On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:25:59 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The presence of this poster providing misleading
information makes this group a rather unique learning
environment.

For the record: The only controversial assertion
that I have ever made is that coherent EM wave
cancellation can cause a redistribution of the
EM energy in the opposite direction in a transmission
line. No one has proved that assertion to be wrong.

What an ego to rush to slip into a TNT vest in the hope of being
associated with Nobel.

As usual, Cecil's arguments are so script driven, that I cannot pass
up this mocking opportunity:

I shall assert that coherent EM wave cancellation can not cause a
redistribution of the EM energy in the opposite direction in a
transmission line.

No one has proved that assertion to be wrong.

Does that misleading statement qualify me for Keith's anointed villain
of the group? Cecil certainly has described me as being scurrilous
enough to so qualify! ;-)

Besides, I think I look better in that vest than he does.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
I shall assert that coherent EM wave cancellation can not cause a
redistribution of the EM energy in the opposite direction in a
transmission line.

No one has proved that assertion to be wrong.

The Melles-Groit and FSU web pages certainly seem to
disagree with you. To the best of my knowledge, they
prove your assertion to be wrong and support my
contention of redistribution of energy after wave
cancellation.

http://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.
The sum of the reflected and transmitted beam intensities is
always equal to the incident intensity. This important fact
has been confirmed experimentally."

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/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."

In an RF transmission line, since there are only two possible
directions, the only "regions that permit constructive interference"
at an impedance discontinuity is the opposite direction from the
direction of destructive interference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:17:11 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

No one has proved that assertion to be wrong.

The Melles-Groit and FSU web pages certainly seem to
disagree with you.

There is a vast gulf between seeming and proving.

My assertion stands unassailed! [except for a few pecks by a duck]

Richard Clark wrote:
There is a vast gulf between seeming and proving.

Richard, you seem to exist. Please prove that you
indeed do exist.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:58:52 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
There is a vast gulf between seeming and proving.

Richard, you seem to exist. Please prove that you
indeed do exist.

Gad, with built-in failures of logic like this question, it is SO, SO
easy, I can do it in stereo:

First, I can pinch myself: corporeal reality! However, you are just
amusing words on a screen that I can erase at will, hence you are a
figment of the imagination - the essential seeminess.

Second (this is the same mystery investigated as the Chinese Room
Argument), your messages only appear to be intelligent. Subsequent
correspondence reveals that to be a fiction.

What a pair of slam dunks for the home team.

Want to go for the trifecta?

Both the first and second tests can be independently corroborated by a
multitude of other posters here!

Dubito Tu Es