On May 30, 9:55*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisal w ...
On May 29, 4:24 pm, lu6etj wrote:

Light waves can be reflected, refracted, and/or redistributed in any

3D direction.

In optics are mirrors which reflect and transmit the desired proportion of
light.

RF waves in a transmission line can only flow in two

directions, forward and reverse.

It can also transmit.

That simplifies things considerably.

Coherent waves flowing in the same direction in a transmission line
suffer permanent interaction.

But the reflected is weaker.

From me understanding "reflection" is a way of "redirection" of light
that obey to the reflection law of optics, in transmission line space
I think would be synonymous (at last in spanish language). Do not you
agree?
Yes, but wave cancellation accompanied by destructive interference can

also redirect EM energy. Wave cancellation is what w7el is missing in
his food-for-thought article.

Anyway, I think that classic physics is enough to explain phenomena on
extremly low quantic number systems, as HF energy or cars in
movement :)
Yes, but when classic physics allegedly doesn't obey the laws of

quantum electrodynamics, something is wrong, and quantum
electrodynamics wins every time.

Returning to analogy. I can not realize how associate Zc changes to
refraction because I learnt refraction as a differente speed of light
medium phenomenom. Give me a hand.
For the purposes of RF waves in a transmission line, you can forget

refraction as an irrelevant effect.

["re" it is only a prefix, look for "distribute" (or verb "distribuir"
in spanish = "Give something its timely placement or convenient
location". I bet it has same meaning in english]
Yes, that is probably correct.
... you too but from different point of view
(redistribution of energy, interference, photon laws, etc).
My concepts are directly from the field of optical physics. You might

want to obtain a copy of "Optics", by Hecht. It is available in
Spanish:

http://www.astronomyinspanish.org/sl...l/optica_hecht

This book will teach you more about EM *energy flow* than any RF

engineering book that I know of.

Perhaps a little summary of coincidences and differences can serve to
other readers, and me, obviously :)
The model that w7el uses for his food-for-thought article on forward

and reflected power is obviously wrong because it doesn't indicate
where the reflected energy goes. When a model confuses the user and
obviously doesn't represent reality, it's time to upgrade to a better
model. The EM wave model used in optics does necessarily track the
reflected energy because optical physicists cannot easily measure
voltage.

The intensity is also accurate.
The end of the dipole reflect and transmit. The proportion is measured as
VWSR.
But for this you need the Electric Wave Model.
EM was stripped away by Royal Society in 1864.
S*
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Mr. S... please, you need to do 2 things... first, get a better
newsgroup editor or use the groups.google.com web site to post
replies, whatever you are using now messes up the indentation for
quoted text and makes it impossible to figure out what you wrote and
what is quoted. second, keep your 150 year old theories in threads
where they belong, they will only cause confusion to those who are
trying to discuss modern methods.

On May 30, 12:59*am, lu6etj wrote:
It is difficult to me reconcile superposition principle with
"interaction", because in spanish "interacción" word means: "Action
exerted MUTUALLY between two or more objects, agents, forces,
functions, etc" (capitals are mine) And I learnt two or more
electromagnetic waves can pass one through other by same point of the
SPACE without recognizing themselves (unlike particles that
"collide"), then, by definition, they not interactuate themselves at
all.

What you learned is usually true in free space. Two light waves can
pass through each other at the same point in space without affecting
or interacting with each other because they are *not collinear*. It is
very difficult to align two light beams in free space such that they
are collinear. However, it can be done in an interferometer.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...eriments.shtml

But in an RF transmission line, please understand that there is *no
way to keep the RF waves from being collinear* since it is primarily a
one-dimensional space with only two possible directions. Therefore,
any two coherent RF waves traveling in the same direction in an RF
transmission line, will interact and have a permanent effect. For pure
sinusoidal waves, the transmitted wave, the re-reflected wave, and the
constructive interference wave are all coherent and collinear and
merge into a single forward wave flowing toward the load. The
component waves become inseparable.

We do not "see" any standing wave in space when two same path opposite
direction RF rays cross themselves and there is not contradiction. Are
you agree?

Eugene Hecht, in "Optics", describes standing waves of visible light
in free space. I'm not sure that humans can "see" the standing wave
detail because the frequency is so high, but standing waves of visible
light can certainly exist in free space. If you can, please obtain a
copy of "Optics". If one routed a standing-wave of light through a
cloud chamber, it would become visible. I don't know if the human eye
can resolve the high and low interference patterns but I'm sure
instruments could detect it.

In transmission lines instead it is not easy to think that because
more "tangible" standing wave voltages and currents make us think they
are "interacting". What do you think about it?,

Coherent collinear waves traveling the same direction in a
transmission line superpose, merge, and interact. This invariably
occurs at an impedance discontinuity point during interference
immediately after normal reflections have taken place. RF waves
traveling in opposite directions in a transmission line with a
constant Z0, do not interact.

To satisfy the energy conservation principle, isn' it? This produces a
reflection, right?

Walter Maxwell defines it as a reflection. I am a little more careful
and have adopted the following standards from optical physics. A
"reflection" is something that happens to a single wave and
corresponds to a physical reflection coefficient. A "redistribution"
can be a reflection but can also involve interference between two or
more waves. If superposition is involved, I use the word
"redistribution" rather than "reflection". Walt lumps the concepts of
normal reflection with wave cancellation and introduces the concept of
a virtual reflection coefficient. Both approaches work. IMO, mine is
slightly more detailed. In "Reflections", under the 1/4WL matching
stub section, Walt proves that he fully understands the role of
constructive/destructive interference in the redistribution of energy.

Could be classic electrodynamics be right but we are not applying
correctly, and then classic model not become a losser in this matter?

Yes, if w7el would recognize the energy content (V^2/Z0 watts) that
exists in the voltages that he is superposing, he would be able to
track the reflected energy from the load back to the source and then
back to the load as a component of forward power.

I see you do not agree with some Roy Lewallen proposition: do you
agree with Walter Maxwell on this topic?

In his food-for-thought article, Roy neglected to include the effects
of wave-cancellation/interference at the source resistor in his
example. I don't think that Walter Maxwell has expressed an opinion on
this particular subject of dissipation in the source resistor of a
voltage source as specified by w7el. In a real-world amplifier, Walt
asserts that the source resistance is non-dissipative while, for his
food-for-thought examples, Roy specified a dissipative source
resistance designed to eliminate reflections. Again, what he forgot to
include is redistribution of energy due to wave cancellation, a
concept well understood in the field of EM wave optical physics. He
apparently does not understand the mechanism whereby the conservation
of energy principle is honored so he is forced to falsely assume that
reflected energy is not incident upon the source resistor. Nothing
could be farther from the facts of physics as understood for decades
in the field of optical physics. I was taught constructive/destructive
interference energy concepts in my vector analysis classes at Texas
A&M University during the 50's.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 30, 9:55 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In optics are mirrors which reflect and transmit the desired proportion
of
light.

The end of the dipole reflect and transmit. The proportion is measured as
VWSR.
But for this you need the Electric Wave Model.
EM was stripped away by Royal Society in 1864.
S*

Mr. S... please, you need to do 2 things... first, get a better
newsgroup editor or use the groups.google.com web site to post
replies, whatever you are using now messes up the indentation for
quoted text

For you and Cecil I must make by hand the indentation for
quoted text . The rest are O.K.

and makes it impossible to figure out what you wrote and
what is quoted.

second, keep your 150 year old theories in threads
where they belong, they will only cause confusion to those who are
trying to discuss modern methods.

They should know that the physics and the math go together.

Maxwell did the aether model and the math for it.
In the model were the rotational oscillations of massive, compressible
magnetic substance.
The electricity was masless and incompressible.

Now we know that no magnetics substance and that the electricity (electrons)
has mass and that the electron gas is compressible. It means that light is
exactly like sound.

The above was obvious for Royal Society. But the math for the oscillating
whirls was the new.
In result in the science history is wrote "that Maxwell's model was stripped
away and just the equations remain".

The math for whirls was done by Helmholtz but without the oscillations. The
math for the oscillating whirls (EM) must be in schools. In schools are all
theories.

Modern metods are in the plasma physics.
S*

On May 30, 5:05*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 30, 9:55 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



In optics are mirrors which reflect and transmit the desired proportion
of
light.

The end of the dipole reflect and transmit. The proportion is measured as
VWSR.
But for this you need the Electric Wave Model.
EM was stripped away by Royal Society in 1864.
S*
Mr. S... please, you need to do 2 things... first, get a better

newsgroup editor or use the groups.google.com web site to post
replies, whatever you are using now messes up the indentation for
quoted text

For you and Cecil I must make by hand the *indentation for
quoted text . The rest are O.K.

no they aren't... look above, which text did you write and which did i
write?

i used to use outlook express like you are using, and it is bad. get
something better if you like to quote lots of text.

In schools are all theories.

the only purpose for disproved theories in schools is for historical
context. sometimes it is useful to show students what doesn't work so
they don't waste time repeating past mistakes. aether theories are
one that is taught and then demonstrated in class as incorrect. once
the student makes the measurements they get a better feeling why
aethers are bogus.

On 30 mayo, 15:41, K1TTT wrote:
On May 30, 5:05*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





*"K1TTT" ...
On May 30, 9:55 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In optics are mirrors which reflect and transmit the desired proportion
of
light.

The end of the dipole reflect and transmit. The proportion is measured as
VWSR.
But for this you need the Electric Wave Model.
EM was stripped away by Royal Society in 1864.
S*
Mr. S... please, you need to do 2 things... first, get a better

newsgroup editor or use the groups.google.com web site to post
replies, whatever you are using now messes up the indentation for
quoted text

For you and Cecil I must make by hand the *indentation for
quoted text . The rest are O.K.

no they aren't... look above, which text did you write and which did i
write?

i used to use outlook express like you are using, and it is bad. *get
something better if you like to quote lots of text.

*In schools are all theories.

the only purpose for disproved theories in schools is for historical
context. *sometimes it is useful to show students what doesn't work so
they don't waste time repeating past mistakes. *aether theories are
one that is taught and then demonstrated in class as incorrect. *once
the student makes the measurements they get a better feeling why
aethers are bogus.- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Hi all

Walt is not espousing a theory
Please, give me a name to name it.

They have what is called "internal consistency."
Who are "they", Walter's propositions?

Before advance more Richard. All off you share or ascribe a
"existence" notion determinated by observator measurements? It is long
time philosophical question remember, trees, sounds...

A confused statement
I know. Communicate minds takes its time. It is more easy as we share
the basic assumptions neccesary for that. It's what I'm trying.
-------------
Two light waves can pass through each other at the same point in space without affecting or interacting with each other because they are *not collinear*.

Why? As I learnt superposition principle not depends of collinearity.
English Oxford dictionary I have, define "Interact" as "act on each
other", similar concept in spanish I think. I learnt superposition as
involving 'no interaction'. both waves still identical to itself in
superposition (in nonlineal systems they certainly can interact).

For pure sinusoidal waves, the transmitted wave, the re-reflected wave, and the constructive interference wave are all coherent and collinear and merge into a single forward wave flowing toward the load. The component waves become inseparable.

I can agree with above paragraph but, for that I just said, I think
not with this...

Therefore, any two coherent RF waves traveling in the same direction in an RF transmission line, will interact and have a permanent effect.

As I undestand, two o more superposed waves can be added or
substracted to render a resultant but we do not call that interaction
(I am excude here the observer -Richard's observations- notion for not
to get out of point).
Two traveling waves with same direction, frequency and phase would be
certainly indistinguishable of a single one equal to the vectorial sum
of the two cited, by our instruments. For my conceptual notions adding
or substraction are not interaction. I am not dare to advance more on
your kindly answers because this notions are hardly vinculated to our
issue. Would be appropiate "slow down" a little and work on it?, what
do you think?
......

About Roy's differences, At two opportunities I read here issues
(problems?) about Rs. Why do not you agree in a simple initial
Thevenin model? (it is a question not a suggestion, I don't know how
correctly translate my sentence).
Cecil, can you find a "energy distribution" concept compatible with
special case of unidirectional line space where all of you can agree?
Transmission/reflection notions (about energy) do not represent that
concept?
A mental exercise (it is doesn't a criticism, only a idea, remember I
am interesed in your analogies): Suppose we are not capable to
perceive any light (or realize of it), only HF spectrum; could you
share (agree?) concepts with our other "blinded" colleagues :) to
analize this stuff?. I believe that is absolutly a "Yes" (of course
you could use your knowledge in optics to devise good RF arguments,
but you have to silence it, because you know they "antenna senses" are
note light sensitive.
.....
Eugene Hecht, in "Optics", describes standing waves of visible light in free space. I'm not sure that humans can "see" the standing wave detail because the frequency is so high, but standing waves of visible light can certainly exist in free space.

In perfect vacuum free space without any material stuff to reflect
light or bring our retinas into the region in some way?
......

73 to K1TTT. Several years ago I visited your web page, (I have got
them in my hard disk). Sorry to Szczepan for not answer your comments
I hard trying don't run out so much off topic :)

73

Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ

On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:28:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hi all

Walt is not espousing a theory
Please, give me a name to name it.

Hi Miguel,

Walt is presenting data to support a hypothesis (explanation for the
occurrence of some specified group of phenomena).

They have what is called "internal consistency."
Who are "they", Walter's propositions?

Models have what is called "internal consistency."

Before advance more Richard. All off you share or ascribe a
"existence" notion determinated by observator measurements? It is long
time philosophical question remember, trees, sounds...

You are getting into intederminancy. Is this more about Truth again?
Truth is funny and sad, but not very useful.

A confused statement
I know. Communicate minds takes its time. It is more easy as we share
the basic assumptions neccesary for that. It's what I'm trying.
-------------
Two light waves can pass through each other at the same point in space without affecting or interacting with each other because they are *not collinear*.

You don't need "because" or anything that comes after it. It sounds
like superstition.

Why? As I learnt superposition principle not depends of collinearity.
English Oxford dictionary I have, define "Interact" as "act on each
other", similar concept in spanish I think. I learnt superposition as
involving 'no interaction'. both waves still identical to itself in
superposition (in nonlineal systems they certainly can interact).

Yes.

For pure sinusoidal waves, the transmitted wave, the re-reflected wave, and the constructive interference wave are all coherent and collinear and merge into a single forward wave flowing toward the load. The component waves become inseparable.

More superstition. There is nothing about sinusoidal waves that make
them coherent or colinear. This is probable a problem of poor English
from a native speaker - very common.

I can agree with above paragraph but, for that I just said, I think
not with this...

Therefore, any two coherent RF waves traveling in the same direction in an RF transmission line, will interact and have a permanent effect.

Permanent - another superstition (until the end of time + 1 day?).

As I undestand, two o more superposed waves can be added or
substracted to render a resultant but we do not call that interaction
(I am excude here the observer -Richard's observations- notion for not
to get out of point).
Two traveling waves with same direction, frequency and phase would be
certainly indistinguishable of a single one equal to the vectorial sum
of the two cited, by our instruments. For my conceptual notions adding
or substraction are not interaction.

They interact on the load, not on each other. But as you now phrase
it, being colinear as an initial condition rather than as a subsequent
result, then the possibility of both sources (acting as opposing
loads) cancelling each other may follow.

This says nothing of waves interacting, however. That is sheer
nonsense.

Let's put it another way and agree entirely! Accept that two coherent
waves that are colinear do interact - but only if colinear. That must
be some very, very special mathematics that allows no error in
colinearity (perfection is demanded). Perfection does not exist, the
necessary colinearity does not exist, interaction does not exist.

OK, so near perfection is suitable. -sigh- How much is "near
perfection?" Within one millirad? What is it about 1.000001 millirad
that extinguishes interaction? Oh, 1.000001 millirad works too, but
not more. OK, what is it about 1.000002 millirad that extinguishes
interaction? Oh, 1.000002 works too, but.... Pretty sloppy argument,
I don't see a formula for when interaction stops working, this means
that all angles cause interaction, but we do not see interaction at
any angles.

This "take it on faith" kind of creation (create it as you go) science
returns us to vaudeville (Miguel, maybe I should use the term Commedia
dell'Arte to explain our vaudeville).

"God said let there be a photon... go forth and multiply"
[- low budget creation science definition
for the Sun(s) taken from the first printing of
"How to Kick Start Genesis on One Quanta a Day."]

(Adam, muttering) what a day.... what a day.... (suddenly inspired)
What a beautiful photon-set we are having this, this, this. I think I
shall name this "evening" Eve! What a beautiful photon-se.... Damn!
(whoops - oh I beseech thee to forgive my utterance) it got dark
quick. How long before photon-rise? Are we on photon savings time?

Suppose we are not capable to
perceive any light (or realize of it), only HF spectrum; could you
share (agree?) concepts with our other "blinded" colleagues :) to
analize this stuff?. I believe that is absolutly a "Yes" (of course
you could use your knowledge in optics to devise good RF arguments,
but you have to silence it, because you know they "antenna senses" are
note light sensitive.

Lost in the bushes again.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"lu6etj" wrot
...
On 30 mayo, 15:41, K1TTT wrote:
On May 30, 5:05 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:


The end of the dipole reflect and transmit. The proportion is
measured as
VWSR.
But for this you need the Electric Wave Model.
EM was stripped away by Royal Society in 1864.

Sorry to Szczepan for not answer your comments
I hard trying don't run out so much off topic :)

I am not out of topics. It is to your:
"To concentrate light we only need a piece of glass, to do the same on
HF RF region we need large wire antenna arrays. Because of this we
often need (or employ) very differents models to deal with the "same
thing". Probably Maxwell equations solve all of them, but they are
difficult ladies to deal :)."

You should read the Maxwell:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
Maxwell described the model in English and in the math. English is not
difficult ladies to deal for you.

After this you understand why: "that Maxwell's model was stripped away and
just the equations remain".
Light and radio waves are exactly like sound.
S*





73

Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ

how about this, i'll really mess things up. all comments assume
linear media or circuit elements and sinusoidal stead state conditions
(all transients ignored).

Standing Waves are a figment of your instrumentation... it is a well
known method to choose either voltage or current to do calculations in
a circuit, knowing that the other can always be calculated given the
impedance. this works for distributed as well as lumped circuits. it
is a consequence of superposition and ohms law in the generalized
complex form. This is a trap when looking at traveling and 'standing'
waves when there are reflections. Since you are only seeing one of
the components of the wave you get the impression that the standing
wave is indeed concentrating the energy and all the resultant effects
at 180 degree intervals. you must however look at both components to
get a full picture.

Wherever there are standing voltage wave peaks there are also standing
current waves 90 degrees (in distance) along the line from them. And
while you can calculate the power of the voltage wave peaks as V^2/Z,
you can also calculate the energy of the current wave peaks as I^2*Z.
Of course you can really get yourself confused if you consider the
lossless transmission line with a perfect short or open end... in that
case at those peak voltage and current points the Z is infinite or
zero respectively which gives you zero power in either case. Now to
REALLY have fun, integrate the power at those points into the energy,
of course the integral of zero is always zero.

Want to get even more confused. Look at an animation of the standing
waves (EITHER current OR voltage) over one full cycle in time, there
is a peak where the standing waves along the line all reach a peak
value at once, then 90 degrees later the whole line is zero, then
another 90 degrees and there is an opposite peak. Think carefully
about the zero point, where did the energy go? Surely it doesn't mean
that all the energy stored in those waves has left the line? that
would require some external storage and faster than light energy
transfer, a mean trick if you can do it!

Ah, but wait, the current wave is 90 degrees out of phase with the
voltage, so the energy has a place to go, into the other component!
but remember, when that component peaks the impedance is wrong so
there is still no energy. But of course then everything does balance
out, no energy in one standing wave transfers perfectly to the other
standing wave 90 degrees later in time and space.

conclusion: Standing waves are a figment of your instrumentation, be
that eyes seeing the peaks and valleys of a physical manifestation of
them, a fluorescent lamp showing them as you run it along an open wire
line, or a voltmeter measuring them... they don't exist except when
they are observed, therefore they have no physical existence... much
like whats his name's cat.

On May 30, 9:04*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
There is nothing about sinusoidal waves that make
them coherent or colinear.

Please Google the two words: I probably should have use "collimated"
instead of "collinear".

"Electromagnetic radiation is coherent when the photons are produced
in such a way that they are in phase with one another and incoherent
when the phases of the photons are random."

"Collimated light is light whose rays are nearly parallel, and
therefore will spread slowly as it propagates. The word is related to
"colinear" and implies light that does not disperse with distance
(ideally), or that will disperse minimally (in reality)." Note that a
coaxial transmission line results in minimal dispersion for an RF
wave.

Coherent photons are identical except for direction. Collimation makes
their direction close to identical.

Permanent - another superstition (until the end of time + 1 day?).

Wrong definition of "permanent". Not permanent in time - permanent in
the sense that the process is irreversible in time.

As I undestand, two o more superposed waves can be added or
substracted to render a resultant but we do not call that interaction

We do call it interaction when the two waves are coherent and
collimated. Again, here is what Florida State University has to say:

"... 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."

They are talking about wave cancellation such that happens at the
surface of the thin-film on non-reflective glass. The result of wave
cancellation is permanent and the energy that would have been
reflected is reversed in direction actually making the underlying
picture brighter. That sounds permanent to me.

They interact on the load, not on each other.

If that were a fact, you could separate them on their way to the load
but such is impossible. It doesn't matter where they came from, two
coherent, collimated waves interact when they are superposed and
become inseparable from that point on. Only incoherent or uncollimated
photonic waves can be separated.

And if you allow interaction at the load, why not allow interaction at
an impedance discontinuity which is much like a load and is indeed
where the interaction happens.

This says nothing of waves interacting, however. *That is sheer
nonsense.

Wave cancellation is an obvious proof of interaction. Let's see you
recover two waves that have been canceled.

Let's put it another way and agree entirely! *Accept that two coherent
waves that are colinear do interact - but only if colinear. *That must
be some very, very special mathematics that allows no error in
colinearity (perfection is demanded). *Perfection does not exist, the
necessary colinearity does not exist, interaction does not exist.

"Perfection does not exist" is the self-fullfilling last gasp non-
perfect argument of the ignorant. Close enough to collimation
perfection does exist in an RF transmission line or in an
interferometer. The coherent photons in an ideal coaxial transmission
line are forced into a state of collimation. Is it perfect single-file
collimation? Of course not, but it doesn't have to be perfect.
Confining the photons to a certain cross-sectional area is all that is
required in the real world. Do all the photons have to be perfectly
coherent? No, just the majority of photons from the transmitter.

Does a 1/4WL non-reflective coating on glass perfectly cancel 100$ of
the single-frequency coherent incident laser light? Not in the real
world, but you can use your own eyes to detect that it is doing a
pretty good job. The Melles-Groit web page says:

"In the absence of absorption or scatter, the principle of
conservation of energy indicates all 'lost' reflected intensity will
appear as enhanced intensity in the (forward) transmitted beam. The
sum of the reflected and transmitted beam intensities is always equal
to the incident intensity. This important fact has been confirmed
experimentally."

Those above alluded-to experiments seem to contradict what you are
asserting. Do your own experiments disprove what that web page is
saying? If so, where did they go wrong?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On May 30, 7:28*pm, lu6etj wrote:

Miguel, please see my above posting in reply to Richard's posting.

As I learned, the superposition principle does not depend on collinearity..

Please change "collinear" to "collimated". The results of
superposition can be reversible or irreversible. If the photons are
not coherent and/or not collimated, the results of superposition are
reversible in the sense that each separate wave can be recovered. The
results of superposition of coherent and collimated waves (traveling
in the same direction) are not reversible, i.e. the ability to recover
the separate waves has been lost forever. Two coherent/collimated
waves that are superposed indeed do interact. Non-reflective glass is
a typical example. The external reflection interacts with the internal
reflection causing the reflections to undergo wave cancellation and
the total energy in the two superposed (canceled) waves to change
direction and make the picture brighter. The Melles-Groit web page
says:

"This important fact has been confirmed experimentally."

As I understand, two or more superposed waves can be added or
subtracted to render a resultant but we do not call that interaction.

I call it interaction when the identity of both waves is lost which is
what happens during wave cancellation. It is not interaction when the
identity of both waves is not lost. The results of superposition can
have either outcome.

For my conceptual notions adding or subtraction are not interaction.

If you add a pint of water to a pint of water, the two pints of
identical molecules interact, analogous to one joule of coherent/
collimated photons added to another joule of the *identical* photons.
The results is two joules of identical photons, indistinguishable from
each other. If the superposition process is reversible, interaction
has not taken place. If the superposition process is irreversible,
interaction has taken place. Both outcomes are possible depending upon
the initial conditions.

Why do not you agree in a simple initial Thevenin model?

It was Roy's idea to avoid the abstract Thevenin model and go with a
similar real-world source, probably because of the admonition in
"Fields and Waves ...": "... significance cannot be automatically
attached to a calculation of power loss in the internal impedance of
the equivalent circuit."

Transmission/reflection notions (about energy) do not represent that
concept?

The mistake that virtually all RF gurus are making, including w7el in
his food-for-thought article, is assuming that reflection is the only
mechanism capable of redistributing reflected energy back toward the
load. But it has been known for decades in the field of optical
physics that EM wave cancellation can also redistribute reflected
energy back toward the load. It is well known that the reflected
energy lost through the use of non-reflective glass causes the picture
(load) to be brighter. If w7el would simply take the time to calculate
the wave cancellation energy (constructive or destructive
interference) at the source resistor, he would understand exactly
where the reflected energy goes. The conservation of energy principle
allows nothing magic (like reflected waves containing no energy or EM
waves that do not move at the speed of light).

Suppose we are not capable to
perceive any light (or realize of it), only HF spectrum; could you
share (agree?) concepts with our other "blinded" colleagues *:) to
analize this stuff?

It is very useful to say: If our eyes could see the RF waves, what
would we see? We would see the same thing we see with visible light
waves, just at a different frequency (wavelength).

In perfect vacuum free space without any material stuff to reflect
light or bring our retinas into the region in some way?

Of course, we would need some sort of irradiance detector more
sensitive than human retinas. Partially mirrored glass is often used
to route a sample to a detector. If we detect standing waves in a 10%
sample, we are pretty sure that standing waves exist in the rest of
the sample.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com