Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:53:26 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Sounds like a lame answer from you given you cannot perform ANY of the
math.

Richard, you really need to disguise your snipe
hunts a little better.

Still can't provide any numbers, hmm? Paint the snipe orange and hang
a sign around his neck, and you couldn't nail him at 10 feet with a
shotgun. :-0

Where Does the Power Go?
 

QED my friend, QED...

denny

Richard Clark wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 11:11:40 -0700, "Denny" wrote:

Assume that we put a 1 second squirt at the rate of 100 Joules per
second, into the input end of the line, it is an open line at the far
end, and yank the input end of the line out of the transmitter at
exactly 1 second... Now we have a lossless line with a wave going
forward and a reflected wave coming back... Do you still claim 200
joules?

Hi Denny,

A question of my own:
Did you really expect your question above wouldn't be dodged?

I suppose not. Anyway, your observations revealed Cecil's usual lack
of rigor. You certainly know how to step back while he juggles
un-pinned hand grenades.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Denny wrote:
QED my friend, QED...

I read that book by Feynman. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Denny wrote:
QED my friend, QED...

Translation:
************************************************** **********
* It is OK for our models, methods, and concepts to *
* violate the conservation of energy principle because *
* the conservation of energy principle cannot be violated. *
************************************************** **********
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:48:38 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Denny wrote:
QED my friend, QED...

Translation:
************************************************* ***********
* It is OK for our models, methods, and concepts to *
* violate the conservation of energy principle because *
* the conservation of energy principle cannot be violated. *
************************************************* ***********

Life Imitating Art (or at least Dilbert):

Well, I'll tell you,
little cowpoke.
When the snake falls
in love with the
spaghetti, it's time
To buy a new hat.

thanx and a tip of the hat to Scott Adams
others may wish the graphics at (for today):
http://dilbert.com/

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Actually I agree, but it's all from ordinary reflections, rather than
from backscattered interference or anything else from the 'square root
of negative one' axis.


Jim, the reflected energy and momentum changes direction.
Walter Maxwell calls it a virtual short or open with a
virtual reflection coefficient of 1.0. I agree with "Optics",
by Hecht, that it is total destructive interference in the
source direction accompanied by total constructive interference
in the load direction. What do you call it? What reflection
coefficient does your reflected wave see? Please give it a
name.

I agree with Optics by Hecht too, Cecil. I just don't always agree
with what you think the words in Optics by Hecht mean.

73, Jim AC6XG

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim, the reflected energy and momentum changes direction.
Walter Maxwell calls it a virtual short or open with a
virtual reflection coefficient of 1.0. I agree with "Optics",
by Hecht, that it is total destructive interference in the
source direction accompanied by total constructive interference
in the load direction. What do you call it? What reflection
coefficient does your reflected wave see? Please give it a
name.

I agree with Optics by Hecht too, Cecil. I just don't always agree with
what you think the words in Optics by Hecht mean.

That the reflected wave(s) have reversed momentum is a fact
since at one point they are measured as photonic energy
traveling toward the source and at another point they are
measured as having disappeared. Remember, these are photonic
EM waves. They necessarily must travel at the speed of light
or not exist. The photonic component waves in non-reflective
glass all travel at the speed of light. In like manner, so
do the photonic component RF waves in a transmission line.
Photonic EM waves don't change their basic nature with frequency.

You still didn't give me a word for that change in momentum.
Walter Maxwell calls it "re-reflected". I would be satisfied
with "re-directed' or "momentum-reversed". What would you
like to name it?

While you are at it, you never did give me a word for watts
that are not power.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Remember, these are photonic
EM waves.

I'm gonna write that down.

You still didn't give me a word for that change in momentum.

In my opinion, when you have a change in momentum, you should rightly
refer to it as a change in momentum.

So, should momentum change? Or should we expect it to be conserved?

Walter Maxwell calls it "re-reflected". I would be satisfied
with "re-directed' or "momentum-reversed". What would you
like to name it?

I still like "Cecil's 4th Mechanism of Reflection" best.

While you are at it, you never did give me a word for watts
that are not power.

Ask again after you've come to understand the difference between a
unit of measurement and a defined physical quantity.

73, Jim AC6XG

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Remember, these are photonic EM waves.

I'm gonna write that down.

Write this down while you are at it.

In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle
responsible for electromagnetic phenomena. It mediates
electromagnetic interactions and is the fundamental
constituent of all forms of electromagnetic radiation,
that is, light. The photon has zero rest mass and, in
empty space, travels at a constant speed c;

According to the Standard Model of particle physics,
photons are responsible for producing all electric and
magnetic fields, and are themselves the product of
requiring that physical laws have a certain symmetry
at every point in spacetime.

Nevertheless, all semiclassical theories were refuted
definitively in the 1970's and 1980's by elegant photon-
correlation experiments.

So, should momentum change? Or should we expect it to be conserved?

Momentum is conserved. A change in momentum is a change in
the direction of momentum, not a change in the magnitude.
Hams call that a reflection. What do you call it?

I still like "Cecil's 4th Mechanism of Reflection" best.

If you don't like the word "reflection" for what happens at
a non-reflective thin-film coating, please give me another
word for it. I could easily call the physical happening by
another name. "A rose by any other name ..."

Ask again after you've come to understand the difference between a unit
of measurement and a defined physical quantity.

Jim, in engineering, all watts are power. That's an engineering
convention. I'm sorry that your physicist conventions are different
but amateur radio is part of RF engineering. Sorry about that.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible
for electromagnetic phenomena. It mediates electromagnetic
interactions and is the fundamental constituent of all forms of
electromagnetic radiation, that is, light. The photon has zero rest
mass and, in empty space, travels at a constant speed c;
According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields, and are
themselves the product of requiring that physical laws have a certain
symmetry at every point in spacetime.

Nevertheless, all semiclassical theories were refuted definitively in
the 1970's and 1980's by elegant photon-
correlation experiments.

Sounds impressive. Are you running for office by any chance?


So, should momentum change? Or should we expect it to be conserved?


Momentum is conserved. A change in momentum is a change in
the direction of momentum, not a change in the magnitude.
Hams call that a reflection. What do you call it?

So is your claim that, to "hams", a change in the magnitude of
momentum is not called a change in momentum?

I still like "Cecil's 4th Mechanism of Reflection" best.


If you don't like the word "reflection" for what happens at
a non-reflective thin-film coating, please give me another
word for it. I could easily call the physical happening by
another name. "A rose by any other name ..."

Actually an antireflective coating does not reflect energy. Hence the
name. If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an
anti-reflection. Howz that?


Ask again after you've come to understand the difference between a
unit of measurement and a defined physical quantity.


Jim, in engineering, all watts are power. That's an engineering
convention. I'm sorry that your physicist conventions are different
but amateur radio is part of RF engineering. Sorry about that.

I get it that you're sorry. That wouldn't be rhetorical sorrow by any
chance, would it? As I said, please let us know when you come
understand the difference between units and physical quantities. I
don't need to give you the energy in 25 candy bars divided by the
number of minutes in a regulation NBA game example again, do I?

73, Jim AC6XG

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:21:28 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible
for electromagnetic phenomena.

Sounds like the egg is responsible for sex. What happened to
electrons?

It mediates electromagnetic
interactions and is the fundamental constituent of all forms of
electromagnetic radiation, that is, light. The photon has zero rest
mass and, in empty space, travels at a constant speed c;

That speed is hardly constant, it is relative. Or so Einstein would
have us believe.

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields,

Baloney cut thick.

and are
themselves the product of requiring that physical laws have a certain
symmetry at every point in spacetime.

Nevertheless, all semiclassical theories were refuted definitively in
the 1970's and 1980's by elegant photon-
correlation experiments.

What a short attention span from between the copy machine to the
keyboard.

Sounds impressive. Are you running for office by any chance?

Sounds like bull**** Xeroxed off at random.

So, should momentum change? Or should we expect it to be conserved?

"Should momentum change?" Is this a moral or ethical question? Is
this a debate about the nature of free will?

Momentum is conserved. A change in momentum is a change in
the direction of momentum, not a change in the magnitude.
Hams call that a reflection. What do you call it?

It's called acceleration - G force. We call it "the question that
hasn't an answer from Cecil."

So is your claim that, to "hams", a change in the magnitude of
momentum is not called a change in momentum?

Jim,

He can't put a name to it, and he is at a loss to find a value for it.
It is lost in all the other baggage of forfeited claims.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Actually an antireflective coating does not reflect energy. Hence the
name. If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an
anti-reflection. Howz that?

You must have one of your special tricky-dicky narrow-
minded physics definitions for "reflect" like you do for
"power" and "transfer". It is a fact that the internal
reflection is reflected at the outside surface of the
thin-film. Constructive interference energy due to wave
cancellation joins that reflection energy and becomes
inseparable from it. It has been commonly called a
reflection (actually a re-reflection) for decades.

As I said, please let us know when you come
understand the difference between units and physical quantities.

Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines. Unfortunately
for your definitions, amateur radio is a subset of RF engineering,
not physics. You may, in time, succeed in your quest to change
the definitions previously accepted as valid in the field of RF
engineering. Then again, you may not. Time will tell.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Richard Clark wrote:
What happened to electrons?

Electrons absorb and emit photons.

That speed is hardly constant, it is relative. Or so Einstein would
have us believe.

I think Einstein would object to your statement. The theory
of relativity says everything is relative to the speed of
light fixed at the constant 'c' in free space.

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields,

Baloney cut thick.

I obtained this material from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Maybe you should volunteer to rewrite their material. Be sure
and tell them about your theory that anti-reflective glass is
brighter than the surface of the sun. That should really
impress them. :-)
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an
anti-reflection.

That's looking forward into a Z0-match from the source
side. The opposite thing happens looking back into a
Z0-match from the load side. What's the opposite of
an anti-reflection?

Actually, in my energy analysis article, I defined
the word, "re-reflection", as used in the article
and as used by Walter Maxwell in "Reflections".

Since I cannot find an official definition of that word,
defining it within an article is a perfectly honest and
acceptable thing to do. Quoting my article:

"Note that the author is defining the word "re-reflection"
as any and all reversals in direction of flow of reflected
energy or reflected energy components."

My energy article can be accessed at the URL below.

P.S. I'll be in HOG heaven during the long weekend.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:20:34 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

That speed is hardly constant, it is relative. Or so Einstein would
have us believe.

I think Einstein would object to your statement. The theory
of relativity says everything is relative to the speed of
light fixed at the constant 'c' in free space.

-Sigh-

Another opportunity for you to Fumble an excuse not to perform a
simple computation:

For a dry observer standing on the bank of a pool,
what is the speed of light in water?

This should even be Xeroxable.

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an anti-reflection.


That's looking forward into a Z0-match from the source
side. The opposite thing happens looking back into a
Z0-match from the load side. What's the opposite of
an anti-reflection?

Actually, in my energy analysis article, I defined
the word, "re-reflection", as used in the article
and as used by Walter Maxwell in "Reflections".

Cecil,

Where you go wrong is your energy analysis. Your argument goes awry
in at least a couple of areas. 1. 'destructive interference causes
energy to reverse direction.' This is purely false. Interference is
the description we give to the result of the superposition of waves.
It is not a causal phenomenon. 2. Unless you're talking photochromic
properties, partially reflective media interfaces do not become 100%
reflective in response to illumination (or for any other reason). Any
"re-reflection" that takes place is ordinary partial reflection in the
other direction.

Have fun on the hog. Last weekend I was fortunate enough to drive 20
laps on a 1/2 mile banked track in a Busch class stock car. Holy cow.

73, Jim AC6XG

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
As I said, please let us know when you come understand the difference
between units and physical quantities.


Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines.

Differences between disciplines in the definitions of fundamental
principles can only be in your understanding of them.

73, ac6xg

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:55:24 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Another opportunity for you to Fumble an excuse not to perform a
simple computation:

For a dry observer standing on the bank of a pool,
what is the speed of light in water?

No point in waiting for that fumbling excuse (the dolphin ate my
flashlight) when this simple computation is performed here everyday:

2.25408 * 10^8 m/s

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

What has been known since long before you were born is that only
direct interaction with matter causes EM waves to reflect.


Would you say the changing characteristic impedance between
two waveguides in outer space is a direct interaction
with matter? There is no matter inside the waveguide with
which to interact.

Come on, Cecil. You propose a scenario with a change in
characteristic impedance, and then try to pretend there isn't any
matter involved?

I'll have to take a look at the math.

411 - People usually do that _before_ they announce their discovery of
a new natural phenomenon.

But no matter what it is called, the results are the same.
"A rose by any other name ..."

Yes. An enormous blunder is, by any other name..... :-)

73, Jim ac6xg

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:21:28 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields

Sorry, Jim, for responding through you to these howlers courtesy of
Cecil's Xerographic talents.

Producing "all" electric "and" magnetic fields? This is just too
naive to contemplate. I suppose our compasses don't work in the dark,
do they? A light bulb would never illuminate unless it was ALREADY ON
illuminating the wire that conducted electricity.

The list of amusing contradictions to this catechism above goes on,
and on.... Now we return you to Cecil's lamentations about the
quality of work he puts to the copier's scanning screen. :-0

Imagine, cribbing notes from and then blaming Wikipedia indeed!

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an anti-reflection.


That's looking forward into a Z0-match from the source
side. The opposite thing happens looking back into a
Z0-match from the load side. What's the opposite of
an anti-reflection?

Actually, in my energy analysis article, I defined
the word, "re-reflection", as used in the article
and as used by Walter Maxwell in "Reflections".

Cecil,

Where you go wrong is your energy analysis. Your argument goes awry in
at least a couple of areas. 1. 'destructive interference causes energy
to reverse direction.' This is purely false. Interference is the
description we give to the result of the superposition of waves. It is
not a causal phenomenon. 2. Unless you're talking photochromic
properties, partially reflective media interfaces do not become 100%
reflective in response to illumination (or for any other reason). Any
"re-reflection" that takes place is ordinary partial reflection in the
other direction.

Jim, when I get back from my trip, I'll tell you about temporary
benign interference Vs permanent active interference. A standing
wave in a constant Z0 environment is temporary interference.
Wave cancellation is permanent active interference. When wave
cancellation occurs, the energy and momentum are redirected. In
a transmission line, there are only two directions. In the direction
of the wave cancellation and in the opposite direction. The energy
doesn't go in the direction of wave cancellation so which direction
does it go. Boy, that's a tough question, isn't it?

Have fun on the hog. Last weekend I was fortunate enough to drive 20
laps on a 1/2 mile banked track in a Busch class stock car. Holy cow.

Back when I lived in CA, in between motorcycle races, they opened
Laguna Seca to anyone with a motorcycle license, street legal bike,
$20, and willing to sign a waiver. Everyone was a certain number
of minutes apart. I got my Kawi Z1-B up to about 135 mph on the
straightaway. And that still wasn't top speed. That machine red-
lined at 60 mph in *first gear* with four more gears to go. :-0
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Differences between disciplines in the definitions of fundamental
principles can only be in your understanding of them.

Please realize that it's not the definitions of fundamental
principles that are different. It is the definitions of the
random grouping of letters called words that are different.
The same word represents different valid fundamental principles
in different disciplines. "A rose by any other name ..."

Physics simply does NOT have a monopoly on the word "power".
There are 32+ definitions of power in my dictionary.

P-O-W-E-R has a different definition in RF engineering than
it does in physics. It doesn't mean that there's anything
wrong with anyone's fundamental principles. After all, the
Russians and Japanese don't even use the word "power" for
any of their fundamental principles which are just as valid
as yours.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Come on, Cecil. You propose a scenario with a change in characteristic
impedance, and then try to pretend there isn't any matter involved?

If you are admitting that a change in Z0 at an impedance
discontinuity involves matter, then we are in agreement.
Sounded to me like you were saying there's no matter
involved at a transmission line impedance discontinuity.

My energy article covers this subject. I state in that article
that there are no reflections except at *physical* impedance
discontinuities so you already know what I said previously.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim, when I get back from my trip, I'll tell you about temporary
benign interference Vs permanent active interference.


A standing
wave in a constant Z0 environment is temporary interference.
Wave cancellation is permanent active interference. When wave
cancellation occurs, the energy and momentum are redirected. In
a transmission line, there are only two directions. In the direction
of the wave cancellation and in the opposite direction. The energy
doesn't go in the direction of wave cancellation so which direction
does it go. Boy, that's a tough question, isn't it?

As far as I know, there has never been any dispute over which
direction the energy goes. The problem has always been with your
overly imaginative explanation for how it gets there.

Have fun on the hog. Last weekend I was fortunate enough to drive 20
laps on a 1/2 mile banked track in a Busch class stock car. Holy cow.


Back when I lived in CA, in between motorcycle races, they opened
Laguna Seca to anyone with a motorcycle license, street legal bike,
$20, and willing to sign a waiver. Everyone was a certain number
of minutes apart. I got my Kawi Z1-B up to about 135 mph on the
straightaway. And that still wasn't top speed. That machine red-
lined at 60 mph in *first gear* with four more gears to go. :-0

Getting speed on the straights is the easy part. Finding out that
you've got too much when you arrive at the turn is the primary concern.

73, Jim ac6xg

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:21:28 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields

Sorry, Jim, for responding through you to these howlers courtesy of
Cecil's Xerographic talents.

Producing "all" electric "and" magnetic fields? This is just too
naive to contemplate. I suppose our compasses don't work in the dark,
do they? A light bulb would never illuminate unless it was ALREADY ON
illuminating the wire that conducted electricity.

Richard, the frequency of photons extends from DC to gamma
rays and beyond. You think because you cannot see them that
they don't exist???? RF waves are certainly made up of photons
that you cannot see. There are many more photons that you
cannot see than photons that you can see. If you are relying
solely upon your flawed human sight for the detection of
all photons, you are severely handicapped.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:54:11 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:21:28 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields

Sorry, Jim, for responding through you to these howlers courtesy of
Cecil's Xerographic talents.

Producing "all" electric "and" magnetic fields? This is just too
naive to contemplate. I suppose our compasses don't work in the dark,
do they? A light bulb would never illuminate unless it was ALREADY ON
illuminating the wire that conducted electricity.

Richard, the frequency of photons extends from DC to gamma
rays and beyond. You think because you cannot see them that
they don't exist????

Photons I do see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing all
electric and magnetic fields."

Photons I do NOT see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing
all electric and magnetic fields."

And electric and magnetic fields exist quite independently of ANY
photons (invisible or otherwise) which, of course, means that photons
were NEVER "responsible for producing" these "electric and magnetic
fields." Note that ALL is inclusive in its totality and I have thrice
demonstrated that falsity.

Like I said, your naive statements propagate a lot of foolishness and
fall far short of illuminating.

So, time for another simple computation:

What is the temperature of an 80M photon?

Looking forward to your fumble.

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

[snip]

Jim, when I get back from my trip, I'll tell you about temporary
benign interference Vs permanent active interference. A standing
wave in a constant Z0 environment is temporary interference.
Wave cancellation is permanent active interference. When wave
cancellation occurs, the energy and momentum are redirected. In
a transmission line, there are only two directions. In the direction
of the wave cancellation and in the opposite direction. The energy
doesn't go in the direction of wave cancellation so which direction
does it go. Boy, that's a tough question, isn't it?



Cecil,

Have a safe trip.

I want to hear more about this "temporary benign interference". I have
been doing physics and optics for over 40 years, and that concept is a
new one for me.

8-) 8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

As I said, please let us know when you come understand the difference
between units and physical quantities.


Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines. Unfortunately
for your definitions, amateur radio is a subset of RF engineering,
not physics. You may, in time, succeed in your quest to change
the definitions previously accepted as valid in the field of RF
engineering. Then again, you may not. Time will tell.

Cecil

EVERYTHING is a subset of physics. Even biology.

tom
K0TAR

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:12:06 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

As I said, please let us know when you come understand the difference
between units and physical quantities.


Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines. Unfortunately
for your definitions, amateur radio is a subset of RF engineering,
not physics. You may, in time, succeed in your quest to change
the definitions previously accepted as valid in the field of RF
engineering. Then again, you may not. Time will tell.

Cecil

EVERYTHING is a subset of physics. Even biology.

Or, as Lord Kelvin would ammend this: The rest is stamp collecting.

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

[snip]


Jim, when I get back from my trip, I'll tell you about temporary
benign interference Vs permanent active interference. A standing
wave in a constant Z0 environment is temporary interference.
Wave cancellation is permanent active interference. When wave
cancellation occurs, the energy and momentum are redirected. In
a transmission line, there are only two directions. In the direction
of the wave cancellation and in the opposite direction. The energy
doesn't go in the direction of wave cancellation so which direction
does it go. Boy, that's a tough question, isn't it?




Cecil,

Have a safe trip.

I want to hear more about this "temporary benign interference". I have
been doing physics and optics for over 40 years, and that concept is a
new one for me.

8-) 8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Every once in a while, when I'm reading the interesting technical
prose that Cecil writes here and elsewhere, Cliff Clavin comes to mind
for some reason.

:-)
73, Jim AC6XG

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Jim Kelley wrote: As far as I know, there has never been any dispute
over which
direction the energy goes. The problem has always been with your
overly imaginative explanation for how it gets there.

I'm just quoting "Optics", by Hecht for how it gets there. Hecht's
irradiance equation tells the whole story. Total Irradiance = I1 + I2 +
2*SQRT(I1*I2)cos(A) where A is the angle between the I1 and I2 electric
fields. The last term is the interference term. If it is positive, the
interference is constructive. If it is negative, the interference is
destructive. If it is zero, the signals are orthogonal to each other
and no exchange of energy takes place. Please note that the dimensions
of Irradiance and the dimensions of average power flow vectors
(Poynting vectors) are the same. Hecht says that in the localized
absence of a source, any constructive interference must be equaled by
the same magnitude of destructive interference. The destructive
interference that eliminates reflections on the source side of the
thin-film coating on non-reflective glass is exactly offset by an equal
magnitude of constructive interference on the other side of that thin
film surface. It's all there in "Optics" by Hecht.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Where Does the Power Go?
 

Richard Clark wrote:
And electric and magnetic fields exist quite independently of ANY
photons (invisible or otherwise) ...

Richard, I suggest you take time to digest the material before making
any more obviously false statements like the above.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:59:11 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Photons I do see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing all
electric and magnetic fields."

Photons I do NOT see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing
all electric and magnetic fields."

And electric and magnetic fields exist quite independently of ANY
photons (invisible or otherwise) which, of course, means that photons
were NEVER "responsible for producing" these "electric and magnetic
fields." Note that ALL is inclusive in its totality and I have thrice
demonstrated that falsity.

Like I said, your naive statements propagate a lot of foolishness and
fall far short of illuminating.

So, time for another simple computation:

What is the temperature of an 80M photon?

Looking forward to your fumble.

The ball lay dormant on the 1 inch line with 2 days to snap it and....

OK, the quick Xeroxed answer from my own posting, some time earlier:

0°K or so close as to be indistinguishable;

For extra credit (sic, nothing extra as nothing was credited to Cecil
in the first place):

What is the actual answer to within NOT ±69%,
but to within one order of magnitude!?

All may note the munificence of allowing up to 1000% error allowable
as a "correct" answer. Certainly the master of Xeroxphotonic-zen
might grasp at a straw? After all, how close do you have to be when
you are already dead-nutz on to zero? :-0

[Hint, when I taught Electronics in the Navy, my students swore I
always had an "Ace-Buster" in the quiz.]

Where Does the Power Go?
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:59:11 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Photons I do see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing all
electric and magnetic fields."

Photons I do NOT see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing
all electric and magnetic fields."

And electric and magnetic fields exist quite independently of ANY
photons (invisible or otherwise) which, of course, means that photons
were NEVER "responsible for producing" these "electric and magnetic
fields." Note that ALL is inclusive in its totality and I have thrice
demonstrated that falsity.

Like I said, your naive statements propagate a lot of foolishness and
fall far short of illuminating.

So, time for another simple computation:

What is the temperature of an 80M photon?

Looking forward to your fumble.

The ball lay dormant on the 1 inch line with 2 days to snap it and....

OK, the quick Xeroxed answer from my own posting, some time earlier:

0°K or so close as to be indistinguishable;

For extra credit (sic, nothing extra as nothing was credited to Cecil
in the first place):

What is the actual answer to within NOT ±69%,
but to within one order of magnitude!?

All may note the munificence of allowing up to 1000% error allowable
as a "correct" answer. Certainly the master of Xeroxphotonic-zen
might grasp at a straw? After all, how close do you have to be when
you are already dead-nutz on to zero? :-0

[Hint, when I taught Electronics in the Navy, my students swore I
always had an "Ace-Buster" in the quiz.]

ET or AT ratings.

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:48:53 -0800, "Dana" wrote:

[Hint, when I taught Electronics in the Navy, my students swore I
always had an "Ace-Buster" in the quiz.]

ET or AT ratings.

Hi Dana,

ETN. Instructor in branches A1, A3, and A4 at Treasure Island, 1969 -
1972.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, ET1 (through A5 and A6 as an ETR)

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:04:00 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

So, time for another simple computation:

What is the temperature of an 80M photon?

Looking forward to your fumble.

The ball lay dormant on the 1 inch line with 2 days to snap it and....

OK, the quick Xeroxed answer from my own posting, some time earlier:

0°K or so close as to be indistinguishable;

For extra credit (sic, nothing extra as nothing was credited to Cecil
in the first place):

What is the actual answer to within NOT ±69%,
but to within one order of magnitude!?

All may note the munificence of allowing up to 1000% error allowable
as a "correct" answer. Certainly the master of Xeroxphotonic-zen
might grasp at a straw? After all, how close do you have to be when
you are already dead-nutz on to zero? :-0

[Hint, when I taught Electronics in the Navy, my students swore I
always had an "Ace-Buster" in the quiz.]

BBBBBBRRRRrrringgggggg!

No point in waiting two days for Cecil's fruitless search for
Xeroxable material - even with a latitude of one order of magnitude
slop above and beyond his usual ±69%.

A Photon in the (bottom of the) 80M band would have the equivalent
temperature of:
60µ°K
for extra credit, the answer would have to have fallen somewhere in
the range:
6µ°K..600µ°K

Still pretty darn cold (and a far sight harder to answer than simply
stating near 0°K which was a sufficient answer in the first round).

This, of course, is simple Black Body radiator mechanics that novices
in Optics would have migrated through in High School. Cecil's Photon
radiator seems to need serious back-flushing.

Dare I challenge our master of Xeroxphotonimetry as to the temperature
of a 10M Photon? It would seem that if you cannot compute the simple
matters of heat, you are certainly the person who needs to ask "Where
Does the Power Go?" :-0

Awaiting more Photonic (no, I did NOT misspell pathetic) nonsense from
Cecil....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Where Does the Power Go?
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:48:53 -0800, "Dana" wrote:

[Hint, when I taught Electronics in the Navy, my students swore I
always had an "Ace-Buster" in the quiz.]

ET or AT ratings.

Hi Dana,

ETN. Instructor in branches A1, A3, and A4 at Treasure Island, 1969 -
1972.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, ET1 (through A5 and A6 as an ETR)

Had I been in the Navy I would have been an AT, I am a former Marine who
went through the Avionics schools in Millington. BE&E, AVA, AFTA, and C7
1980 for the first term schools, and 88 for C7

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 18:46:04 -0800, "Dana" wrote:
Had I been in the Navy I would have been an AT, I am a former Marine who
went through the Avionics schools in Millington. BE&E, AVA, AFTA, and C7
1980 for the first term schools, and 88 for C7

Hi Dana,

Welcome to the group. To explain the alpha-numeric soup in my reply,
I was trained in Radar Systems before being cross-trained as an
instructor in RF Communication Systems (I then migrated into Precision
RF power measurement out to 12GHz).

The first class I taught was a two week course in the theory and
maintenance for the Collins R-390. I also taught the four week course
for the Collins URC-32 (very few seen in amateur application as
KWT-6). I taught other equipment as well, but they are even more
obscure to Hams. The Collins gear was like learning to drive and
maintain a Rolls-Royce.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Where Does the Power Go?
 

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:59:07 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Dare I challenge our master of Xeroxphotonimetry as to the temperature
of a 10M Photon? It would seem that if you cannot compute the simple
matters of heat, you are certainly the person who needs to ask "Where
Does the Power Go?" :-0


Hi All,

Pushing further down the humiliation trail, if one considers the pain
of lowering temperatures into the microKelvins, one question arises:
How?

Dare I day photons? ;-)

Those same photons to have been claimed to be the source of ALL fields
and the inspiration for electrons are used to "calm" atoms (or corral
them) so that their jitters are reduced along with temperature. Hence
we return to Cecil's inability to express photonic pressure where it
counts most (shuffling those atoms). At the jeopardy of starting more
gibbering, we have photonic tweezers that move atoms around in quantum
dots.

The next esoteric observation comes with the introduction of the
Phonon, which is a sound wave that can move through material faster
than light. That, of course, is highly qualified because phonons
migrate through far more materials than light can. Albeit that rare
distinction, the frequency of that sound commonly pushes past 10s of
Terahertz (or as low as an 80M QSO).

The Phonon (not the Photon) would be that natural progression into
"Where Does the Power Go?" but would be another fumble at the 1 inch
line with a goal-to-goal reversal.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Where Does the Power Go?
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 18:46:04 -0800, "Dana" wrote:
Had I been in the Navy I would have been an AT, I am a former Marine who
went through the Avionics schools in Millington. BE&E, AVA, AFTA, and C7
1980 for the first term schools, and 88 for C7

Hi Dana,

Welcome to the group. To explain the alpha-numeric soup in my reply,
I was trained in Radar Systems before being cross-trained as an
instructor in RF Communication Systems (I then migrated into Precision
RF power measurement out to 12GHz).

The first class I taught was a two week course in the theory and
maintenance for the Collins R-390. I also taught the four week course
for the Collins URC-32 (very few seen in amateur application as
KWT-6). I taught other equipment as well, but they are even more
obscure to Hams. The Collins gear was like learning to drive and
maintain a Rolls-Royce.

I was an I level DECM tech.
I maintained the ALQ126, countermeasure system, the ALR 45, 50, and 67,
receivers and pulse analyzer, the USM 406, flight line test set, the box
that helped the O level guys sweep the lines and verify the ew equipment,
and the ALM 106 test bench, one of the first automatic test benches made,
and its replacement the USM 458. I was assigned to an A6 squadron, that
swapped out a few years before I got out to FA18's, but I was detailed out
to support them via the IMA shop.

I went into comm, when I got out, worked for a Motorola service shop
maintaing smartnet trunking systems, as well as conventional repeaters and
systems, then went over to Nextel as a cell site tech/performance engineer,
and then over to VoiceStream as a switch tech and performance engineer.


I see that guy has not answered yet about the temp, that thread is kind opf
amusing.


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC