On 28 mayo, 15:12, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 01:47:40 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:





On 28 mayo, 03:18, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:10:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

2) What would be Rs optical analog?

Superman's cataracts with his xray vision. *This is probably going to
be your only direct answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OK, good example. Cataracts presents absortion, transmission and
reflection (they are whitish). To be analog I think should not have
reflection. What do you think? (Perhaps seems maieutics but really I
am trying to put my thoughts in order at first).

Whatever reflects, also absorbs and vice-versa. *The notion that the
interface is a singularity (infinitely thin) cannot be found in
reality. *Arguments that hinge on this non-existent property are made
for the novice to intermediate student. *Those who practice the
science of optics at the bench never observe this metaphor in reality.

What about the third point? I consider it important because light
waves are in three dimensional space, so when they cancels in a
region, reinforces in other and I can understand redistribution, but
line travelling waves are in unidimensional space and here I can not
visualize (realize?) the energy redistribution as in light
interference. *Sorry, when I put interrogation words inside
parentheses is that I am not sure the better/adecuated translation.

Superposition is the collapse of all possible solutions to a real one.
To be real, we must have an observer. *Frequently that is called a
load. *That load may be a transducer (light cell). *Without the
observer, both energies are present - nothing cancels. *What is called
redistribution is a superstitious necessity of trying to visualize the
math. *Redistribution is a strained term that is useful as a placebo,
but nothing moves in the redistribution (an irony or a paradox which
is more useful in entertainment).

Traveling along the road of using optical metaphors is troubling for
those who have never worked at an optic bench. *Cut and paste theory
from eminent authors occludes vision.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Hi Cecil and Richard (thanks for answer my questions Cecil, and add
your technical comments Richard).

I reply (is it OK "reply"?) to Richard first because it is part of my
comment to Cecil. Yes, Richard. Tonight I said to me: -the worst term
that you could use, Miguel, was "ether"- :), because "ether" is a
hipotetical MATERIAL thing, so, as on other material mediums we
usually can literally see interference because interference is
manifested on matter, but we need photographic plates, screens,
retinas, etc. to manifest electromagnetic interference, "loads" as say
Richard, ("observer" it is more sutil and difficult concept, I dare
not with "him").
I needed know what represent that in a line discontinuity (in a load
seems obvious) to better understand Cecil's examples in web page
(http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm).
.....
Before continue I want to do a comment to know if we agree (more or
less). We partially think with words or symbols, words and symbols
represent concepts or perceptions, concepts are not "out there", as
Einstein said they a "free creations of human mind". There is not
energy out there, there is not velocity out there, that things are in
our brains (or consciusness if you prefer). We need consensus to
collective think on it, we need "sincrhonize" our minds to
colectivelly think the world...
You think in english, I think in spanish, I need translate "your"
words to "my" words to understand what you say, I can not say: "whats
the hell is a rig!", where are "rigs"! only there are "equipos"
boys! :) For that I need understand what means Cecil with
redistribution, I belieive I can understand his idea behind the word,
I must make the effort because my own language barrier. Perhaps the
consensus word to it may be not "redistribution", but... what Cecil
tries explain to me? I try never identify the "map" (words, concepts)
with the "territory" (hipotetical real world) because misleading me.
.....
Cecil I want to ask you if you are using "photon" term to
methaforically refer to "light". I am not qualified at all to address
this issue in quantic physics terms I thougth we was fully inmersed in
ondulatory theory.
I do not have useful knowledge in laser either. but I can imagine (I
believe) the properties of Rs analogy.
I am interested in your optical analogy because analogies often are
useful to visualize a new thing knowing old things, it does not matter
if we use RF concepts to aproximate optical things or vice versa,
analogies are useful crutches (muletas in spanish). Even I agree at
our concept that electromagnetic spectrum includes RF waves and ligh
waves and they are the same phenomenon, I think that is a result of
great insight and efforts of the human mind, it is not so evident. We
see light, we sense infrared radiaton, but we can not perceive well RF
without instruments (unless we introduce ourselves in a micowave oven
or burn with the antenna, of course ).
To concentrate light we only need a piece of glass, to do the same on
HF RF region we need large wire antenna arrays. Because of this we
often need (or employ) very differents models to deal with the "same
thing". Probably Maxwell equations solve all of them, but they are
difficult ladies to deal :).
Reconciling optcs models with electric models have its difficulties,
but can be productive undoubtedly I believe.

(Richard I do not think wathever reflects also absorbs (ideally at
last), It can reflects an transmits but nor absorb, do you agree with
it?)

(I do not forget Roy's article, I'm still trying to sort out all the
puzzle pieces).

73

Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ