On 29 mayo, 22:21, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 29, 4:24*pm, lu6etj wrote:

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?

Miguel, your English is a magnitude better than my Spanish so don't
worry about it. "Quantum ether" are two words that I have never seen
together before. Maybe you will be famous for that concept.

I can not tranlate your Texan sentence, is a dialect? (patois?). Would
you mind write it in basic "english for aliens" for me).

Northern Americans cannot understand it either. :-) The translation
is: "I think I will walk over there after awhile." The Texan word
"amble" came from the Spanish word "amblar".

I do not quite understand this = "Photons cannot stand still in a
standing wave." -You do not ascribe to wave-particle duality notion?-

Some of the RF gurus will try to convince you that the energy in RF
standing waves is standing still. But since those RF waves consist of
photons which must necessarily move at the speed of light in the
medium, they are dead wrong. The correct concept is that a pure
standing wave doesn't transfer any *net* energy but the two equal
component traveling waves, forward and reverse, are still moving at
the speed of light in opposite.

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.

The point is that the photonic energy in an RF wave cannot stand
still. That defeats the argument that reflected waves don't exist or
don't contain any energy. Such is simply nonsense.

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?

Light waves can be reflected, refracted, and/or redistributed in any
3D direction. RF waves in a transmission line can only flow in two
directions, forward and reverse. That simplifies things considerably.
Coherent waves flowing in the same direction in a transmission line
suffer permanent interaction.

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?

Yes, but wave cancellation accompanied by destructive interference can
also redirect EM energy. Wave cancellation is what w7el is missing in
his food-for-thought article.

Anyway, I think that classic physics is enough to explain phenomena on
extremly low quantic number systems, as HF energy or cars in
movement :)

Yes, but when classic physics allegedly doesn't obey the laws of
quantum electrodynamics, something is wrong, and quantum
electrodynamics wins every time.

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.

For the purposes of RF waves in a transmission line, you can forget
refraction as an irrelevant effect.

["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]

Yes, that is probably correct.

... you too but from different point of view
(redistribution of energy, interference, photon laws, etc).

My concepts are directly from the field of optical physics. You might
want to obtain a copy of "Optics", by Hecht. It is available in
Spanish:

http://www.astronomyinspanish.org/sl...l/optica_hecht

This book will teach you more about EM *energy flow* than any RF
engineering book that I know of.

Perhaps a little summary of coincidences and differences can serve to
other readers, and me, obviously :)

The model that w7el uses for his food-for-thought article on forward
and reflected power is obviously wrong because it doesn't indicate
where the reflected energy goes. When a model confuses the user and
obviously doesn't represent reality, it's time to upgrade to a better
model. The EM wave model used in optics does necessarily track the
reflected energy because optical physicists cannot easily measure
voltage.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Hi to all...

Richard, do you agree with Walter's theory on "Another look at
reflections" in reflections topic -out of plate resistance
differences-?

The word you are trying to find is "validity,"

No, it was more near of your second = "Truth", or "The Truth", the
metaphysical "truth" :)

Walt and I disagree about Plate resistance being "real"

What is "real" for you? For me it is a slippery word ever ready to
disputes, in knowledge matters makes us think of the "thing itself"
and with it, we quickly fall into endless scholastic discussions. With
models "the thing" it is a little more ease, models only must be
internal and measurements consistent. Models are neither "True" nor
"Real", they are modestly "valid" :) What do you think?
........
I believe I am in a privileged position because my english weakness :
when I am about to disagree with you, I tell me -"probably you do not
translate well, Miguel, ask again"- and when you answer to me then
voilá! I do not disagree... Viceversa, perhaps language give me a
second chance with you because you are more forgiving with me :)

Example:
Miguel =
I do not quite understand this = "Photons cannot stand still in a
standing wave." -You do not ascribe to wave-particle duality notion?-
Cecil =
Some of the RF gurus will try to convince you that the energy in RF
standing waves is standing still. But since those RF waves consist of
photons which must necessarily move at the speed of light in the
medium,

So, now I believe what he is trying to tell me is stationary wave is a
measured time dependent magnitude resulting of two near speed of light
traveling waves, manifestating in our measurement apparatus (observer
or "load" as said Richard)... It is good to me.. Then, I do not care
anymore the ugly (nasty?) word "photon" :), and finally to my joy,
next Cecil sentence confirms my translation/interpretation!.

Coherent waves flowing in the same direction in a transmission line
suffer permanent interaction.

It is difficult to me reconcile superposition principle with
"interaction", because in spanish "interacción" word means: "Action
exerted MUTUALLY between two or more objects, agents, forces,
functions, etc" (capitals are mine) And I learnt two or more
electromagnetic waves can pass one through other by same point of the
SPACE without recognizing themselves (unlike particles that
"collide"), then, by definition, they not interactuate themselves at
all.
We do not "see" any standing wave in space when two same path opposite
direction RF rays cross themselves and there is not contradiction. Are
you agree?
In transmission lines instead it is not easy to think that because
more "tangible" standing wave voltages and currents make us think they
are "interacting". What do you think about it?,

but wave cancellation accompanied by destructive interference can
also redirect EM energy

To satisfy the energy conservation principle, isn' it? This produces a
reflection, right?

but when classic physics allegedly doesn't obey the laws of
quantum electrodynamics, something is wrong, and quantum
electrodynamics wins every time.

Could be classic electrodynamics be right but we are not applying
correctly, and then classic model not become a losser in this matter?

I see you do not agree with some Roy Lewallen proposition: do you
agree with Walter Maxwell on this topic?

Sorry (for me) Cecil "quantum ether" is not mine :(

Thanks for optics book recommendation.

73

Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ