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Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."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out of date"?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Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."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out of date"?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

Richard Clark wrote:
More time???? Six years and nothing sorted out ...

Myths and old wives' tales die hard.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
More time???? Six years and nothing sorted out ...

Myths and old wives' tales die hard.

So please stop trying to invent new ones.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Myths and old wives' tales die hard.

So please stop trying to invent new ones.

I'm not doing that, Jim, just trying to lay the
old ones to rest, e.g. a 3 nS delay through a
10" long 75m bugcatcher loading coil. Please
don't tell me that you believe that a 4 MHz
signal can travel through a large 10" inch
coil in 3 nS - a coil that exhibits a VF of
0.04. That's about seven times the speed of
light.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Myths and old wives' tales die hard.

Six years of your bragging about them insures that - like blowing up a
balloon with a slow leak.