Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Whatever. I'd still like to see his derivations.


"Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, page 289.

The intensity of a light beam is associated with the E-field
so Hecht's equations are in relation to the E-field.

Speaking of the light standing wave: "The composite
disturbance is then:

E = Eo[sin(kt+wt) + sin(kt-wt)]

Applying the indentity

sin A + sin B = 2 sin 1/2(A+B)*cos 1/2(A-B)

E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)"

Hecht says the standing wave "profile does not move through
space".

I have said the RF standing wave current profile does not move
through a wire.

Hecht says the standing wave phasor "doesn't rotate at all,
and the resultant wave it represents doesn't progress through
space - it's a standing wave."

I have said the same thing about the RF standing wave current
phasor.

Hecht says the standing wave transfers zero net energy. I have
said the same thing about RF standing waves.

If it's a solution to the wave equation it's o.k., Cecil, but
Hecht is still not using the case where there is a phase difference
between the two waves. If it isn't in the original equation it
won't be in the final version since they're just two ways of
saying the same thing. That's fine because it's the wrong
equation anyway for what you want, which involves impedances
and length, which you probably don't want to deal with because
you're probably under the impression they're just virtual and
not real, and so not worthy of inclusion in your theory.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH