"Waves of Average Power"
 

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
H. Adam Stevens wrote:
"coherent photons" It's a laser? Cool.

Surprise! Our $100 RF transmitters emit coherent photons just
like a $100,000 laser. Maybe we should call them RASERs. :-)
Do you remember MASERs?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"transmitters emit coherent photons "

Sure Cecil.

And the laser pointer I use was a bit less expensive.

MASER: Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

"The fundamental physical principle motivating the MASER is the concept of
stimulated emission, first introduced by Einstein in 1917. Before defining
it we look at two related but more familiar phenomena involving the
interplay between matter and radiation, absorption and spontaneous
emission."
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/maser.html

"MASER. In each frame, a molecule in the upper level of the MASER
transition (that is, in the high energy, excited state) is indicated by a
large red circle, while one in the lower level (low energy state) is
indicated by a small blue circle. (a) All of the molecules are in the
upper state and a photon of wavelength l (shown in green) is incident from
the left. (b) The photon l stimulates emission from the first molecule, so
there are now two photons of wavelength l, in phase. (c) These photons
stimulate emission from the next two molecules, resulting in four photons
of wavelength l. (d) The process continues with another doubling of the
number of photons."

Stimulated Emission of Radiation is a quantum mechanical effect that has
exactly zero to do with HF radio.
For microwaves we use molecules, for light we use atoms.

73
H.
NQ5H


"Waves of average nausea" is more like it.

Come to think of it.
Coherent photons at HF would make a remarkable (laser like?) antenna
pattern.

73

Roy
Love your product.

H.
NQ5H

"Waves of Average Power"
 

"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I see no other means this energy can be imparted other then via
electrons (ON AVERAGE) exchanging orbital states in the antenna copper
(etc.) atoms resulting in a release of this total energy per photon.
How can photons otherwise be manufactured by passing an analog
wavelike-field forcing function through another field?

Above you are referring to tight-binding electrons. But
Our RF antennas make use of *free electrons* which are
thought to exist in the outer orbits of conductors.
Instead of changing orbits within a single atom, these
free electrons jump from atom to atom and from groups
of atoms to other groups of atoms. When a free electron
emits a photon, it is not associated with an orbit
change and so is not quantized to any orbit change. The
photon is instead quantized to the frequency of the
energy source and is therefore coherent with that source
which is our RF transmitters.

Thanks! That does help me understand the effect much better. I was hung up
on the electrons jumping between the shells (s, p etc.) and I was having
problems with that because it dawned on me that the energy levels for the
tight binding electrons are associated with very specific quantum
energies, depending on the type of atom, so how could we produce any
desired frequency that we wanted? I considered that simultaneous "jumps"
of multiple electrons could produce quantum energies for any frequency we
wanted but that is too complicated and it is much more easily explained by
your free electron concept.


The wave function of free electrons is uniform over the conductor.
They may be found anywhere.

73
H.
NQ5H

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
As shown, the FSU demonstration is physically impossible. There is no
way for two plane waves to be trucking along independently and then
suddenly decide to interfere.

They do NOT "truck along and then suddenly decide to
interfere". Such nonsense is just a strawman presented
for the purpose of obfuscating the technical facts.

The two independent waves are generated at a physical
impedance discontinuity, the Z0-match point, and are
immediately canceled at that point. The energy in the
canceled waves is redistributed in the only other
direction possible in a one-dimensional transmission
line.

Exactly the same thing happens when the external
reflection is canceled by the internal reflection
at a non-reflective 1/4WL thin-film coating on
glass. Quoting the Melles Groit web page:

"In the absence of absorption or scatter, the principle
of conservation of energy indicates all 'lost' reflected
intensity will appear as enhanced intensity in the
transmitted beam."

i.e. the energy re-reflected at the Z0-match joins the
forward wave toward the load. The conservation of energy
principle will not allow any other result. Dr. Best's
phantom waves continuing to flow toward the source with
zero energy is just a wet dream.

Nice. So you don't really want to refer to the FSU page at all. Why
bring it up? The topic was about free space interference and had nothing
to do with match points.

Same ol' Cecil; try to sneak in some irrelevancy and then get agitated
when you are called on it.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Nice. So you don't really want to refer to the FSU page at all. Why
bring it up? The topic was about free space interference and had nothing
to do with match points.

As much as you like to deny it, Gene, EM waves *are*
EM waves, no matter where they are.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

They [waves] do NOT "truck along and then suddenly decide to
interfere".

Nor do they interfere and then suddenly decide to truck along in a
different direction.

73, ac6xg

"Waves of Average Power"
 

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote in message
...

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
H. Adam Stevens wrote:
"coherent photons" It's a laser? Cool.

Surprise! Our $100 RF transmitters emit coherent photons just
like a $100,000 laser. Maybe we should call them RASERs. :-)
Do you remember MASERs?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"transmitters emit coherent photons "

Sure Cecil.

And the laser pointer I use was a bit less expensive.

MASER: Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

"The fundamental physical principle motivating the MASER is the concept
of stimulated emission, first introduced by Einstein in 1917. Before
defining it we look at two related but more familiar phenomena involving
the interplay between matter and radiation, absorption and spontaneous
emission."
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/maser.html

"MASER. In each frame, a molecule in the upper level of the MASER
transition (that is, in the high energy, excited state) is indicated by a
large red circle, while one in the lower level (low energy state) is
indicated by a small blue circle. (a) All of the molecules are in the
upper state and a photon of wavelength l (shown in green) is incident
from the left. (b) The photon l stimulates emission from the first
molecule, so there are now two photons of wavelength l, in phase. (c)
These photons stimulate emission from the next two molecules, resulting
in four photons of wavelength l. (d) The process continues with another
doubling of the number of photons."

Stimulated Emission of Radiation is a quantum mechanical effect that has
exactly zero to do with HF radio.
For microwaves we use molecules, for light we use atoms.

73
H.
NQ5H


"Waves of average nausea" is more like it.

Come to think of it.
Coherent photons at HF would make a remarkable (laser like?) antenna
pattern.

73

Roy
Love your product.

H.
NQ5H



just because a source of photons is coherent doesn't mean the photons are
collimated.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
They [waves] do NOT "truck along and then suddenly decide to
interfere".

Nor do they interfere and then suddenly decide to truck along in a
different direction.

I hope we can agree that EM waves do not have
the ability to decide to do anything - that they
must obey the laws of physics, some of which humans
may have not yet discovered.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Dave wrote:
just because a source of photons is coherent doesn't mean the photons are
collimated.

One of the requirements of wave cancellation is
collimation and it happens automatically within
a coaxial transmission line. A laser beam is
also relatively easy to collimate. Because of
that, it makes a good example source for a
1/4WL thin-film anti-reflective coating.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Nor do they interfere and then suddenly decide to truck along in a
different direction.

But during wave cancellation, as described by the Melles-Groit
and FSU web pages, the conservation of energy principle leaves
them no choice but that their energy be redistributed in a
different direction toward which constructive interference
can occur.

www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm

"Clearly, if the wavelength of the incident light and the thickness
of the film are such that a phase difference exists between reflections
of p, then reflected wavefronts interfere destructively, and overall
reflected intensity is a minimum. If the two reflections are of equal
amplitude, then this amplitude (and hence intensity) minimum will be
zero." (Referring to 1/4 wavelength thin films.)

"In the absence of absorption or scatter, the principle of conservation
of energy indicates all 'lost' reflected intensity will appear as
enhanced intensity in the transmitted beam."

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html

"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are
180-degrees ... out of phase with each other meet, they are not actually
annihilated, ... All of the photon energy present in these waves must
somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to
the law of energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons
are redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference, so
the effect should be considered as a redistribution of light waves and
photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction of
light."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Nor do they interfere and then suddenly decide to truck along in a
different direction.


But during wave cancellation, as described by the Melles-Groit
and FSU web pages, the conservation of energy principle leaves
them no choice but that their energy be redistributed in a
different direction toward which constructive interference
can occur.

How energy redistribution is described on those web sites in not a
matter of contention.

73, ac6xg

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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:

Suppose you have beams from two identical coherent lasers which, by a
system of (presumably partially reflective and partially transmissive)
mirrors, are made to shine in exactly the same direction from the same
point (which I'll call the "summing point"). Further, suppose that the
paths from the two lasers to this summing point differ by an odd number
of half wavelengths. So beyond the summing point, where the laser beams
exactly overlie each other, there is no beam because the two exactly
cancel. Or, in other words, the sum of the two superposed fields is
zero. The recurring argument is that because each laser is producing
energy and yet there is no net field and therefore no energy in the
summed beams, something strange has happened at the summing point (or
"virtual short circuit"), and creative explanations are necessary to
account for the "missing energy". One such proposed explanation is that
the mere meeting of the two beams is the cause of some kind of a
reflection of energy, and that each wave somehow detects and interacts
with the other.

Well, here's what I think. I think that no one will be able to draw a
diagram of such a summing system which doesn't also produce, due solely
to the reflection and transmission of the mirrors, a beam or beams
containing exactly the amount of energy "missing" from the summed beam.
No interaction(*) of the two beams at or beyond the summing point is
necessary to account for the "missing" energy -- you'll find it all at
other places in the system. Just as you do in a phased antenna array,
where the regions of cancelled field are always accompanied by
complementary regions of reinforced field. Somewhere, in some bounce
from a mirror or pass through it, the beams will end up reinforcing each
other is some other direction. My challenge is this: Sketch a system
which will produce this summation of out-of-phase beams, showing the
reflectivity and transmissivity of each mirror, and showing the beams
and their phases going in all directions from the interactions from each
mirror. Then show that simple interaction of the beams with the mirrors
is insufficient to account for the final distribution of energy.

Next, do the same for a transmission line. Show how two coherent
traveling waves can be produced which will propagate together in the
same direction but out of phase with each other, resulting in a net zero
field at all points beyond some summing point. But also calculate the
field from waves reflected at the summing point and elsewhere in the
system due to simple impedance changes. Show that this simple analysis,
assuming no interaction between the traveling waves, is insufficient to
account for all the energy. A single case will do.

Until someone is able to do this, I'll stand firm with the unanimous
findings of countless mathematical and practical analyses which show
superposition of and no interaction between waves or fields in a linear
medium.

(*) By "interaction" I mean that one beam or wave has an effect on the
other, altering it in some way -- for example, causing it to change
amplitude, phase, orientation, or direction. I'm not including
superposition, that is the fact that the net field of the two waves is
the sum of the two, in the meaning of "interaction".

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

As far as I know, nobody has been able to do this. But I see that hasn't
done anything to dampen Cecil's claims. Apparently having waves be able
to detect other waves and bounce off of them when need be is necessary
in order to get some other creative theories to work out. So I can
understand why it's hard to let go of such a compelling idea.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
As far as I know, nobody has been able to do this.

Good grief - the *interaction* between two waves that causes
wave cancellation is what makes non-reflective glass work
and has been described tens of times on this newsgroup. Here
it is again:

www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm

"Clearly, if the wavelength of the incident light and the thickness of
the film are such that a phase difference exists between reflections of
p, then reflected wavefronts interfere destructively, and overall
reflected intensity is a minimum. If the two reflections are of equal
amplitude, then this amplitude (and hence intensity) minimum will be
zero." (Referring to 1/4 wavelength thin films.)

"In the absence of absorption or scatter, the principle of conservation
of energy indicates all 'lost' reflected intensity will appear as
enhanced intensity in the transmitted beam. The sum of the reflected and
transmitted beam intensities is always equal to the incident intensity.
This important fact has been confirmed experimentally."

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html

"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are
180-degrees ... out of phase with each other meet, they are not actually
annihilated, ... All of the photon energy present in these waves must
somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to
the law of energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons
are redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference, so
the effect should be considered as a redistribution of light waves and
photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction of
light."

Two waves interact and their combined energy is redistributed in a
new direction. In a transmission line, the two waves of equal amplitude
and opposite phase cease to exist in one direction. Their energy is
redistributed in the only other direction possible, i.e. the opposite
direction. The conservation of energy principle will allow nothing else.
If reflected energy stops flowing in one direction at a Z0-match in a
transmission line, it must flow in the only other direction possible.

Superposition does not always result in interference but sometimes
it does. Interference does not always result in wave cancellation
but sometimes it does. Wave cancellation is a subset of interference.
One wave cannot be canceled. It takes the interaction of two waves
in order to cancel both and the energy has to go somewhere.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Christopher Cox wrote:
There's always heat....

I suspect the heat generated at the surface of non-reflective
glass is negligible.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On Nov 1, 8:51 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Good grief - the *interaction* between two waves that causes
wave cancellation is what makes non-reflective glass work

Ah, very interesting. So you're saying that the "non-reflective
glass" is a non-linear medium, then. I'm very happy to have learned
that little tidbit. Thank you.

Cheers,
Tom

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:

My challenge is this: Sketch a system
which will produce this summation of out-of-phase beams, showing the
reflectivity and transmissivity of each mirror, and showing the beams
and their phases going in all directions from the interactions from each
mirror. Then show that simple interaction of the beams with the mirrors
is insufficient to account for the final distribution of energy.

That is the crux of the issue. The problem as I see it Roy, is that a
very well respected (and deservedly so) member of the group has
written an otherwise excellent book in which it is proposed that
reflectivity is dependent to an extraordinarily large extent upon the
way reflective surfaces are irradiated. And further, that these
surfaces can change from being partially reflective in both directions
to being 100% reflective in one direction and totally non-reflective
in the other dependent upon the relative phase of waves impinging upon
the surface. I believe that, to a large extent, it is from this idea
that the whimsical explanations may have derived.

73, ac6xg

"Waves of Average Power"
 

K7ITM wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Good grief - the *interaction* between two waves that causes
wave cancellation is what makes non-reflective glass work

Ah, very interesting. So you're saying that the "non-reflective
glass" is a non-linear medium, then.

I am saying no such thing!

If there were anything non-linear about wave cancellation
the result would be harmonic generation but we know that
no harmonics are generated by the *linear* phasor addition
of two coherent sine waves of equal amplitude and opposite
phase collinear in the same direction. In a transmission line,
the energy involved in wave cancellation of two coherent waves
is "redistributed to regions that permit constructive
interference" (per the FSU web page). In a transmission
line, only one other direction is available for the
"redistribution of energy", i.e. the direction opposite from
the direction of the canceled waves, and the resultant
redistributed energy wave continues to be coherent with the
original two canceled waves. There is no non-linearity!

If two waves traveling in one direction in a transmission
line are canceled, their energy cannot continue in the
same direction and that energy cannot be destroyed. Since
there are only two directions available in a transmission
line, it is a no-brainer to figure out which direction the
energy goes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
That is the crux of the issue. The problem as I see it Roy, is that a
very well respected (and deservedly so) member of the group has written
an otherwise excellent book in which it is proposed that reflectivity is
dependent to an extraordinarily large extent upon the way reflective
surfaces are irradiated. And further, that these surfaces can change
from being partially reflective in both directions to being 100%
reflective in one direction and totally non-reflective in the other
dependent upon the relative phase of waves impinging upon the surface.
I believe that, to a large extent, it is from this idea that the
whimsical explanations may have derived.

I agree 100% with the above. Given the surfaces, they
cannot change from being partially reflective. Reflections
from those surfaces are fixed by the *physical* mediums
chosen which result in a fixed *physical* reflection
coefficient. Any reflection coefficient that deviates
from the *physical* reflection coefficient is a
virtual result and is not needed. The virtual reflection
coefficient looking forward into a Z0-match is 0.0.
The virtual reflection coefficient looking backward
into a Z0-match is 1.0. That is the crux of the
problem. Neither one of those virtual reflection
coefficients bare any relationship to *physical*
reality. They are the resulting artifacts of the model
being used and not causes of anything. Virtual reflection
coefficients cannot cause anything. Virtual impedances
cannot cause anything.

I am preparing a picture that hopefully will be worth
a thousands words. I'll try to have it posted to my
web page by tomorrow.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

The virtual reflection
coefficient looking forward into a Z0-match is 0.0.
The virtual reflection coefficient looking backward
into a Z0-match is 1.0. That is the crux of the
problem. Neither one of those virtual reflection
coefficients bare any relationship to *physical*
reality. They are the resulting artifacts of the model
being used and not causes of anything. Virtual reflection
coefficients cannot cause anything. Virtual impedances
cannot cause anything.

You've just dismissed the only plausible mathematical support for your
theory, Cecil.

I am preparing a picture that hopefully will be worth
a thousands words.

There are far too few such pictures in the world in my opinion.

I'll try to have it posted to my
web page by tomorrow.

Thanks. I am interested in seeing it.

73, ac6xg

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
You've just dismissed the only plausible mathematical support for your
theory, Cecil.

That just proves that you do not understand it
(and never have).

It is the many reflections from the *physical*
impedance discontinuity with its physical-based
reflection coefficient during the transient state
that add up to the final steady-state result. No
reflection coefficients are required besides the
original single fixed physical reflection coefficient.

The first transient internal reflection reduces the
magnitude of the external reflection an amount predicted
by the irradiance/interference equation. The same thing
happens for subsequent transient internal reflections.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On Nov 2, 12:24 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Good grief - the *interaction* between two waves that causes
wave cancellation is what makes non-reflective glass work

Ah, very interesting. So you're saying that the "non-reflective
glass" is a non-linear medium, then.

I am saying no such thing!


Ah, so then you're saying that there is not any actual interaction,
only summation in the normal way. Thank you for that clarification.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

K7ITM wrote:
Ah, so then you're saying that there is not any actual interaction,
only summation in the normal way. Thank you for that clarification.

If you want to argue technical points, please stop
the obvious mind fornicating techniques. There is
actual interaction, i.e. permanent wave cancellation.
Do you know of any way to achieve permanent wave
cancellation without any interaction between the
waves?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I am preparing a picture that hopefully will be worth
a thousands words.

There are far too few such pictures in the world in my opinion.

I'll try to have it posted to my
web page by tomorrow.

Thanks. I am interested in seeing it.

OK, the graphic is at http://www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.gif
It is the beginning of the transient state. The drawing
is offset for illustration purposes but assume the laser
beam and all the reflections are collinear.

There are times associated with events:
t0 is when the laser is turned on
t1 is when the laser beam first reaches the thinfilm
and the external reflection takes place
t3 is when the first internal reflection reaches the
thinfilm

Questions: What is the power reflected toward the source
between t3 and t5? What happened to the 0.01 watt of
external reflection? How did the reflected power decrease
unless there was partial wave cancellation? What is the
steady-state reflected power toward the source?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On Nov 2, 3:58 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Do you know of any way to achieve wave
cancellation without any interaction between the
waves?

It's called "vector addition," not "interaction." But you already
clarified that, so I don't know why you are going on about it.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

If individual photons interefere with one another, why is the antenna
pattern independent of power?
More specifically, one gets the same pattern if photons are emitted one at a
time.

In fact, when photons are coherent (MASER, LASER), the appropriate term is
hologram.

I would love to have coherent photons at HF.
Infinite F/B and a beamwidth of zero.

73
H.
NQ5H


PS
Roy
Love your product.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

K7ITM wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:58 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Do you know of any way to achieve wave
cancellation without any interaction between the
waves?

It's called "vector addition," not "interaction." But you already
clarified that, so I don't know why you are going on about it.

Vector (phasor) addition is necessary but *not sufficient*
for wave cancellation to occur. For wave cancellation to
occur, the two waves must be coherent, equal in magnitude,
opposite in phase, and *collinear* in the same direction.
Vector (or phasor) addition can occur with or without
"interaction". Wave cancellation cannot occur without
"interaction" between the two waves.

If the two interfering coherent waves survive the interference,
they did not "interact" probably because they were not collinear.
If the two interfering waves do not survive the interference,
they interacted, were canceled, and their energy was "redistributed
to regions that permit constructive interference" as described on
the FSU web page.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

H. Adam Stevens wrote:
I would love to have coherent photons at HF.

The feedpoint impedance of a standing-wave antenna (like a
dipole) is (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref). Since the Z0 of a dipole
wire is in the ballpark of 600 ohms, the interference that
results in a feedpoint impedance of 72 ohms proves the
photons are coherent.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Cecil flunked E&M in kindergarten.




"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
K7ITM wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:58 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Do you know of any way to achieve wave
cancellation without any interaction between the
waves?

It's called "vector addition," not "interaction." But you already
clarified that, so I don't know why you are going on about it.

Vector (phasor) addition is necessary but *not sufficient*
for wave cancellation to occur. For wave cancellation to
occur, the two waves must be coherent, equal in magnitude,
opposite in phase, and *collinear* in the same direction.
Vector (or phasor) addition can occur with or without
"interaction". Wave cancellation cannot occur without
"interaction" between the two waves.

If the two interfering coherent waves survive the interference,
they did not "interact" probably because they were not collinear.
If the two interfering waves do not survive the interference,
they interacted, were canceled, and their energy was "redistributed
to regions that permit constructive interference" as described on
the FSU web page.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 3 Nov, 05:41, Cecil Moore wrote:
H. Adam Stevens wrote:
I would love to have coherent photons at HF.

The feedpoint impedance of a standing-wave antenna (like a
dipole) is (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref). Since the Z0 of a dipole
wire is in the ballpark of 600 ohms, the interference that
results in a feedpoint impedance of 72 ohms proves the
photons are coherent.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
Gentlemen
You guys are really screwed up with respect to radiation
A radiator has three components, capacitance, inductance and
resistance
where Maxwell states thatthe RC ratio is a constant for the material
and frequency.
All of these three components store energy in diffent forms. Now the
capacitor
stores static energy via static electrons and there is no getting away
from that.
Maxwells laws state that the LC ratio must be kept for the model used
and we
know that the expellation of energy with velocity is only by the
capacitor
and the inductance acting asd a tank circuit. We also know that a
diagmagnet
material is a radiator that has bound electrons in orbit around the
atom but it is also
one of the few materials that allow free static electons to rest upon
its surface.
Now you take it from there. A wavelength radiator with free electons
resting on its surface
and subject to two high velocity energy release explosions per one
cycle.
Now where in the heck do "protons"come into play when we are forcing
static
electrons off of the surface of a radiator by overcoming its inertia?

Another point Using Gauss's law of statics we use only static
particles in a field.
There is no reason why we cannot add to the field a resonant length of
a radiator
as long as it doesn't upset the equilibrium inside the field.
(This arbitary border system is used widely in many areas of
matematics)
You can then add to the model a time varying factor which duplicates
Maxwell's equations and solve by a Maxwell derived computor program
which
allows one to deduce that a radiator can be any shape or size or
configuration
as long as it is in equilibrium inside
the Gaussian field.
Again we see a instance of radiation where the static particle or
electron
is the main subject of radiation. Again no reference to protons!
Look up google regarding atomic explosions where it is stated that
electrons
impinged on the Hawii electrical system and crashed it. Electrons
were
ejected thru the atmosphere, again with no mention of protons.
Why O why do hams try to make things difficult? I defy anybody
to finding things to the contrary with respect to mathematics
other than just hand waving so what is ham radios problem?
Art Unwin.....KB9MZ...XG

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On Nov 2, 9:54 pm, K7ITM wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:58 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Do you know of any way to achieve wave
cancellation without any interaction between the
waves?

It's called "vector addition," not "interaction." But you already
clarified that, so I don't know why you are going on about it.

A bit more on the lack of "interaction" between two waves...

Consider two electromagnetic (EM) waves, originating from two distinct
sources, that share some common volume of space*. If you wish,
consider only a very narrow portion of each wave, so they might be
called "beams" much as you'd get from a laser pointer. Consider where
these beams cross each other at right angles. There is no
"interaction." The beams do not bump into each other and scatter off
in different directions as billiard balls or as streams of water would
do. The net instantaneous field strength at each point in space, for
both the electric and the magnetic field, is simply the sum of the
components from each wave. It's a vector sum, because each component
has a magnitude and a direction in space. Beyond the point of
crossing, each beam is present exactly as it would be had the other
beam not been there. At least, that is what I observe; perhaps I'm
not observing closely enough. Perhaps there is some interaction that
affects the beams in a way that I could measure if only I were
measuring with enough resolution; but sensibly there is no effect on
one beam from the presence of the other. The beams may be identically
the same frequency in any relative phase, or may be different
frequencies, or may be a complex assortment of frequencies. One could
be visible light and the other a 20kHz radio wave. It wouldn't
matter; there is still no observable effect on one beam from the
presence or absence of the other.

If I then consider beams which cross at other angles, I observe the
same (lack of) effect, one on the other. My representation of the net
field as a simple vector sum of the instantaneous fields from each
beam, for each point over all space, for each instant in time, still
accurately describes the situation.

In fact, if the beams are identical frequencies and exactly aligned in
the direction of propagation, what I observe still conforms exactly to
the description where the beams crossed; the net field at every point
in space for every instant in time is the vector sum of the fields of
the component waves. I didn't have to invent any new math to describe
the situation. To the extent that there was no interaction in the
first case considered, with crossing beams, there is also no
interaction in the case of beams exactly aligned. Nothing magical
happens, and no new concept needs to be introduced for this case.

We may indeed need to introduce new concepts if we discover that, at
high enough amplitudes or with careful enough observation, there
really is an interaction and our model of simply adding vector fields
is not sufficient. But I fail to see the need to do that in the
situation described here.

It is no "mind game"--it is an IMPORTANT concept that the fields do
not "interact;" they simply sum. There is NOTHING NEW required to
consider the case where the beams HAPPEN TO BE identical amplitudes
and exactly out of phase at every point in time and space in some
particular region.

*In all of the above, I have considered that the waves are travelling
through space containing nothing but electromagnetic waves; there are
no free electrons or ionizable molecules in this region. My
observations lead me to believe that such space is a linear medium.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

H. Adam Stevens wrote:
Cecil flunked E&M in kindergarten.

How about a technical rebuttal instead of an
ad hominem attack? Take a look at the graphic
on my web page and tell me what happens when
the first internal reflection encounters the
external reflection at t3.

http://www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.gif
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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,

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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