On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:26:56 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

Please tell me that you have figured out how the irradiance
in the 1/4WL thin-film can be greater than the incident
irradiance when reflections are completely canceled.
How amusing.

This dovetails with your own proof (sic) - HERE - how the Bird has
failed to sense that very lack of cancellation looking into a
quarterwave section that offers a perfect match to the Bird. As I
said, you lost your logic on the first bump in the road you took.

This is an amusing irony of where you have found power where you have
always posited there is none, and where you have rejected there is
power when it has been shown to exist. Each example exposes your lack
of experience in the scale of the error and its relation to the
equipment measuring it.

And both times it has come at the topic for which you have absolutely
no experience with at the bench. Your arguments are exhibits of the
failure of third hand-off quotes bolstered by Xeroxed citations. They
all come out of books that are suitable catechisms for puttering
students and doddering intellectuals, and they fail in the face of
obvious results demonstrated at the bench.

Of course, this is advanced topics I am speaking of when we get to the
reality of actual results, and no doubt it shakes your Sunday school
sophistication of faith in a comic book level of practice.

I will now leave you with your sputtering attempt to recover. ;-)