Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:


I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I just went back
to look at the messages I sent over the past three months. I could not
find a single case where I called you any name at all, much less every
name in the book.

Here are some of your strictly technical terms for
me from just the past couple of weeks:

"Fractured Fairytale Physics"
"complete nonsense"
"truly sad"
"hoodwinked by the nonsense"
"trying to pull a fast one"
"such magic"
"no technical value"
"truly bizarre"
"utter nonsense"
"utter lie"
"baloney"
"sadly amusing"
"your tricks"

Not a single one of these is "name calling". I never once called you a
"guru" or "spoiled brat" or anything else. As someone so accustomed to
nit-picking, (oops, excuse me, I should have said so accustomed to
examining the fine details) I am sure you readily understand the difference.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
"Fractured Fairytale Physics"
"complete nonsense"
"truly sad"
"hoodwinked by the nonsense"
"trying to pull a fast one"
"such magic"
"no technical value"
"truly bizarre"
"utter nonsense"
"utter lie"
"baloney"
"sadly amusing"
"your tricks"

Not a single one of these is "name calling".

:-) You are a piece of work, Gene. According to you,
I am a nonsense peddler, a sad person, a hoodwinker,
a puller of fast ones, a peddler of magic, a liar, and
a tricky person. That sure sounds like name-calling
to me.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
There is little mystery about what happens *outside* the discontinuity.

There is no "inside" to an impedance discontinuity.
The plane is two dimensional. Everything that happens
at an impedance discontinuity is "outside" of that
plane. There is no place to hide the technical facts.


The irradiance equations work fine for detailing the external effects,
but they don't give any hint of what happens inside the interface.

There is no "inside" to a plane. There is no black box
into which you can sweep the technical facts.

Cecil,

You got it right. There is no "inside" to a plane. There is also nothing
that happens exactly in that "plane". The real world does not exist in a
"plane". You continue to use ordinary external models to try to
determine how the "in-plane" action really occurs. Waves go into the
interface (plane, discontinuity, whatever) and they come back out. There
is nothing in these ordinary wave models, including the optical
irradiance models, that tells exactly what goes on inside the interface.
Even the vaunted s-parameters don't say anything about what happens to
cause reflections or other properties. They only say what one would find
from measurements made external to the "black box". (Yes, that is a term
used by H-P in AN 95-1.) Of course those external measurements are
exactly what most people would care about, and that is the main reason
for creating s-parameter formulation in the first place.

What do you suppose your ol' pal Occam would say about a model that
requires waves to be created and then immediately canceled?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
"Fractured Fairytale Physics"
"complete nonsense"
"truly sad"
"hoodwinked by the nonsense"
"trying to pull a fast one"
"such magic"
"no technical value"
"truly bizarre"
"utter nonsense"
"utter lie"
"baloney"
"sadly amusing"
"your tricks"

Not a single one of these is "name calling".

:-) You are a piece of work, Gene. According to you,
I am a nonsense peddler, a sad person, a hoodwinker,
a puller of fast ones, a peddler of magic, a liar, and
a tricky person. That sure sounds like name-calling
to me.

Did you ever get subjected to sensitivity training at work? I was taught
to criticize the idea, never the person. "That is a poor idea", not,
"You are an idiot". Did you note that every one of your counter examples
required additional words not used by me?

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
You got it right. There is no "inside" to a plane. There is also nothing
that happens exactly in that "plane".

Conceptually, it happens exactly *at* that plane. For
instance, in the following example, a plane is drawn
through the connection points which can be made as
physically small as needed - certainly small enough that
nothing needs to be hidden inside a black box in order
to obfuscate the technical facts.

Plane
|
-----Z01-----+-----Z02-----
-----Z01-----+-----Z02-----
|

This is an example of a primitive one-dimensional
interferometer.

What do you suppose your ol' pal Occam would say about a model that
requires waves to be created and then immediately canceled?

He would ask you: "How can waves be canceled if they don't
exist in the first place? If they don't exist in the first
place, why are anti-reflective thin-film coatings ever
required?"

Optical physicists go to great lengths with expensive
interferometer equipment to cause the steady-state
creation and immediate cancellation of wavefronts.
It happens all the time as in the following example.

The following web page describes an interferometer that
creates wavefronts only to have them immediately canceled
at the standard output. It even captures the energy reflected
from those canceled wavefronts and routes it to the non-standard
output.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...eriments.shtml

"Using Dielectric Beamsplitters to find the "missing energy"
in destructive interference"

"Where is the energy of the light going in an interferometer
adjusted for destructive interference? Below is a schematic
diagram showing a way to detect the non-standard output of a
Michelson interferometer—the *light heading back* toward the
laser source. ... Quantitative detection demonstrates that the
standard and non-standard outputs of the interferometer are
complementary. That is, when interference is destructive at
the standard output, it is constructive at the non-standard
output."

What is it about interferometers that you don't understand?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Did you ever get subjected to sensitivity training at work? I was taught
to criticize the idea, never the person.

If you assert that a statement by a person is a lie,
you are calling that person a liar. Most likely, he
is not a liar but is merely mistaken. I have been and
will be mistaken again.

The fact that your "sensitivity training" taught you
a more politically correct method of calling a person
a liar is just one more way to create a diversion from
the technical subject matter.

I can just see you drinking at a bar in the old wild
west and trying to explain to an armed and angry
cowpoke that when you said what he uttered was a lie,
you weren't calling him a liar. :-)

I treat people the way they treat me, Gene. Cool your
ad hominem attacks and I won't have to retaliate.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves go into the interface (plane, discontinuity, whatever) and come
back out."

A conductive plane produces a reflection and a phase reversal.

Terman writes in his 1955 opus on page 92:
"(Transmission Line with Short-circuited load.) However, the reflection
now takes place with reversal in phase of the voltage without change in
the phase of the current. The result is that the current in each wave at
the load is half the load current, while the voltages in the two waves
add up at the load to a resultant of zero voltage as obviously required
across a short circuit."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:


What is it about interferometers that you don't understand?

Nothing at all.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Did you ever get subjected to sensitivity training at work? I was
taught to criticize the idea, never the person.

If you assert that a statement by a person is a lie,
you are calling that person a liar. Most likely, he
is not a liar but is merely mistaken. I have been and
will be mistaken again.

The fact that your "sensitivity training" taught you
a more politically correct method of calling a person
a liar is just one more way to create a diversion from
the technical subject matter.

I can just see you drinking at a bar in the old wild
west and trying to explain to an armed and angry
cowpoke that when you said what he uttered was a lie,
you weren't calling him a liar. :-)

I treat people the way they treat me, Gene. Cool your
ad hominem attacks and I won't have to retaliate.

Wanna count up who has called someone a liar more often in the past
year? I believe I have seen a couple from you just in the past 24 hours.

8-)

73
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
You got it right. There is no "inside" to a plane. There is also
nothing that happens exactly in that "plane".

Conceptually, it happens exactly *at* that plane. For
instance, in the following example, a plane is drawn
through the connection points which can be made as
physically small as needed - certainly small enough that
nothing needs to be hidden inside a black box in order
to obfuscate the technical facts.

I highly recommend the lengthy message just posted by Richard Clark. It
captures quite nicely what I have been merely hinting at. In summary,
"conceptually" simply doesn't cut it for resolving the fine details of
reflections. Nothing happens exactly *at* a plane in the real world. And
this is not just a "dx" or "dt" type issue. Real things happen over real
distances.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves go into the interface (plane, discontinuity, whatever) and come
back out."

A conductive plane produces a reflection and a phase reversal.

A plane drawn through the junction of two different
Z0 feedlines also produces a partial reflection.
The reflection coefficient at an impedance discontinuity
is (Z02-Z01)/(Z02+Z01).
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What is it about interferometers that you don't understand?

Nothing at all.

Well then, please explain why, in the interferometer
example, the energy rejected by the standard output
due to destructive interference, is intercepted on
its way back to the source and made available as
constructive interference at the non-standard output.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Wanna count up who has called someone a liar more often in the past
year? I believe I have seen a couple from you just in the past 24 hours.

A rose by any other name ... Someone said I believe in
conservation of power when he knows I don't. That makes
him a liar.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
I highly recommend the lengthy message just posted by Richard Clark.

Do you also agree with Richard C's earlier posting where
he asserted that the reflections from an anti-reflective
thin-film coating are brighter than the surface of the
sun? Do you believe the proof he presented in which he
blatantly superposed powers?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What is it about interferometers that you don't understand?

Nothing at all.

Well then, please explain why, in the interferometer
example, the energy rejected by the standard output
due to destructive interference, is intercepted on
its way back to the source and made available as
constructive interference at the non-standard output.

I presume by "interferometer example" you mean the experiment outlined
on the following web page.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...eriments.shtml

Is there some mystery here? The explanation is very straightforward. No
need for any philosophy, magic energy incantations, counter-balanced
construction and destruction, or special short-lived created and
immediately canceled waves. You can probably add as many of those
elements as you like, but Occam says it isn't necessary, and they add
nothing of substance.

Look carefully at the primary beam splitter in the center of the sketch.
Suppose that the "standard output" is at a constructive maximum. Part
of the light returning from MA1 is turned by the beam splitter toward
the standard output. That light does not undergo any phase shift at the
beam splitter, since in the configuration shown the reflection is
internal at the "far side" of the beam splitter. Part of the light
returning from MB1 travels directly through the beam splitter, and there
is no phase shift. The two light beams are in phase as they leave the
beam splitter heading toward the standard output. Constructive
interference happens. (The mirror positions are adjusted as needed to
achieve the maximum.)

What then happens to the portion of the light that heads back toward
auxiliary beam splitter near the source? (Remember, these are beam
*splitters*. I hope there is no question about why light might travel
back toward the source.) In this case part of the light returning from
MA1 travels directly through the primary beam splitter and it undergoes
no phase shift. Part of the light from MB1 is turned by the beam
splitter, and in this case there is a phase shift due to the external
reflection. In general this phase shift would be around 180 degrees. As
the web page points out, other shifts are possible, depending on the
exact details of the beam splitter. In any case, we now find two beams
that are out of phase heading back toward the source. This of course
leads to destructive interference and darkness.

Obviously everything shifts depending on the position of the mirrors and
the length of the interferometer paths. As mirror MA1 is moved the
standard output becomes dark while the auxiliary output becomes bright.
I hope there is no question about that part.

As I said a day or so ago, there is nothing at all on this web page that
is even remotely surprising or controversial. This is all very
straightforward and well understood.

Is there something else you had in mind when you asked the question?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Wanna count up who has called someone a liar more often in the past
year? I believe I have seen a couple from you just in the past 24 hours.

A rose by any other name ... Someone said I believe in
conservation of power when he knows I don't. That makes
him a liar.

Wow! Must be a rough day. I am going to need to remove my shoes to keep
count if you call any more people liars.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Is there some mystery here? The explanation is very straightforward. No
need for ... counter-balanced construction and destruction, ...

On the contrary, energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The "missing energy" from the destructive interference
at the standard output appears as constructive
interference at the non-standard output. Your assertion
above violates the conservation of energy principle.

Suppose that the "standard output" is at a constructive maximum.

Contrary to what you say above, that cannot happen without
destructive interference occurring somewhere else. That
constructive maximum is going to exhibit more joules/sec
than the laser beam source. Where does the extra energy
come from?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Is there some mystery here? The explanation is very straightforward.
No need for ... counter-balanced construction and destruction, ...

On the contrary, energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The "missing energy" from the destructive interference
at the standard output appears as constructive
interference at the non-standard output. Your assertion
above violates the conservation of energy principle.

Suppose that the "standard output" is at a constructive maximum.

Contrary to what you say above, that cannot happen without
destructive interference occurring somewhere else. That
constructive maximum is going to exhibit more joules/sec
than the laser beam source. Where does the extra energy
come from?

Cecil,

I never said that energy could be created or destroyed. I never said
anything about the requirements for balancing constructive and
destructive interference. I never said anything about "missing energy".
Those are simply your strawmen. They add absolutely nothing to the
solution.

I believe my explanation is correct, and it made no use of those
concepts of yours. I suspect you wanted me to stumble all over myself
and end up sneaking in something about energy or constructive /
destructive. Again, as I have said many times, those concepts are simply
not needed beyond the realm of simple-minded hand-waving explanations.

If you want to critique my actual explanation, go right ahead. What did
I say that was incorrect? Did I fail to account for all of the
observables? I have no doubt that I failed to account for all of your
strawmen, but that is your problem, not mine.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
I am going to need to remove my shoes to keep
count if you call any more people liars.

In your sensitivity training, Gene, surely they taught
you how to avoid lying.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
What did I say that was incorrect?

Suppose that the "standard output" is at a constructive maximum.

That supposition is incorrect because it supposes that
the standard output can contain more energy than the
source is supplying. That supposition violates the
conservation of energy principle.

... those concepts are simply not needed ...

Of course, you could say that God can create energy
and destroy energy any time He choses. No other
concepts are needed.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
What did I say that was incorrect?

Suppose that the "standard output" is at a constructive maximum.

That supposition is incorrect because it supposes that
the standard output can contain more energy than the
source is supplying. That supposition violates the
conservation of energy principle.


Why would anyone make such a supposition that violates conservation of
energy? I certainly did not. I merely said the output was at a maximum.
Do you think that "maximum" is an illegal concept? Does "maximum" imply
some specific numerical value?

Frankly, I have no idea what your objection is, and I have even less
interest. I gave a standard textbook solution in a straightforward
manner that gives the correct result, violates nothing, and is not
complicated by all sorts of artificial constraints. If you want
something more, have at it.

73
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Why would anyone make such a supposition that violates conservation of
energy? I certainly did not. I merely said the output was at a maximum.

No, you didn't. Here's what you said:

Suppose that the "standard output" is at a *constructive maximum*.

Now do you remember what you said? You implied that
constructive interference is present.

Do you think that "maximum" is an illegal concept? Does "maximum" imply
some specific numerical value?

Sorry, you did NOT say "maximum". You said "constructive
maximum".

A "constructive maximum" is greater than the average
output of the source, by definition. If you just said
"maximum", it would have been OK. When you added
"constructive" it means that, by definition, the output
is greater than the average source power.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Why would anyone make such a supposition that violates conservation of
energy? I certainly did not. I merely said the output was at a maximum.

No, you didn't. Here's what you said:

Suppose that the "standard output" is at a *constructive maximum*.

Now do you remember what you said? You implied that
constructive interference is present.

Do you think that "maximum" is an illegal concept? Does "maximum"
imply some specific numerical value?

Sorry, you did NOT say "maximum". You said "constructive
maximum".

A "constructive maximum" is greater than the average
output of the source, by definition. If you just said
"maximum", it would have been OK. When you added
"constructive" it means that, by definition, the output
is greater than the average source power.

OK, remove the word "constructive" and simply leave "maximum". The same
description still holds.

Feel better now?

Since you are reduced to nit-picking the exact choice of words, it
appears you have nothing constructive to add (pun intended).

I gotta get one of the special dictionaries you have. The one that
contains all of those "by definition" statements you like to use.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
OK, remove the word "constructive" and simply leave "maximum".
Feel better now?

Correcting conceptual violations of the conservation
of energy principle always makes me feel better.
Thank you for your rational response.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com