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

Cecil Moore wrote:

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Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."

"You once said that the irradiance equation that I quoted from
"Optics" by Hecht did not appear in Born and Wolf"

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out of date"?

Presumably the answer lies within the omitted part of the cited post.

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

I really wish you would, Cecil. It might help freshen your memory about
the whole thing.

But as you are so apt to do (when it best suits you), you've neglected
to include any context of the conversation that would have provided the
exact nature of my comments, and should have, according to you, proved
your assertion.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
But as you are so apt to do (when it best suits you), you've neglected
to include any context of the conversation that would have provided the
exact nature of my comments, and should have, according to you, proved
your assertion.

I gave you the dates of your postings, Jim. Here are
another two of your ridiculous statements:

Jun 18, 2003, "Your idea about a reversal in the direction
of the flow of energy being caused by something other than
reflection is nonsense."

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

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

If the redistribution occurs within a transmission line,
it becomes a reversal of direction of energy flow since
there are only two directions available. At the Z0-match
point in an otherwise mismatched system, the reflected
wave energy from the load is redistributed back toward
the load at the Z0-match point.

Jun 20, 2003, "The waves continue to propagate, 180
degrees out of phase, transferring no energy.

Exactly how do you prove they continue to exist? If you
measure them, you prove that they contain energy and
thus prove yourself wrong. If you measure zero energy,
you cannot prove they exist plus they do not even
meet the definition of "wave". What happens if those
waves, which are transferring no energy, encounter
a resistive load?

Can you spell M-E-T-A-P-H-Y-S-I-C-S?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecileo, master of the Universe wrote:

Aug 26, 2003, "Again, Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht."
Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."

If I spent more time, I could find many other quotes of

More time???? Six years and nothing sorted out - how much time are we
talking about?