Jim Kelley wrote:
Since you're the only person in history to have ever claimed such a
phenomenon occurs, the responsibility rests squarely with you to prove
it exists.

I have quoted many references. That you choose to ignore them is
not my problem. Of course, they are not going to use identical
words to mine. Ham radio lingo has a flavor all it's own,
"reflections" being one of them. I am expecting any moment for
you to say a reversal of energy flow in a transmission line is
not always a reflection. That's how you resolve arguments - by
redefining words until your opponent is wrong, by definition.

As I just got done saying, the only way for electromagnetic
energy to change direction is by reflection. It seemed you understood
that.

I certainly do and wave cancellation can cause a reflection,
i.e. a reversal of energy flow in a transmission line. It's
as simple as that. The "redistribution of energy in a different
direction" caused by wave cancellation can only occur in one
direction in a transmission line. If wave cancellation occurs
in one direction, the energy existing in the waves before they
were canceled must necessarily be distributed in the only other
direction possible. It's all explained on the optics web pages
that I previously posted.

I understand them perfectly. You may recall that I introduced you to
the Melles-Griot site. You on the other hand, misunderstand them.

When you introduced me to the Melles-Groit web page, you told
me what it said and I still think you were right. You were happy
for me because you had found something to support my concepts. After
a few days, you changed your mind and informed me that it didn't
say what you first thought it said. Maybe you should question what
caused your mind to change? Quite often, the first conclusion is the
correct one. So does it say what it says, or not?

And you are clearly reading more into it than it clearly says (as
evidenced by the fact that what you wrote and what it says are clearly
not the same thing).

Clearly not identical but clearly meaning the same thing as
you said it meant when you first introduced me to that web page.
Why did you change your mind about what it said?

Your interpretation is totally incorrect.

Then your initial interpretation of the Melles-Groit web page
information was totally incorrect. Why did you do a 180?

Interference is an effect not a cause.

Interference is not an end effect. Interference can cause the
perception of light and dark rings on the human retina. Lots
of effects which have a cause, cause additional effects in
a chain of cause and effect events. Haven't you ever seen
the TV series "Connections" where one effect caused another
effect which caused another effect ...? So the spacing of the
wheels on a Roman chariot eventually dictated the maximum size
of the boosters on the Space Shuttle?

Interference in transmission lines can cause reflections which
is simply a redistribution of energy in the only other direction
possible. What is it about the "redistribution of energy caused
by interference" that you don't understand? It is explained on
those web pages. In a transmission line, dispersion and refraction
are mostly absent, so reflection is the only thing that can
possibly "redistribute the energy". We know the reflected energy
stops flowing toward the source in the transmission line at a
match point. Wonder what other possible direction it can take next?
That's a really tough question. ... I like you, Jim, because you
make me laugh.
--
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 =----