"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

"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

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

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

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

"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.

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

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

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

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