Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:57:02 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Do you want to go through it again?

Do I need to see you crawl again? No one is really interested in
your capacity to hug a second rate explanation; neither am I. The
amusement factor may provide comic relief, but your invitation:

Have you tried the brain teaser I posted? It is a
lot like non-reflective thin films.

proves my point adequately (your fumbling with patch-work proofs like
bracing the SQRT with absolutes is funny only once however).

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:16:23 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

My example of the classic AT/ATR tube evidences EVERY observation you
offer, except it is a necessary load without which those observations
would never appear. If I were to replace its "total discontinuity"
with a weak tube (it exhibits less than total short); it too would
exhibit EVERY observation you offer EXCEPT they would be imperfect or
"partial discontinuities" repeated every quarter wave. It is obvious
that the effect follows the physical load, not the waves (they haven't
changed when the tube went bad). The physical load is the principle
in the process of interference.

Richard, I don't consider the AT/ATR tube relevant to the discussion of re-reflection of reflected power
incident on the output of a pi-network in an RF TX.

Hi Walt,

And yet they are relevant to the larger topic of reflection, are they
not? That is their sole purpose after all, they exhibit EVERY
observation you've offered, and without them those observations
disappear.

There is absolutely no example of interference that does not rely on a
load to reveal it.

If what you just said is true, then how do you explain nulls in a radiation pattern of an antenna having more
than one radiator, for example two verticals spaced 1/4 wl and fed in quadrature, thus creating a cardioid
pattern with a total null in one direction in azimuth? If the null was not created by interference between the
radiations from the two verticals, then how do you explain the formation of the null?

I use a load. It is exactly like the internal resistance of a
internal resistance where the reflected energy is in phase with the
source. The load exhibits no current flow (a null). Shift the phase
180 and the internal resistance exhibits a dramatic current flow (a
lobe). The energies are there either way. Remove the internal
resistance and nothing conducts EVER. Clearly the internal resistance
(the load in this case) is what reveals interference, not the
energies. In free space they would pass like ships in the night.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:01:53 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:16:23 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:
snip
There is absolutely no example of interference that does not rely on a
load to reveal it.

If what you just said is true, then how do you explain nulls in a radiation pattern of an antenna having more
than one radiator, for example two verticals spaced 1/4 wl and fed in quadrature, thus creating a cardioid
pattern with a total null in one direction in azimuth? If the null was not created by interference between the
radiations from the two verticals, then how do you explain the formation of the null?

I use a load. It is exactly like the internal resistance of a
internal resistance where the reflected energy is in phase with the
source. The load exhibits no current flow (a null). Shift the phase
180 and the internal resistance exhibits a dramatic current flow (a
lobe). The energies are there either way. Remove the internal
resistance and nothing conducts EVER. Clearly the internal resistance
(the load in this case) is what reveals interference, not the
energies. In free space they would pass like ships in the night.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, you are dodging the question again! You have not answered my question, 'how do you explain the
formation of the null in an antenna pattern' in the example I presented above?

Walt

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:01:02 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

If such had any importance at
all, I'm sure he would have mentioned it.

So, Hecht is rather limited is he? Absolutely nothing about Fresnel's
Equations, hmmm? Now that is shallow - but for who? As you are
generally a poor reporter, I'll drop the second shoe for others: Hecht
does cover them.

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
proves my point adequately (your fumbling with patch-work proofs like
bracing the SQRT with absolutes is funny only once however).

You deliberately trimmed the above to try to falsify
the meaning of my posting through innuendo.

Well, Hecht apparently didn't have to deal with nit-pickers
as exist on this newsgroup. If such had any importance at
all, I'm sure he would have mentioned it.

So, Hecht is rather limited is he? Absolutely nothing about Fresnel's
Equations, hmmm? Now that is shallow - but for who? As you are
generally a poor reporter, I'll drop the second shoe for others: Hecht
does cover them.

Richard, don't you think falsifying postings is getting a
little desparate? As you know, and as indicated by your
posting to which I was responding, the subject was which
square root to use in the irradiance equations, not Fresnel's
equations. I have honestly reproduced the thread above. You
have been caught red-handed cutting and editing in an attempt
to falsify the meaning of my posting. That's a violation of
netnews rules and probably a violation of your ISP's rules.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 02:44:04 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:01:53 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:16:23 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:
snip
There is absolutely no example of interference that does not rely on a
load to reveal it.

If what you just said is true, then how do you explain nulls in a radiation pattern of an antenna having more
than one radiator, for example two verticals spaced 1/4 wl and fed in quadrature, thus creating a cardioid
pattern with a total null in one direction in azimuth? If the null was not created by interference between the
radiations from the two verticals, then how do you explain the formation of the null?

I use a load. It is exactly like the internal resistance of a
internal resistance where the reflected energy is in phase with the
source. The load exhibits no current flow (a null). Shift the phase
180 and the internal resistance exhibits a dramatic current flow (a
lobe). The energies are there either way. Remove the internal
resistance and nothing conducts EVER. Clearly the internal resistance
(the load in this case) is what reveals interference, not the
energies. In free space they would pass like ships in the night.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, you are dodging the question again! You have not answered my question, 'how do you explain the
formation of the null in an antenna pattern' in the example I presented above?

Walt

Richard, are you avoiding answering my question because you don't want to admit that the null in an antenna
pattern results from interference between two coherent fields?

Walt

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:41:05 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

That's a violation of
netnews rules and probably a violation of your ISP's rules.

******* SPOILER FOLLOWS ************

A toothless cowboy outside his moderated day-job!

I suppose you itch to snip, delete, or otherwise discard posts like
another Texan by the name of Gonzales. Should we call you "Judge"
instead of Gabby?

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 16:43:01 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 02:44:04 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:01:53 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:16:23 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:
snip
There is absolutely no example of interference that does not rely on a
load to reveal it.

If what you just said is true, then how do you explain nulls in a radiation pattern of an antenna having more
than one radiator, for example two verticals spaced 1/4 wl and fed in quadrature, thus creating a cardioid
pattern with a total null in one direction in azimuth? If the null was not created by interference between the
radiations from the two verticals, then how do you explain the formation of the null?

I use a load. It is exactly like the internal resistance of a
internal resistance where the reflected energy is in phase with the
source. The load exhibits no current flow (a null). Shift the phase
180 and the internal resistance exhibits a dramatic current flow (a
lobe). The energies are there either way. Remove the internal
resistance and nothing conducts EVER. Clearly the internal resistance
(the load in this case) is what reveals interference, not the
energies. In free space they would pass like ships in the night.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, you are dodging the question again! You have not answered my question, 'how do you explain the
formation of the null in an antenna pattern' in the example I presented above?

Walt

Richard, are you avoiding answering my question because you don't want to admit that the null in an antenna
pattern results from interference between two coherent fields?

Walt

Richard, also consider an open-wire transmission line, equal and opposite currents flowing on each wire, and
no common-mode currents. There is zero radiation, because the opposing fields developed by the current flow
cancel. Are you denying that the zero radiation results from interferece?

Also, consider standing waves on on a line, resulting from the superposition of the forward and reflected
waves, where the maximum amplitude results from constructive interference and the minimum amplitude results
from destructive interference. Are you denying the existence of interference in this case?

Walt

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Richard, did you unethically edit my posting to make
it appear that I said something different from what
I said?

I suppose ...

OK, please don't do that anymore.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:43:27 -0700, Richard Clark wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 16:43:01 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

Richard, are you avoiding answering my question because you don't want to admit that the null in an antenna
pattern results from interference between two coherent fields?

Hi Walt,

Of course a null, or a peak, or any point in between results in the
interference (the combination of energy phases as power from separate
sources, or separate waves) found only in a load. I recall having
posted comments specifically to the issue of phase combination several
many times in as many days. I will do it several times more he

That same point in space without that load has absolutely no effect on
any energies that passes through it. Energies do not mix (combine) in
linear space; thus one energy can have no effect on other energies.
Any single energy is unperturbed by any other energies without that
load to offer a point of summation (the point of interference). That
unloaded point in space cannot support reflections or force any change
on any energy.

Interference is not the cessation of energy flow; it is not an
impediment to energy flow; it is not an redirection of energy flow; it
is not the amplification of energy flow; it is merely the passive
observation at a point of the summation in a load of all contributions
of energy flow. Further, the load may compound the redistribution of
energy flows (AKA directors or reflectors) becoming, as it were, a new
and separate source for a yet another remote load to combine new phase
relationships into a new null/peak/what-have-you. Remove the load,
and those products disappear.

Interference follows the load. Interference is caused by source
relationships developed at the load. Move ANY of these actors, and
the entire map of responsivity changes. All antenna graphical lobe
descriptions demonstrate this.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Allright, Richard, then where is the load when there are two vertical radiators spaced 1/4 wl and fed in
quadrature, such that their individual fields are omni-directional in azimuth, but when the two fields
combine, a maximum greater than either of the individual fields is propagated in one direction, while a null
results in the opposite direction, negating the propagation of the individual fields in the direction of the
null. What is your explanation of the negation of the propagation of the individual fields when both radiators
are radiating equal EM energy? Are you still denying that interference is not the cause of the modification of
the resultant fields? So I repeat the question--where is the load in this case?

Walt