Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7 Apr 2007 08:55:58 -0700, "Keith Dysart" wrote:
If the waves are mutually incoherent, there is NO interference which means no effect on each other. Constructive and destructive interference is impossible between two mutually incoherent waves (under ordinary experimental conditions). By "NO interference" did you mean "sufficiently close to zero that it can be ignored for engineering purposes", or "exactly zero"? Hi Keith, Your question of parsing "NO" reveals one of those binary shifts in an otherwise analog word that has me puzzled too. There is also the amusing "mutually incoherent" redundancy. Aside from these sophisms, there is a conceptual, quixotic tilting at windmills in the phrase: no effect on each other as if waves ever affected each other (irrespective of coherence - mutuality notwithstanding). If the past is an indicator of future activity, this topic is about to split into other discussion with a desperate attempt to appear to be answering for these strange theses. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard Clark wrote:
There is also the amusing "mutually incoherent" redundancy. Not my words, Richard - they are straight from Born and Wolf. Do you really think Born and Wolf would engage in "redundancy" if it were meaningless. Suggest that you learn the difference between mutually inclusive and mutually exclusive. Aside from these sophisms, there is a conceptual, quixotic tilting at windmills in the phrase: no effect on each other as if waves ever affected each other (irrespective of coherence - mutuality notwithstanding). Coherent waves can and do affect each other. It's called interference where the sum of the intensities is different from the intensity of the sums. Incidentally, the intensity of the sums is the mistake you made when you calculated the reflection from non-reflective glass to be brighter than the surface of the sun. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
Incidentally, the intensity of the sums ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the mistake you made when you calculated the reflection from non-reflective glass to be brighter than the surface of the sun. Sorry, that should be the "sum of the intensities". The intensity of the sums is the way to correctly calculate total intensity. The sum of the intensities yields an incorrect answer as Richard earlier discovered with his "reflections brighter than the surface of the sun" calculation. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:48:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: There is also the amusing "mutually incoherent" redundancy. Not my words, Richard - they are straight from Born and Wolf. Do you really think Born and Wolf would engage in "redundancy" if it were meaningless. Poor language is not excused by example. Being meaningless I leave to your interpretations, however. This only reveal two incidents that are amusements. Are you sleeping with Born and Wolf now? |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard Clark wrote:
Poor language is not excused by example. Being meaningless I leave to your interpretations, however. You seem to have missed (Born and Wolf)'s point. Between coherent and mutually incoherent is a span of signals which they call partially incoherent. There are degrees of incoherency as can be seen from your postings. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:59:03 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Between coherent and mutually incoherent is a span of signals which they call partially incoherent. As Reggie would say "BAFFLEGAB!" |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 7, 7:31 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:59:03 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: Between coherent and mutually incoherent is a span of signals which they call partially incoherent. That should have been "partially coherent". As Reggie would say "BAFFLEGAB!" Don't blame me - blame Born and Wolf - whom a lot of people respect. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 7, 11:45 pm, "Cecil Moore" wrote:
On Apr 7, 7:31 pm, Richard Clark wrote: On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:59:03 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: Between coherent and mutually incoherent is a span of signals which they call partially incoherent. That should have been "partially coherent". As Reggie would say "BAFFLEGAB!" Don't blame me - blame Born and Wolf - whom a lot of people respect. Do Born and Wolf offer crisp definitions of the boundaries between coherent, partially coherent, and mutually incoherent? Or is it a continuum arbitrarily divided into 3 regions for the purposes of discussion? ....Keith |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Interference | Shortwave | |||
Interference | Shortwave | |||
BPL interference | Shortwave | |||
FM Interference when the sun comes up | Broadcasting | |||
Interference | Shortwave |