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