, otherwise energy would not be conserved. Fortunately
for the universe, energy was conserved despite your insistence. So it
wasn't merely a difference over semantics. That would have been an even
greater waste of time.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Most of your ideas and concepts were of course correct, Cecil. Your
... it wasn't merely a difference over semantics.

I have not changed any of my basic ideas or concepts.
All I have changed is the definitions of "interference"
and "reflection" that I was using. It was a trivial
problem and easily fixed by changing "causes" to
"corresponds to" and "reflected" to "redistributed". The
only problem left is your refusal to accept my apology
and lay the distant past to rest after I made all the
revisions that you suggested.

You absolute refusal to define any of the words you were
using was part of the problem.

It provided you with justification for adding, subtracting,
and superposing average power at will.

For your information, the use of the irradiance (power density)
equation from Born and Wolf is *NOT* superposition of powers.
It is, however, the proper way to add power densities when
interference is present. If the forward and reflected waves are
not 90 degrees out of phase, interference is present at every
impedance discontinuity and energy is being redistributed in
different directions. I would expect a physics major to know
such or at least know where to look to alleviate his ignorance.

You once said that the irradiance equation that I quoted from
"Optics" by Hecht did not appear in Born and Wolf and that
Hecht had been discredited or some such. I bought the Born and
Wolf book and found the exact equation to which you were objecting.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

You once said that the irradiance equation that I quoted from
"Optics" by Hecht did not appear in Born and Wolf and that
Hecht had been discredited or some such. I bought the Born and
Wolf book and found the exact equation to which you were objecting.

I honestly don't believe you to be a liar. So I have to believe that
you may not be completely in possession of your faculties. That which
you describe above never happened, Cecil.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
I honestly don't believe you to be a liar. So I have to believe that
you may not be completely in possession of your faculties. That which
you describe above never happened, Cecil.

A crazy person believes that everyone else is crazy. I googled
and couldn't find exactly what I was looking for but here are
a couple of your quotes that I did find:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Aug 26, 2003, "Again, Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht."

On exactly what subjects do Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht?
After I obtained a copy of Born and Wolf, I discovered that
your above statement, repeated more than once, was false.

Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."

Exactly what sections of "Optics" by Hecht is "too old and
out of date"?

If I spent more time, I could find many other quotes of
yours like the above.

Google is a bitch, huh?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does.

Seems you have changed your mind from this earlier
assertion of yours.

There is no way to describe the mechanism for a
reversal in the direction of energy by means other
than reflection.

Can you spell R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does.

Seems you have changed your mind from this earlier
assertion of yours.

There is no way to describe the mechanism for a reversal in the
direction of energy by means other than reflection.

Not at all. But drawing such a conclusion does reveal that you
apparently still have misconceptions consistent with the 4th mechanism
of reflection you introduced to us. Your vehement protestations and
testimonials about retractions and apologies notwithstanding.

Can you spell R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N?

Well if not, I'm sure my spell checker can. But you're demonstrated
that you can, and we're all very proud of you. :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
But drawing such a conclusion does reveal that you
apparently still have misconceptions consistent with the 4th mechanism
of reflection you introduced to us.

As you know, years ago I changed the "4th mechanism
of reflection" to the "redistribution" described on
the FSU web page and apologized for my poor choice
of words. You are still kicking the dog after he
stopped wetting the floor years ago.

You asked for the mechanism that causes reversal of
the direction of energy flow during wave cancellation
and I provided it. Here it is again:

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html

Previously I was using the definition of "reflection",
common to amateur radio, as any reversal in the
direction of energy flow in a transmission line. I
then realized that a "reflection" only applies to a
single wave, not to two interacting waves. I apologized
and revised my article.

Please drag yourself into the present. Some of your
past assertions were/are false. I can dig up many
more if you desire.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com