Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Wave P1 contains 75 watts and Wave P2 contains 8.33 watts.
Without a source of constructive interference energy, they cannot
add up to 133.33 watts.


And obviously he still doesn't believe it, Gene.

I should have said Tom. If I were Cecil I'd have blamed the error on my
glasses or my advanced age. ;-)

You don't really support superposition of
powers and violations of conservation of energy, do you?.

Depending on how high you keep your squelch set, you should already
pretty well know what I think about those things.

You're at least partially right though. Power does not superpose
(because, for among other reasons, it doesn't move or propagate). The
point you continue to miss is that power does not interfere either. Nor
is it valid to take the square root of the product of two power numbers
and claim that it turns around miraculously and goes the other
direction. But that's what you've miguidedly presented to the readers
of World Radio as fact. The irradiance equations are nevertheless
correct because power goes as the square of the fields - which do of
course superpose and interfere. The equations accurately describe the
effect - the end result, the outcome, not necessarily the cause or the
mechanism by which the result is achieved.

Before we go any further (and it is my sincerest hope that we do not), I
agree with Melles-Griot, Born and Wolf, Hecht, Jackson, and the other
E&M and optics books. What I disagree with (and I'm sure given the
opportunity so would the above mentioned authors) is some of your
interpretation of the physical phenomenon they describe.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
I should have said Tom. If I were Cecil I'd have blamed the error on my
glasses or my advanced age. ;-)

Alzheimer's can certainly strike at your age, Jim. :-) My Dad was
legally blind when he was my age so I'm ahead of the curve.

You're at least partially right though. Power does not superpose
(because, for among other reasons, it doesn't move or propagate). The
point you continue to miss is that power does not interfere either.

Here's a quote from my magazine article, Jim. If you would just cease
and desist from your MF'ing ways (that's "mind", not "muther"), you
might understand. Quote:
************************************************** ********************
"The words 'power flow' have been avoided even though
that is a term of common usage. For the purposes of this paper, energy
flows and power is a measure of that energy flowing at a fixed point or
plane. Likewise, the EM fields in the waves do the interfering. Powers,
treaded as scalars, are incapable of interference."
************************************************** ********************
But you already knew that's what I believe since I have been telling
you exactly that in CAPITAL LETTERS for years now and even sent you
an advance copy of my magazine article. I have never asserted the things
you claim that I have. Hopefully, the readers will recognize you for
what you are.

The irradiance equations are nevertheless
correct because power goes as the square of the fields - which do of
course superpose and interfere. The equations accurately describe the
effect - the end result, the outcome, not necessarily the cause or the
mechanism by which the result is achieved.

Where does the constructive interference energy come from, Jim? Hecht
says that in the absence of energy from other sources, the constructive
interference energy must be exactly matched by an equal amount of
destructive interference. Please present your credentials that allows
you to disagree with Eugene Hecht?

Before we go any further (and it is my sincerest hope that we do not), I
agree with Melles-Griot, ...

No you don't, and your disagreement is more than obvious to any informed
casual observer. You remind me of a fellow employee from the 70's. I asked
him what he would do if his wife caught him in bed with his neighbor's wife
(as I did) and he answered, "I'd just deny it."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp