Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

It is where you diverge from Hecht (and Maxwell, and Born and Wolfe,
and Jackson) that I take issue.


I don't diverge from them, Jim. I have simply tied a few loose
ends together using logical deduction based on the laws of physics.

Yes, Richard described that process pretty accurately I thought.

So far, you have produced zero instances where I diverge from
the laws of physics.

I produced three just yesterday.

OTOH, you appear to have diverged quite often,
e.g. Maxwell's equations prove that standing waves can exist without
a rearward-traveling wave, cancelled waves don't contain energy or
momentum before they are cancelled, reflected waves are not re-
reflected by wave cancellation, there is no before and after, etc.

Please provide exact quotes. Otherwise, you're taking liberties with
the truth.

I have said all along that energy cannot be separated from the waves
containing the energy and that's why an energy analysis is possible.

Yes you have said that, whatever it means. Born and Wolf has an
interesting comment in the section on total reflection. "...the
electromagnetic field in the second medium does not disappear, only
there is no longer a flow of energy across the boundary."

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
So far, you have produced zero instances where I diverge from
the laws of physics.

I produced three just yesterday.

Most of your past objections are personal opinions that
have been based on a lack of understanding of what I was
saying. Please list just one law of physics from which
I have diverged. I do not think you can do that.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:34:58 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Most of your past objections are personal opinions
Curious how you flail at these imaginary demons and blow off his
actual quote from your source negating your premise. How you
continually fail to stand by your own citations has lost its novelty.

Cecil Moore wrote:

Most of your past objections are personal opinions that
have been based on a lack of understanding of what I was
saying.

It is my opinion that most of my past objections were based on your lack
of understanding of what you were saying. ;-)

Please list just one law of physics from which
I have diverged. I do not think you can do that.

Physics doesn't have a book of code violations, Cecil. It's more like a
big set of equations. The rules are mathematical. I've already shown
you where you made mistakes. What tortuous obligation have I encumbered
that dooms me to an eternity of repeating these things to you? Just try
turning down the squelch a little.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
I've already shown you where you made mistakes.

What you have shown me are a bunch of strawmen with which
I have no arguments. As a result, I have no idea upon what
we disagree. Most of your technical assertions are true and
I agree with them. When you derived the same total
destructive interference equation that I had been posting,
including the negative power term, virtually all of our
arguments went away.

How about technically explaining in detail just one
mistake you think I have made? I need to understand
a mistake before I can correct it.

Here's a typical objection of yours, an implication with
no technical content.

It is where you diverge from Hecht ... that I take issue.

I sincerely have no idea where you think I diverge from Hecht
and your refusal to enlighten me is interesting. In fact, I have
quoted Hecht extensively and borrowed some of his concepts from
optics to apply to RF. His treatments of superposition and
interference are the best I have ever read. I am not aware
of any divergence from Hecht on my part. Your assertion that I
diverge from Hecht or Richard presuming to roll Hecht's eyes
for him contains zero technical content from which I learn
nothing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:56:19 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Your assertion that I
diverge from Hecht or Richard presuming to roll Hecht's eyes
for him contains zero technical content from which I learn
nothing.
Amusing, when I quote Hecht, it is presumption, when you quote Hecht,
it is receiving tablets on Ararat.

Well it beats your impersonation of Galileo.

That's OK, no one expects you to respond to Jim's point drawn from
Hecht.

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Your assertion that I
diverge from Hecht or Richard presuming to roll Hecht's eyes
for him contains zero technical content from which I learn
nothing.

Amusing, when I quote Hecht, it is presumption, ...

I am not objecting to your quoting Hecht. I am objecting
to you being presumptious enough to roll someone else's
eyeballs. How do you know Hecht is not rolling his
eyeballs at your postings?

The only time I remember you quoting Hecht was with some
irrelevant refraction stuff having nothing to do with
transmission lines or with the perfect laser example.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:03:00 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
having nothing to do with
transmission lines or with the perfect laser example.
What a hoot! Your sacred cows mew.

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

I've already shown you where you made mistakes.


What you have shown me are a bunch of strawmen with which
I have no arguments. As a result, I have no idea upon what
we disagree. Most of your technical assertions are true and
I agree with them. When you derived the same total
destructive interference equation that I had been posting,
including the negative power term, virtually all of our
arguments went away.

How about technically explaining in detail just one
mistake you think I have made? I need to understand
a mistake before I can correct it.

Here's a typical objection of yours, an implication with
no technical content.

It is where you diverge from Hecht ... that I take issue.


I sincerely have no idea where you think I diverge from Hecht
and your refusal to enlighten me is interesting. In fact, I have
quoted Hecht extensively and borrowed some of his concepts from
optics to apply to RF. His treatments of superposition and
interference are the best I have ever read. I am not aware
of any divergence from Hecht on my part. Your assertion that I
diverge from Hecht or Richard presuming to roll Hecht's eyes
for him contains zero technical content from which I learn
nothing.

And that is a wonderful example of the rhetorical way to hold your hands
over your ears and hum. :-)

So when does the article appear in Phys. Rev?

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
And that is a wonderful example of the rhetorical way to hold your hands
over your ears and hum. :-)

Please note the technical content of your posting. Once you
derived the interference equations on your own, the physical
implications are clear and you apparently cannot come up with
a disagreement between us since my conclusions were based
on those very physics energy equations that you derived from
first principles. I am not aware of any further disagreement
between us. You are welcome to discuss what you perceive as
a disagreement either here or by email.

To summarize: EM energy cannot travel at any speed except the
speed of light, cannot exist without energy, and that energy
must be conserved. If reflected energy doesn't reach the source,
it must necessarily be flowing toward the load and therefore,
must have been re-reflected (as Walter Maxwell has been saying
for decades). Having only two directions in a transmission line
makes it easy. If EM energy is not traveling in one direction,
it has to be traveling in the only other direction available.

So when does the article appear in Phys. Rev?

No news is probably not good news.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----