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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:


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

Nothing at all.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

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

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