K7ITM wrote:
At least, that is what I observe; perhaps I'm
not observing closely enough. ... but sensibly there is no effect on
one beam from the presence of the other.

It is obviously difficult to get two light beams
traveling in a collinear path. That's the reason
you have not observed wave interaction. If it
were possible to get two coherent laser beams
of light traveling in exactly the same path in
the same direction, what would be the result?

Two coherent beams of laser light of equal amplitude
and opposite phase traveling forever in exactly the
same path. What would happen under those ideal
conditions?

Getting waves collinear in a transmission line is
easy.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Guess it's time to re-post a posting I made on this newsgroup on April
9. Here it is:

-----------------------------

I'd vowed that I wouldn't hit this tarbaby yet again. But here I go.

Among the junk science being bandied about here is the following
supposition:
snip

Hello, Roy, and all. No disrespect intended to my fellow hams but some
posts on this ng begin with something about antennas or related devices
and stray off to neverland. I think we should be discussing classic and
novel antenna designs appropos to ham radio (especially ones that don't
require violating electromagnetic theory to operate ;-). To those that
want to discuss the theoretical aspects of electromagnetics there are
appropriate usenet venues (e.g. sci.physics.electromagnetics) for that
purpose.

There seem to be a few folks out there these days that think some
unknown principle(s) in electromagnetics has gone undiscovered (think
CFA). Electromagnetics is a mature science (theory is well
characterized mathematically and validated through experiment.) It is up
to those making these "new" claims to provide the experimental evidence
(especially if the applied mathematics appear to be violated). My .02
worth. Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

J.B. Wood wrote:
It is up
to those making these "new" claims to provide the experimental evidence
(especially if the applied mathematics appear to be violated).

Don't know exactly to whom you are referring but my
position is not new and relies upon simple physics
that has been understood for a century, at least in
the field of optics.

For some reason, most posters to this newsgroup
are ignorant of EM wave cancellation due to interaction
between two coherent collinear waves.

I have posted a graphic at:

http:www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.gif

It has been 48 hours since I posted it and none of
the newsgroup gurus have answered the question: What
happens to the reflections toward the source between
t2 and t4 when the first internal reflection arrives?
It's a simple question. One wonders, why the complete
lack of any technical response. Seems the only responses
to this posting will be ad hominem, as usual.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
J.B. Wood wrote:
It is up to those making these "new" claims to provide the
experimental evidence (especially if the applied mathematics appear to
be violated).

Don't know exactly to whom you are referring but my
position is not new and relies upon simple physics
that has been understood for a century, at least in
the field of optics.

For some reason, most posters to this newsgroup
are ignorant of EM wave cancellation due to interaction
between two coherent collinear waves.

I have posted a graphic at:

http:www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.gif

It has been 48 hours since I posted it and none of
the newsgroup gurus have answered the question: What
happens to the reflections toward the source between
t2 and t4 when the first internal reflection arrives?
It's a simple question. One wonders, why the complete
lack of any technical response. Seems the only responses
to this posting will be ad hominem, as usual.

If you gave a technically relevant argument, Cecil, you might
get a technical answer in reply. Actually, the reason you have
trouble getting people to argue with you is that everyone with even
half a brain has already plonked you. Anyway, Tom (the intelligent Tom)
had it right: it can all be explained neatly by superposition. There's
no reason to make up any crackpot theories, or magical, mystical
stories. It was all understood long before you were born.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"J.B. Wood" wrote in message
...
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Guess it's time to re-post a posting I made on this newsgroup on April 9.
Here it is:

-----------------------------

I'd vowed that I wouldn't hit this tarbaby yet again. But here I go.

Among the junk science being bandied about here is the following
supposition:
snip
Hello, Roy, and all. No disrespect intended to my fellow hams but some
posts on this ng begin with something about antennas or related devices
and stray off to neverland. I think we should be discussing classic and
novel antenna designs appropos to ham radio (especially ones that don't
require violating electromagnetic theory to operate ;-). To those that
want to discuss the theoretical aspects of electromagnetics there are
appropriate usenet venues (e.g. sci.physics.electromagnetics) for that
purpose.

There seem to be a few folks out there these days that think some unknown
principle(s) in electromagnetics has gone undiscovered (think CFA).
Electromagnetics is a mature science (theory is well characterized
mathematically and validated through experiment.) It is up to those making
these "new" claims to provide the experimental evidence (especially if the
applied mathematics appear to be violated). My .02 worth. Sincerely, and
73s from N4GGO,

Aha. Maybe you can answer this question: Do you agree that a series of
ground radials for a vertical antenna is a true "ground" in the sense that a
1/4 wave antenna radiator is "grounded"? Or do you believe that the only
true ground for a 1/4 wave antenna radiator is true earth ground (or as
close to that as you can get).

I vote that the radial system is nothing more than a tuned counterpoise.
Only a true earth ground produces the mathematical "image" from the other
"half" of the 1/4 wave antenna for any frequency. The radial system actually
radiates as an antenna element and that gives the perception that the radial
system is acting as true "ground" (but only at a specific frequency).

This should be a simple, classic antenna question of the type you suggest
for this ng, e.g. settled science, yet no one seems to have a definitive
answer.



And why should anyone give a tinker's damn whether a ground is true or
false if the result is the same? Making artificial distinctions is a
waste of time.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Nov 4, 1:07 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
J.B. Wood wrote:
It is up
to those making these "new" claims to provide the experimental evidence
(especially if the applied mathematics appear to be violated).

Don't know exactly to whom you are referring but my
position is not new and relies upon simple physics
that has been understood for a century, at least in
the field of optics.

For some reason, most posters to this newsgroup
are ignorant of EM wave cancellation due to interaction
between two coherent collinear waves.

I have posted a graphic at:

http:www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.gif

It has been 48 hours since I posted it and none of
the newsgroup gurus have answered the question: What
happens to the reflections toward the source between
t2 and t4 when the first internal reflection arrives?
It's a simple question. One wonders, why the complete
lack of any technical response. Seems the only responses
to this posting will be ad hominem, as usual.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Perhaps the reason, Cecil, is because it's too simple. Perhaps it's
BORING. Perhaps it's beating a dead horse. You're welcome to call it
"interaction" if you wish; you're welcome to make it out to be more
complex than it needs to be. But don't be expecting me to be using
the word "interaction" for the case of simple vector addition in a
linear system.

K7ITM wrote:
Perhaps the reason, Cecil, is because it's too simple. Perhaps it's
BORING. Perhaps it's beating a dead horse. You're welcome to call it
"interaction" if you wish; you're welcome to make it out to be more
complex than it needs to be. But don't be expecting me to be using
the word "interaction" for the case of simple vector addition in a
linear system.

I had this same conversation with Dr. Best years ago. He
said that the canceled waves continued to travel in a
straight line with zero associated energy. It sounds
to me like you support that same notion. If not, please
explain your position.

Undetectable phantom waves containing zero energy are
NOT simple. They are absolutely magical. How can waves
exist without energy?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Tom Donaly wrote:
There's
no reason to make up any crackpot theories, or magical, mystical
stories.

Actually Tom, waves that are not canceled and continue
to exist forever without energy is the magical side
of the argument. My side of the argument says that
waves whose energy goes in some direction other than
the original direction have ceased to exist. Would
you please explain how your non-canceled waves
continue to exist without energy?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 4 Nov, 12:08, "J.B. Wood" wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Guess it's time to re-post a posting I made on this newsgroup on April
9. Here it is:

-----------------------------

I'd vowed that I wouldn't hit this tarbaby yet again. But here I go.

Among the junk science being bandied about here is the following
supposition:
snip

Hello, Roy, and all. No disrespect intended to my fellow hams but some
posts on this ng begin with something about antennas or related devices
and stray off to neverland. I think we should be discussing classic and
novel antenna designs appropos to ham radio (especially ones that don't
require violating electromagnetic theory to operate ;-). To those that
want to discuss the theoretical aspects of electromagnetics there are
appropriate usenet venues (e.g. sci.physics.electromagnetics) for that
purpose.

There seem to be a few folks out there these days that think some
unknown principle(s) in electromagnetics has gone undiscovered (think
CFA). Electromagnetics is a mature science (theory is well
characterized mathematically and validated through experiment.) It is up
to those making these "new" claims to provide the experimental evidence
(especially if the applied mathematics appear to be violated). My .02
worth. Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

What a novel but insane idea!
Ham radio today has determined that all is known about antennas and wo
betide
any body who tries to venture forward with some thing new. If
something new
is to be able to penetrate these barriers he must have commercial or
collegate
ties other wise they will be battered into the ground by hams. There
are very few people if any
in ham radio today who have the necessary mathematical skills to
review solid presentations
or the willingnes to subject himself to members of ham radio as it has
now dropped down to.
Read QST regarding mobile antennas of today and save it because the
comming
issues certainly will not improve on it and they certainly are not
interested in
antennas where all is already known.
Art

On 4 Nov, 17:02, Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Perhaps the reason, Cecil, is because it's too simple. Perhaps it's
BORING. Perhaps it's beating a dead horse. You're welcome to call it
"interaction" if you wish; you're welcome to make it out to be more
complex than it needs to be. But don't be expecting me to be using
the word "interaction" for the case of simple vector addition in a
linear system.

I had this same conversation with Dr. Best years ago. He
said that the canceled waves continued to travel in a
straight line with zero associated energy. It sounds
to me like you support that same notion. If not, please
explain your position.

Undetectable phantom waves containing zero energy are
NOT simple. They are absolutely magical. How can waves
exist without energy?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

What is it about these waves that is creating problems with antennas?
Are the problems specific to the southwest desert area and what
advancement
are you looking for when the discussion is resolved. Frankly, until
what constitute a" wave" which has three degrees of freedom is
defined
with respect to radio as well as its impact on communication, any
foray
into quantum mechanics would appear to be one of diminishing returns.
Unless ofcourse you are intending to write a follow up on
"Reflections"
and start the discussion about "standing waves" where old discussions
can be reprinted over and over again.
Nothing personal since you often present new ideas that are enjoyable
to read
even tho you still get hammered but the "wave" thing went out with the
tide a long time ago
and memories have grown dim as to what it is all about
Best regards
Art