Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you have trouble understanding that reflection changes the direction
of the reflected waves?

If you include wave cancellation as a mechanism for
energy reflection, I agree 100%. See the interferometer
example below.

I understand that a physical power reflection coefficient
of 0.5 cannot cause 100% reflection as you say it does.

One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

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*. That is, when interference is destructive at
the standard output, it is constructive at the non-standard output.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Do you have trouble understanding that reflection changes the
direction of the reflected waves?


If you include wave cancellation as a mechanism for
energy reflection, I agree 100%.

:-) Of course I don't include wave cancellation as a mechanism for
reflection. Nor would J.C. Maxwell or even Eugene Hecht.

One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

I've used laboratory interferometers for over 20 years, Cecil. It
seems like I've been trying to explain how they work to you for almost
that long.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

I've used laboratory interferometers for over 20 years, Cecil. It seems
like I've been trying to explain how they work to you for almost that long.

Translation: I am so afraid of that web page that I deleted
it and hope nobody notices. I refuse to discuss the interferometer
example because I am afraid to be proven wrong.

Please share your usual mealy-mouthing response about how I
don't understand that web page at:

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

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ENERGY REJECTED BY THE DESTRUCTIVE
INTERFERENCE PORT WAS ON ITS WAY BACK TO THE SOURCE BEFORE
IT WAS INTERCEPTED. CAN YOU SPELL R-E-F-L-E-C-T-I-O-N?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

I've used laboratory interferometers for over 20 years, Cecil. It
seems like I've been trying to explain how they work to you for almost
that long.

Translation: I am so afraid of that web page that I deleted
it and hope nobody notices. I refuse to discuss the interferometer
example because I am afraid to be proven wrong.

Please share your usual mealy-mouthing response about how I
don't understand that web page at:

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

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ENERGY REJECTED BY THE DESTRUCTIVE
INTERFERENCE PORT WAS ON ITS WAY BACK TO THE SOURCE BEFORE
IT WAS INTERCEPTED. CAN YOU SPELL R-E-F-L-E-C-T-I-O-N?

Cecil,

I looked at that web page, and my reaction was merely, "so what"? There
is nothing in there that is not well known to everyone who has ever used
or studied interferometry.

You seem to forget that the entire argument on RRAA in this theme is not
about *what* happens, it is about *how* it happens. There is not one
person who would seriously claim any violation of conservation of energy
to be valid. There is not one person who would be surprised to learn
about constructive and destructive interference and the redistribution
of energy. Anyone making competent physical measurements would find the
same, predictable results.

What *is* at issue is the mechanism involved. None of these web
references aimed at the Popular Science crowd even attempt to get into
those fine details. You love to quote a web page written by a Java-dude
and a lab technician. You love to quote a web page written by a
manufacturer of lenses and other optical components. Now you are quoting
a web page from a company who is "dedicated to the design, development,
manufacture, and marketing of apparatus appropriate for laboratory
instruction in physics and engineering." None of these are necessarily
wrong in what they are attempting to say. What *is* wrong is trying to
use these popular-level tales in support of your hair-splitting arguments.

Spend some time reading a serious reference on conservation of energy in
electromagnetic systems. You will come to understand that your concerns
about "wave cancellation" and related stuff at interfaces are not only
unimportant, they cannot even be determined by rational analysis. It
comes very close to counting the angels on pinheads.

If you really want to dig in further, you will need to start to look at
the detailed interactions of the waves with the interface materials,
including the scattering formalism. Reflection does not just "happen". I
do not suggest going there unless you need some sleep inducement.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
I looked at that web page, and my reaction was merely, "so what"? There
is nothing in there that is not well known to everyone who has ever used
or studied interferometry.

That's what I have been telling you guys for years. Everything
we need to know about RF waves has already been discovered
centuries ago by optical physicists. I used those centuries
old laws of physics in my energy analysis article which produces
voltage and current results identical to any conventional analysis.

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

You will come to understand that your concerns
about "wave cancellation" and related stuff at interfaces are not only
unimportant, ...

This is so typical of gurus on this newsgroup. When they lose
the argument, they invariably say it was not important to
begin with.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I looked at that web page, and my reaction was merely, "so what"?
There is nothing in there that is not well known to everyone who has
ever used or studied interferometry.

That's what I have been telling you guys for years. Everything
we need to know about RF waves has already been discovered
centuries ago by optical physicists. I used those centuries
old laws of physics in my energy analysis article which produces
voltage and current results identical to any conventional analysis.

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

You will come to understand that your concerns about "wave
cancellation" and related stuff at interfaces are not only
unimportant, ...

This is so typical of gurus on this newsgroup. When they lose
the argument, they invariably say it was not important to
begin with.

Although I have not completely thought it out, I would be surprised if
the same did not hold true for sound waves in a sonic/audio
resonator--and, this obviously is ONLY a wave which transverses a media
and doesn't harm/displace any photons in the process.

You know those d*mn "photon advocates", worse than the animal rights
advocates, actually. :-D

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I looked at that web page, and my reaction was merely, "so what"?
There is nothing in there that is not well known to everyone who has
ever used or studied interferometry.

That's what I have been telling you guys for years. Everything
we need to know about RF waves has already been discovered
centuries ago by optical physicists. I used those centuries
old laws of physics in my energy analysis article which produces
voltage and current results identical to any conventional analysis.

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

You will come to understand that your concerns about "wave
cancellation" and related stuff at interfaces are not only
unimportant, ...

This is so typical of gurus on this newsgroup. When they lose
the argument, they invariably say it was not important to
begin with.

1. Nice job of selective quoting to completely change the meaning of a
message. Is that sort of like a line item veto?

2. As for the wave cancellation part, you have many times noted that
stuff happens at interfaces or discontinuities. So why is it that you
never ever consider what is happening inside those interfaces and
discontinuities? Do you suppose the waves simply cancel, reflect, or
whatever without assistance from the materials in the interface or
discontinuity? Do you suppose that any energy or momentum considerations
may need to include the materials?

This is akin to the concept of Thevenin equivalents. The view from the
outside is correct and useful. There is no information about what is
actually happening on the inside of the Thevenin box. In the same way
the wave reflection model as seen from outside the interface or
discontinuity works just fine. There is virtually no disagreement about
what one would observe if correct measurements were done. On the other
hand there is no possibility of figuring out how the waves actually
"cancel" or what happens to the energy and momentum without considering
the actual physical configuration. That sort of analysis has been done,
of course. It gets into all sorts of details on electrons and Fermi
surfaces, but strangely enough, it does not require Java applets on web
pages.

Unless you want to look at the interactions of waves with materials in
some detail, the concern about exactly what happens during a
"reflection" is unimportant. The external equations work just fine.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
2. As for the wave cancellation part, you have many times noted that
stuff happens at interfaces or discontinuities. So why is it that you
never ever consider what is happening inside those interfaces and
discontinuities? Do you suppose the waves simply cancel, reflect, or
whatever without assistance from the materials in the interface or
discontinuity? Do you suppose that any energy or momentum considerations
may need to include the materials?

That's one of the points I have been trying to make. The impedance
discontinuities perform the same function as half-silvered mirrors,
for instance, in interferometers. The impedance discontinuity is a
primitive interferometer.

On the other
hand there is no possibility of figuring out how the waves actually
"cancel" or what happens to the energy and momentum without considering
the actual physical configuration.

The point is that optical physicists already had it figured
out before any of us were born. The problem is that RF gurus
tend to reject any technical facts from the field of optics.

You, for instance, called me every name in the book while
arguing loud and long against any of those concepts from
the field of optical physics. Now you admit that some of
them are valid but completely unimportant. That is, at least,
an improvement.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"That`s what I have been telling you guys for years."

OK. I subscribe to World Radio and Cecil`s story isn`t in the February
issue but there is an antenna cover story.

When will Cecil`s story be published?

I disagree that W2DU recently was first to coin the expressions, virtual
open and virtual short. We were using them in 1950 when I was still in
college.

It is rumored that the 3rd edition of "Reflections" will emerge soon.
When and where can I order it?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

5123 Lymbar Dr. Houston, TX 77096-5317

Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"That`s what I have been telling you guys for years."

OK. I subscribe to World Radio and Cecil`s story isn`t in the February
issue but there is an antenna cover story.

Were you a subscriber to Worldradio in Oct 2005?

When will Cecil`s story be published?

First published in WorldRadio, Oct 2005 - Jan 2006, and reproduced
here with permission.

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

It is rumored that the 3rd edition of "Reflections" will emerge soon.
When and where can I order it?

Last I heard, Worldradio was publishing Reflections III.
Don't know when.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com