Cecil,

If this is name-dropping poker, I'll see your Hecht and raise with J.D.
Jackson and Born & Wolf.

But thanks for the education. After 40 years of obtaining multiple
degrees in physics followed by working R&D in the optics field I guess I
still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to figure out that
energy is indeed something to "worry about". I never would have imagined
such a thing!


73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Yes, most people with rudimentary arithmetic skills would agree that
75 plus 8.33 does not equal 133.33.


Too bad Dr. Best posted the equation: "Ptotal = 75w + 8.33w = 133.33w"
on this newsgroup (and, thank goodness, left it out of his article) so
he obviously disagreed with you at the time. He also said that interference
had nothing to do with it.

However, anyone even remotely familiar with waves would readily
understand that the component waves Cecil loves to talk about are
merely mathematical conveniences. It is entire possible to set up
other model configurations, such as a combination of a one traveling
wave and one standing wave.


What happens at an impedance discontinuity given those circumstances? To
find out, read my WorldRadio article, Part I of which is posted on my web
page. Part II will be posted after Christmas. At the risk of raising your
politically incorrect ire as I have done with this technical posting,
MERRY CHRISTMAS!.

In order to make his model work, Cecil needs to invoke the mythical P3
and P4 on the source side of the reflection discontinuity. He never
gets around to explaining how these two waves, which exactly cancel at
all points in space and at all times, can contain any energy at all.


The answer is simple. Do waves contain any energy at all? Do waves that
cancel contain any energy? If waves contain no energy, they cannot exist,
and therefore are incapable of canceling. If they exist and cancel, they
contained energy just before their cancellation. Any way you cut it,
my approach is consistent with the laws of physics as enumerated in
"Optics",
by Hecht, and yours leads to a contradiction of those laws of physics.

The reason that most practitioners of wave models solve for the fields
first and then worry about power or energy is:

a - This procedure works correctly all the time.


Yes, it does. But optics engineers didn't have the luxury of dealing
with voltages and currents. They had to solve the problem using powers.
And they did exactly that decades ago. That RF engineers refuse to
consider the laws of physics concerning EM waves developed by optics
engineers is absolutely astounding to me. W7EL put it best, something
to the effect that if it wasn't invented here, we don't want to hear it
(even if it is right). But I daresay that Eugene Hecht knows much more
about EM waves that you will ever know, given your closed mind.

I do not expect to change Cecil's mind. Other than his own potential
embarrassment from the silly publications in World Radio, his folly is
harmless.


You are just displaying your extreme ignorance, Gene. My "WorldRadio"
article
corrects some of the *conceptual* errors in Dr. Best's QEX article but
otherwise
contains the same equations as his article. If you disagree with me, you
are
also disagreeing with Dr. Best's equations, i.e. you are between a rock
and a
hard place.

It is interesting that the very people who tell us not to worry about
energy
are the people who get so emotionally rabid when someone chooses to
worry about
energy like real-world physicists do. What do they possibly have to lose
besides
face, self-esteem, sleep, and their pseudo-religious guru status? :-)

Gene Fuller wrote:
If this is name-dropping poker, I'll see your Hecht and raise with J.D.
Jackson and Born & Wolf.

Please post any contradiction of Hecht by your sources. That argument
could get very interesting. To summarize: Constructive interference
energy must come from somewhere in the real world. You seem to disagree.
So where do you think constructive interference energy comes from?

But thanks for the education. After 40 years of obtaining multiple
degrees in physics followed by working R&D in the optics field ...

If you are omniscient, please prove it. If you are not omniscient and
still capable of learning, please admit it. The trouble with gurus is
that they sincerely believe that they know everything already and
therefore cannot possibly learn anything new. I'm still open to learning.
How about you?

... I guess I
still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to figure out that
energy is indeed something to "worry about". I never would have imagined
such a thing!

That's a really strange thing to admit, Gene, since a very large percentage
of the physics community is dedicated to understanding where the energy
was, is, and will be - down to an almost infinitessimally small amount.
You definitely seem to be cast in the mold of the priests who put Galileo
under house arrest. Are you comfortable with that position?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

If you know anything about physics, you must know that energy is at the
core of almost all physical analysis.

Sorry that my message was too opaque for you.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:


... I guess I still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to
figure out that energy is indeed something to "worry about". I never
would have imagined such a thing!


That's a really strange thing to admit, Gene, since a very large percentage
of the physics community is dedicated to understanding where the energy
was, is, and will be - down to an almost infinitessimally small amount.
You definitely seem to be cast in the mold of the priests who put Galileo
under house arrest. Are you comfortable with that position?

Gene Fuller wrote:
If you know anything about physics, you must know that energy is at the
core of almost all physical analysis.

I couldn't agree more, but that's exactly the topic from which you tried
to divert attention in your posting. Here's what you said:

"I guess I still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to
figure out that energy is indeed something to "worry about". I
never would have imagined such a thing!"

If you don't worry about energy, you have nothing to add to the discussion.
If you do worry about energy, please read my "WorldRadio" article which
tells you more than you (and others) ever wanted to know about energy in an
RF transmission line.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

Sorry, I should have written,

"I guess I still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to
figure out that energy is indeed something to "worry about". I
never would have imagined such a thing!" 8-) 8-) 8-)
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)


I thought my intention was obvious, but it seems I failed to communicate.

73,
Gene
W4SZ



Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

If you know anything about physics, you must know that energy is at
the core of almost all physical analysis.


I couldn't agree more, but that's exactly the topic from which you tried
to divert attention in your posting. Here's what you said:

"I guess I still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to
figure out that energy is indeed something to "worry about". I
never would have imagined such a thing!"

If you don't worry about energy, you have nothing to add to the discussion.
If you do worry about energy, please read my "WorldRadio" article which
tells you more than you (and others) ever wanted to know about energy in an
RF transmission line.

Gene Fuller wrote:
I thought my intention was obvious, but it seems I failed to communicate.

Others on this newsgroup have admonished me for worrying about
energy and refused to discuss the subject. I thought you were
doing the same. Sorry. But do you actually have any references
that contradict "Optics", by Hecht?

In Dr. Best's article, he superposes V1 with V2 such that constructive
interference energy is needed to complete the superposition. On this
newsgroup, I asked Dr. Best where that necessary constructive interference
energy comes from and he didn't know. That's when I went searching for
references and found them in the field of optics.

Constructive interference energy can be supplied by local sources
as occurs in W7EL's "Food for Thought #1" with its DC example. Or
constructive interference energy can be supplied at a point away
from the source(s) by destructive interference, e.g. wave cancellation
at the non-reflection surface of a layer of thin-film on glass or
at a match point in a transmission line.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

I do not have a copy of Hecht, but I doubt that he has made any serious
mistakes. Certainly he should have no mistakes in an area that is as
well understand and widely discussed as plane wave interactions with
discontinuities in the medium.

The classic treatment of this problem, found in virtually every
college-level textbook on E&M or optics, is to set up the appropriate
wave equations, add the boundary conditions, and crank out the answer.

Then there is typically some sort of analysis and discussion that says,
"The reflected intensity plus the transmitted intensity is equal to the
incident intensity. Energy is conserved." I suspect Hecht provides
exactly that sort of description. I know that all of the relevant
textbooks I have do so.

I believe you are reading too much into something Hecht is saying,
perhaps in an effort to somehow reconcile conservation of energy.

The beauty of the laws of E&M, as expressed by Maxwell's equations and
other fundamental properties, is that conservation of energy is
automatic, at least in ordinary circumstances. If one correctly solves
for the field equations, the energy conservation will come along for free.

Conversely, it is customary to use energy considerations as the primary
vehicle for addressing many physical problems in advanced mechanics,
quantum mechanics, solid state physics, and other branches of science.

The bottom line is that there are a number of tools available to develop
correct solutions to physical problems. Steve Best chose one path, and
you choose another. You both come up with the same answer in terms of
what can be measured. The mathematical constructs underlying the
solution may be different, but those constructs are not directly measurable.

Don't limit your toolbox. Sometimes a screwdriver is easier to use than
a monkey wrench.

73,
Gene
W4SZ



Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

I thought my intention was obvious, but it seems I failed to communicate.


Others on this newsgroup have admonished me for worrying about
energy and refused to discuss the subject. I thought you were
doing the same. Sorry. But do you actually have any references
that contradict "Optics", by Hecht?

In Dr. Best's article, he superposes V1 with V2 such that constructive
interference energy is needed to complete the superposition. On this
newsgroup, I asked Dr. Best where that necessary constructive interference
energy comes from and he didn't know. That's when I went searching for
references and found them in the field of optics.

Constructive interference energy can be supplied by local sources
as occurs in W7EL's "Food for Thought #1" with its DC example. Or
constructive interference energy can be supplied at a point away
from the source(s) by destructive interference, e.g. wave cancellation
at the non-reflection surface of a layer of thin-film on glass or
at a match point in a transmission line.