View Single Post
  #12   Report Post  
Old April 5th 07, 09:14 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Jim Kelley Jim Kelley is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default Not understanding some parts of wave refraction



K7ITM wrote:


Hi Jim,

Some people may use only c-sub-zero for the speed of light in a
vacuum, but most commonly I see it simply as c, a fundamental physical
constant. To avoid confusion, I would HIGHLY recommend that either
you be very explicit that you're using co as the constant, and c as
the speed of light in whatever medium you're dealing with -- OR that
you're using c as the constant and whatever other notation for the
speed elsewhere.

NIST lists the constant both ways: c, c-sub-zero. SEVERAL other
places I just looked (reference books from my bookshelf; a web survey
including US, UK and European sites--mostly physics sites; several
university sites) only used c as the constant, except the NIST site
and one other, which both listed it as c or c-sub-zero with equal
weight.

It's clearly a matter only of notation, but I'll elect to stay with
the most commonly used notation, and from what I've seen just now,
most think c is a constant.

Cheers,
Tom


Hi Tom -

This is becoming circuitous. What you're saying is exactly what led
the original correspondent to be confused in the first place. Since
the relavant equation doesn't read c = f*w/n, the only way to explain
the phenomenon is by using a value of c that varies with medium. That
was the entire point.

73. Jim AC6XG