On May 30, 9:55*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisal w ...
On May 29, 4:24 pm, lu6etj wrote:

Light waves can be reflected, refracted, and/or redistributed in any

3D direction.

In optics are mirrors which reflect and transmit the desired proportion of
light.

RF waves in a transmission line can only flow in two

directions, forward and reverse.

It can also transmit.

That simplifies things considerably.

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

But the reflected is weaker.

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.

The intensity is also accurate.
The end of the dipole reflect and transmit. The proportion is measured as
VWSR.
But for this you need the Electric Wave Model.
EM was stripped away by Royal Society in 1864.
S*
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Mr. S... please, you need to do 2 things... first, get a better
newsgroup editor or use the groups.google.com web site to post
replies, whatever you are using now messes up the indentation for
quoted text and makes it impossible to figure out what you wrote and
what is quoted. second, keep your 150 year old theories in threads
where they belong, they will only cause confusion to those who are
trying to discuss modern methods.