On 29 mayo, 14:27, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"lu6etj" wrote news:0d91fd84-c798-4391-8e90-I do not
have useful knowledge in laser either.

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 :).

Maxwell equations are wrote by Heaviside.

Reconciling optcs models with electric models have its difficulties,

but can be productive undoubtedly I believe.

Now light is produced with the electric device:
"As the electrons are undergoing acceleration they radiate electromagnetic
energy in their flight direction, and as they interact with the light
already emitted, photons along its line are emitted in phase, resulting in a
"laser-like" monocromatic and coherent beam. The mirrors show in the sketch
below are superfluous, as all the light is emitted in one direction anyway."
From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array

When electrons oscillate they disturb the "electron see" and that are waves.
To achive the oscillations we use different devices.
The Halbach array is for light. The dipole for RF. For radar and microwaves
the another.
S*

I all

Richard, I can not translate "Is yours dead?", I suppose means
something as "if it is my last word about it". Well...I do not believe
in witches but there are, there are! I shall not bet :)

Have you been following that story with Walt and myself?
Sorry, no. ocassionally I read the topic in this newsgroup long time
ago.
.....
I agree Cecil, be indulgent with my poor translations, I should have
written "I don not postulate Ether, without 'an' before", pointing -
with the capital "L"- to our old friend "luminiferous ether"; quantic
ether it is a different and very interesting stuff, isn't it?
I can not tranlate your Texan sentence, is a dialect? (patois?). Would
you mind write it in basic "english for aliens" for me).
I do not quite understand this = "Photons cannot stand still in a
standing wave." -You do not ascribe to wave-particle duality notion?-

As I understand quantic numbers of HF energy are a such extremely
small quantities that have unmeasurable effects, I understood (or
suppose) you wanted mean quantic physics born of fail of classical
electrodynamics to explain all phenomena.
When I pointed to dimensions of transmission line space vs
tridimensional space I am thinking of what you called (named?)
"redistribution" as meaning the only possible solution in such space
is redirection (or reflection). Is it OK?
From me understanding "reflection" is a way of "redirection" of light
that obey to the reflection law of optics, in transmission line space
I think would be synonymous (at last in spanish language). Do not you
agree?
Anyway, I think that classic physics is enough to explain phenomena on
extremly low quantic number systems, as HF energy or cars in
movement :)

Returning to analogy. I can not realize how associate Zc changes to
refraction because I learnt refraction as a differente speed of light
medium phenomenom. Give me a hand.

["re" it is only a prefix, look for "distribute" (or verb "distribuir"
in spanish = "Give something its timely placement or convenient
location". I bet it has same meaning in english]

Before advance more. I am not yet quite discern your (plural)
conceptual differences. Please remember that I did a question and you
answer with concepts of advanced stages of your discussion. Until now -
seems to me- Owen sustain our clasic Terman et al teachings and is
critic of Walter's theory; you too but from different point of view
(redistribution of energy, interference, photon laws, etc). I do not
know yet Roy's differences, and Richard would support all Walter's
hipothesis.

Also seems to me that a piece of discussion revolves around
"truthness" (in weak sense of word) of respective models more than
capacity of each one to give correct results to empiric measurements.
Perhaps a little summary of coincidences and differences can serve to
other readers, and me, obviously :)

73 and good weekend to all

Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ

PS: QSL to Szczepan comments