Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#811
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#812
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#813
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#814
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#815
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#816
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#817
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#818
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#819
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#820
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Standing Wave Phase | Antenna | |||
Standing wave on feeders | Antenna | |||
Dipole with standing wave - what happens to reflected wave? | Antenna | |||
Newbie ?: I've Built A Simple 1/4 Wave Dipole for 2 Mtrs. Could IMake a1/2 Wave? | Homebrew | |||
What is a traveling-wave antenna? | Antenna |