Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa Laugh Riot continues
 

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:40:43 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The only person I've ever seen claiming that there is energy
in non-existant waves is you, Cecil.

Hi Jim,

That's not strictly true. I for one have always maintained there is
energy where it cancels, it is also somewhere else when it adds. On
the other hand if it is no where else to add, that seems to put an end
to it. Like a draw match in a tug of war, the rope may not be moving,
but its tension is obvious by the nulled energies.

On it's face, the idea is ludicrous.

Perhaps at the myopic scale of picking a point to the exclusion of
examining all points illuminated (radiated, or otherwise excited) by
two sources.

As for the non-existence of waves, I would read this as the resultant
combination of two waves exhibiting a null at a locality. This then
argues: What is a wave? Sorry to bring up that zombie topic as it
will no doubt lead to Cecilaborations he constructs only for idle
diversion - that is not my fault, and I certainly don't follow his
narcissistic meanderings with as much attachment as you or Keith or
Gene (or Art's fawning, but puzzled adoration). Clearly you cannot
have a wave (3D by its very nature) at a 1D point. The absurd
extension of the argument would then deny a wave exists anywhere
because all singularities examined lack dimension.

Let's simply divorce the second source and look at the dipole. It
clearly is a source of energy, no one is going to deny that I hope
(OK, Cecil will as this post is draining the numbers on his celebrity
status). We can still discuss fields (includes DC then) or waves
(extending to AC/RF). We can combine them, every text does this in
the first chapter. We find a line bisecting the dipole with a null
response. An infinitesimal point residing in the infinite bisecting
plane can't tell the difference between a null and no field/wave
certainly. Is energy non-existent? The tug of war informs us
otherwise. Turn off the dipole, and you win the argument of
non-existent energy - but the rope collapses to the ground, falling
out of its 2D shape. Even for the tug of war, the evidence still
differentiates between the two circumstances.

This non-existence blossoms into:
Even Yagi antennas fail to radiate energy from their null points.
such is the well from which Arthur draws his inspiration.

Antennas radiate equally in all directions from all points. Nulls are
the products of the sums of those radiations at a remote point.

Cecil's MENSES challenges collapse from their own internal faults
easily enough, pursuing his illusions are not required unless this
greek chorus enjoys polluting the well to sustain the comedy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

On 20 Jan, 11:51, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:40:43 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The only person I've ever seen claiming that there is energy
in non-existant waves is you, Cecil. *

Hi Jim,

That's not strictly true. *I for one have always maintained there is
energy where it cancels, it is also somewhere else when it adds. *On
the other hand if it is no where else to add, that seems to put an end
to it. *Like a draw match in a tug of war, the rope may not be moving,
but its tension is obvious by the nulled energies.

On it's face, the idea is ludicrous.

Perhaps at the myopic scale of picking a point to the exclusion of
examining all points illuminated (radiated, or otherwise excited) by
two sources.

As for the non-existence of waves, I would read this as the resultant
combination of two waves exhibiting a null at a locality. *This then
argues: What is a wave? *Sorry to bring up that zombie topic as it
will no doubt lead to Cecilaborations he constructs only for idle
diversion - that is not my fault, and I certainly don't follow his
narcissistic meanderings with as much attachment as you or Keith or
Gene (or Art's fawning, but puzzled adoration). *Clearly you cannot
have a wave (3D by its very nature) at a 1D point. *The absurd
extension of the argument would then deny a wave exists anywhere
because all singularities examined lack dimension.

Let's simply divorce the second source and look at the dipole. *It
clearly is a source of energy, no one is going to deny that I hope
(OK, Cecil will as this post is draining the numbers on his celebrity
status). *We can still discuss fields (includes DC then) or waves
(extending to AC/RF). *We can combine them, every text does this in
the first chapter. *We find a line bisecting the dipole with a null
response. *An infinitesimal point residing in the infinite bisecting
plane can't tell the difference between a null and no field/wave
certainly. *Is energy non-existent? *The tug of war informs us
otherwise. *Turn off the dipole, and you win the argument of
non-existent energy - but the rope collapses to the ground, falling
out of its 2D shape. *Even for the tug of war, the evidence still
differentiates between the two circumstances.

This non-existence blossoms into:Even Yagi antennas fail to radiate energy from their null points.

such is the well from which Arthur draws his inspiration.

Antennas radiate equally in all directions from all points. *Nulls are
the products of the sums of those radiations at a remote point.

Cecil's MENSES challenges collapse from their own internal faults
easily enough, pursuing his illusions are not required unless this
greek chorus enjoys polluting the well to sustain the comedy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I am compelled to respond to this collection of words from which I see
a conclusion
of what is to be considered agreement or disagreement.
The wise will accept that there is disagreement and no amount of
slander is likely to change that. Because the wise retreat to the side
lines it by no means to be taken as representing anything. Where as
you little twit, are now trying to portray what you apparently knew
all along at the same time covering your words with camoflarge to
disguise your present position until more information is at hand.

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa Laugh Riot continues
 

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:19:42 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

I am compelled to respond to this collection of words from which I see
a conclusion
of what is to be considered agreement or disagreement.

Sounds like equilibrium does it? Or it is like so much of your theory
and is the non-existence of 'ment.' Is there such a thing as an
infitesmal thought in the plane bisecting bafflegab?

Laissez l'émeute de rire continuer!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Richard Clark wrote:
That's not strictly true. I for one have always maintained there is
energy where it cancels, it is also somewhere else when it adds. On
the other hand if it is no where else to add, that seems to put an end
to it. Like a draw match in a tug of war, the rope may not be moving,
but its tension is obvious by the nulled energies.

This is not rocket science. If destructive interference
occurs in free space or in a transmission line, an equal
magnitude of constructive interference must occur somewhere
else in order to satisfy the conservation of energy principle.
The energy apparently"lost" during destructive interference
is simply redistributed to regions that permit constructive
interference. That is the way antenna radiation patterns
work and that is the way that waves interfere at an
impedance discontinuity in a transmission line.

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."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa Laugh Riot continues
 

Among the usual suspects, On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:07:02 GMT, Cecil
Moore wrote:

...
More cecilaborations in rocket science to improve tug-of-war.

The laugh riot continues.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Richard Clark wrote:


...
More cecilaborations in rocket science to improve tug-of-war.

The laugh riot continues.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

If you are truly laughing that loudly, you ARE an idiot. I think Cecil
has done an excellent job, if you have followed him (and, I cannot claim
I have COMPLETELY done so), however, he has shown there ARE holes in
what we "believe." And, some things don't quite "mate-up" and what we
have taken for granted looks differently when under the "microscope."
"Standing Waves" is but the shining example.

Your nature is just so abrasive/abusive as to be repulsive and, at least
a bit, disgusting. I have to admit, I really don't understand you, or
why you think simple discussion on these matters is so "dangerous."
Frankly, though this all, I kind of like the "cloak-and-dagger" nature
of your "cryptic" posts, however, lately them seem a bit move vicious
and NOT that enjoyable.

Don't we all come away better after having had to open a smith chart and
plug some equations into a calculator? Look at some software modeling,
etc.?

I mean, I am at a total loss here ... you are the final oracle? Well,
you and your chosen books? Get a hold on yourself man ...

Regards,
JS

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

John Smith wrote:
If you are truly laughing that loudly, you ARE an idiot.

Last night I did a Google search for "destructive interference
energy" and waded through about 50 web pages on the subject.
Needless to say, I found mass confusion, even among the "experts"
who are supposed to know the answer to the questions. However,
the opinions of the majority of experts matched Eugene Hecht's
concepts presented in "Optics" and the Melles-Groit and FSU web
pages that I have posted. In the absence of a local source, the
conservation of energy principle *REQUIRES* that energy "lost"
as destructive interference *MUST* appear as constructive
interference in the opposite direction in a transmission line.

We hams are usually interested in maximizing the destructive
interference toward the source, resulting in maximizing the
constructive interference toward the load. That is why we can
have 100 watts of source power with no reflected energy incident
upon the source AND 200 watts of forward power on the transmission
line. If the forward power into an impedance discontinuity
on the source side is different from the forward power out
of the impedance discontinuity on the load side, interference
has occurred with the destructive interference on one side
of the impedance discontinuity equaling the magnitude of
constructive interference on the other side.

Here is an interferometer with two outputs that can be
considered analogous to the two directions in a transmission
line. The more destructive interference that exists at the
standard output, the more constructive interference exists
at 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."
(CAPITALS emphasis mine)

The Z0-match point in a transmission line with reflections is
an interferometer of sorts. When interference is destructive
toward the source, it is constructive toward the load. All
of this is explained in my Worldradio energy analysis article:

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraaLaug...
 

John Smith wrote:
"If you are truly laughing that loudly, you ARE an idiot."

My Schaum`s Outline physics book by Frederick J. Bueche and Eugene Hecht
says on page 70:
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed,---."

And on page 366 it says:
"If two coherent waves of the same amplitude are superposed, and
distructive interference (cancellation, darkness) occurs when the two
waves are 180 degrees out-of-phase. Total constructive interference
(reinforcement, brightness) occurs when they are in-phase."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:40:43 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


The only person I've ever seen claiming that there is energy
in non-existant waves is you, Cecil.


Hi Jim,

That's not strictly true. I for one have always maintained there is
energy where it cancels, it is also somewhere else when it adds.

I was unaware that your belief system coincided with Cecil's in this
regard. I now acknowledge knowing of two such people who believe in
energy in nonexistent waves. Perhaps others will join in.

As for the non-existence of waves, I would read this as the resultant
combination of two waves exhibiting a null at a locality.

This particular "locality" is the point of discussion. That there is
energy at other localities is another matter.

Let's simply divorce the second source and look at the dipole. It
clearly is a source of energy, no one is going to deny that I hope
(OK, Cecil will as this post is draining the numbers on his celebrity
status). We can still discuss fields (includes DC then) or waves
(extending to AC/RF). We can combine them, every text does this in
the first chapter. We find a line bisecting the dipole with a null
response. An infinitesimal point residing in the infinite bisecting
plane can't tell the difference between a null and no field/wave
certainly. Is energy non-existent? The tug of war informs us
otherwise. Turn off the dipole, and you win the argument of
non-existent energy - but the rope collapses to the ground, falling
out of its 2D shape. Even for the tug of war, the evidence still
differentiates between the two circumstances.

This non-existence blossoms into:

Even Yagi antennas fail to radiate energy from their null points.

such is the well from which Arthur draws his inspiration.

No, actually it comes from the notion that where there are no
electromagnetic waves there is no electromagnetic energy, and vice versa.

Antennas radiate equally in all directions from all points. Nulls are
the products of the sums of those radiations at a remote point.

A point which blossoms into the notion that antennas radiate
nonexistent waves carrying nonexistent quantities of energy in certain
directions.

73, ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
I now acknowledge knowing of two such people who believe in
energy in nonexistent waves.

Your attempt at obfuscation is well known to all, Jim.
Two canceled waves cease to exist but the energy in the
two waves that canceled cannot cease to exist. I'm
surprised that a physics professor would be advocating
violation of the conservation of energy principle.

Maybe you would like to contact the scientist who
answered the question at:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00292.htm

Perhaps he can explain the laws of physics to you.

"The waves' energies simply add together. In places where
the interference is destructive, one wave cancels out the
other. (up + down = nothing.) Where it is constructive,
however, they reinforce each other
(up + up = 2 * up, down + down = 2 * down.)
That is all there is to it."

Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D.
Assistant Director
PG Research Foundation, Darien, Illinois
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

I now acknowledge knowing of two such people who believe in energy in
nonexistent waves.


Your attempt at obfuscation is well known to all, Jim.

It is your propensity for baseless accusation that is well known
around here, Cecil.

Two canceled waves cease to exist but the energy in the
two waves that canceled cannot cease to exist.

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble understanding such a simple
idea. It really does turn you surly. The waves don't 'stop
existing'. Given the conditions, they can never exist. In the steady
state, things don't first do one thing, and then some time later do
something else.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Two canceled waves cease to exist but the energy in the
two waves that canceled cannot cease to exist.

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble understanding such a simple
idea.

The idea that canceled reflections never existed in the
first place is not a simple one. If they never existed
in the first place, there is no reason to ever try to cancel
them because there was never anything to cancel. In effect,
you are saying the lack of reflections causes the reflections
never to have existed. Not only is that confusing cause and
effect but it also introduces time travel. "If you went back
in time and killed your grandfather before you were born,
you would cease to exist." But if you never existed, who
killed your grandfather? That's the exact logic that you
are using.

It really does turn you surly. The waves don't 'stop existing'.

Yes, they do. They stop existing in their original direction
of travel. A reflected power meter proves it. A forward power
meter proves that the energy that existed in the canceled
waves joined the forward wave. What is it about the Melles-
Groit and FSU redistribution of energy explainations that
you don't understand?

Given the conditions, they can never exist.

If reflections never exist, there is no need for a non-
reflective coating, is there? People who buy non-reflective
picture frames are wasting their money since the reflections
never exist. What is it about the Melles-Groit and FSU
explainations about redistribution of energy from the
canceled waves that you don't understand?

In the steady state, things
don't first do one thing, and then some time later do something else.

I've explained this before. Wave cancellation is a continuous
steady-state process. Ptot = P1 + P2 - 2*SQRT(P1*P2) = 0
is a continuous process. Every dt, waves P1 and P2 are
in the process of canceling each other during steady-state.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraaLaug...
 

Richard Clark wrote:
"Perhaps others will join in."

Haven`t read all the postings and don`t propose to contradict anyone.
Radio waves are energy in motion. They continue so long as their supply
does.

The same energy can`t be in two places at once. Energy can be
redirected. Practical antennas are an example. The only non-directional
antenna is the imaginary isotropic radiator which if it were constructed
would by definition produce waves of equal strength in all directions.
Terman says on page 871 of his 1955 opus:
"Thus a gain of 4 (or 6dB) means that the power intensity is 4 times as
great (field intensity twice as great) as would be the case if the
radiator in question were an isotropic antenna radiating the same total
power."

The foregoing tells us power phased-out in some directions is redirected
to a direction of maximum radiation. Constructive interference exactly
equals destructive interference because a fixed amount of power is
available and conservation of erergy must be satisfied.

The same is true on a transmission line whose only possible directions
are forward and reverse.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble understanding such a simple
idea.


The idea that canceled reflections never existed in the
first place is not a simple one.

Just cut the BS, Cecil. In order to prove your assertion you must
first be able to describe how two co-linear, coherent waves that are
180 degrees out of phase at every point along their path and traveling
in the same direction can under those circumstances at any time
produce measureable energy. In addition, you must be able to measure
it. Let me know when you do.

ac6xg

PS - I'd like to suggest that you ask Dr. Barrans to explain to you
what 'Up + Down = Nothing' means.

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Just cut the BS, Cecil. In order to prove your assertion you must first
be able to describe how two co-linear, coherent waves that are 180
degrees out of phase at every point along their path and traveling in
the same direction can under those circumstances at any time produce
measureable energy. In addition, you must be able to measure it. Let
me know when you do.

It is an indirect measurement, Jim. Given the s-parameter
equation, b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 = 0, s11 is not zero, a1
is not zero, s12 is not zero, and a2 is not zero. Although
HP cannot measure those quantities either, they tell us
that |s11*a1|^2 is in watts, e.g. 100 watts. They tell us
that |s12*a2|^2 is in watts, e.g. 100 watts. When all energy
is accounted for, it is obvious that those 200 watts are no
longer in the direction of the source but have changed
direction toward the load. This ain't rocket science.

If reflections are eliminated toward the source by wave
cancellation, the reflected energy is redistributed back
toward the load just as explained on the Melles-Groit and
FSU web pages. If it weren't headed for the source in the
first place, they wouldn't say it was "REDISTRIBUTED". If
200 joules/sec disappear toward the source and there are
only two directions in a transmission line, do you really
want to tell us that you can't figure out in which
direction those joules go? Do you need help from my
10 year old grandson?

You clearly fail to understand the process defined by the
wave reflection distributed network model. Until you are
in a position to discredit that model, you are just blowing
smoke.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Just cut the BS, Cecil. In order to prove your assertion you must
first be able to describe how two co-linear, coherent waves that are
180 degrees out of phase at every point along their path and traveling
in the same direction can under those circumstances at any time
produce measureable energy. In addition, you must be able to measure
it. Let me know when you do.


It is an indirect measurement, Jim.

:-) Sure thing. Like I said, let me know when you measure energy in
the canceled waves.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
It is an indirect measurement, Jim.

:-) Sure thing. Like I said, let me know when you measure energy in
the canceled waves.

Let me know when you figure out an explanation for the
reversal of momentum in those reflected waves. So far,
you have absolutely refused to provide any explanation.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

It is an indirect measurement, Jim.


:-) Sure thing. Like I said, let me know when you measure energy in
the canceled waves.


Let me know when you figure out an explanation for the
reversal of momentum in those reflected waves. So far,
you have absolutely refused to provide any explanation.

The momentum in reflected waves changes direction upon reflection.
What part of that do you need to have explained?

So, back to you. Let's hear more about your measurement of canceled
waves.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
The momentum in reflected waves changes direction upon reflection. What
part of that do you need to have explained?

What causes 100% reflection when the power reflection
coefficient (reflectance) is only 0.5?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Just cut the BS, Cecil. In order to prove your assertion you must
first be able to describe how two co-linear, coherent waves that are
180 degrees out of phase at every point along their path and
traveling in the same direction can under those circumstances at any
time produce measureable energy. In addition, you must be able to
measure it. Let me know when you do.


It is an indirect measurement, Jim.

:-) Sure thing. Like I said, let me know when you measure energy in
the canceled waves.


At the risk of being both a dullard and messing up all the fun, does
not every destructive interference have to be balanced by a constructive
interference, which in turn leads to a condition of "Okey dokey?"

A canceled wave needs a reinforced wave, and then nothing is lost,
nothing is gained.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
At the risk of being both a dullard and messing up all the fun, does
not every destructive interference have to be balanced by a constructive
interference, which in turn leads to a condition of "Okey dokey?"

A canceled wave needs a reinforced wave, and then nothing is lost,
nothing is gained.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike -

One could suggest a number of different possible scenarios in which
nothing is lost or gained. But an impossible scenario is one which
violates thermodynamic principles. Another might describe phenomena
which is not in accord with Maxwell's equations. One should therefore
feel comfortable discarding any description which is inconsistent with
both thermodynamics and Maxwell's equations.

73, ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
At the risk of being both a dullard and messing up all the fun, does
not every destructive interference have to be balanced by a constructive
interference, which in turn leads to a condition of "Okey dokey?"

Yep, any destructive interference toward the source is exactly
offset by constructive interference toward the antenna. If one
takes time to calculate the component phasor voltages on both
sides of a Z0-match located away from the source, the constructive
and destructive interference is obvious.

A canceled wave needs a reinforced wave, and then nothing is lost,
nothing is gained.

Exactly. The reflected energy that appears to be lost as
destructive interference in the direction of the source
when a Z0-match is achieved, is recovered in the forward
wave as constructive interference energy traveling toward
the antenna.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

The momentum in reflected waves changes direction upon reflection.
What part of that do you need to have explained?


What causes 100% reflection when the power reflection
coefficient (reflectance) is only 0.5?

If you would just work the problem the hard way, you would see where
you're misconception lies. Any given wave front will never reflect
100% from a surface which is only 50% reflective, no matter how
vicious your insults become, how may URLs you cut and paste, or how
furiously you wave your hands. But when you work the problem as has
been suggested you will see how energy gets from source to load. It
does not rely on macroscopic layman's explanations or mathematical
shortcuts in order to get there.

The only energy "lost" by partial reflection in the process is that
which is reflected back toward the source or stored in the system
during the transient period. The sum of all the partial reflections
equals the energy stored in the system (less the portion of energy
admitted to the load or reflected back to the source). After the
transient period, no energy is reflected back to the source, and the
energy entering the system from the source equals the energy existed
the system through the load.

I know that you understand the difference between potential and
kinetic energy in mechanics. Please try to consider that the concepts
are no less valid in electromagnetism. (Note that we even use the
word 'potential' to describe voltage.)

73, ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Any given wave front will never reflect 100%
from a surface which is only 50% reflective,

That's all you have to say, Jim, to defeat your argument.
If you would stop refusing to perform a simple calculation
involving my example at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.GIF

you would understand. When the internal (0.009801w)
wave reflection arrives at t3 and interferes with the
(0.01w) external reflection wave, what is the resulting
reflected power back toward the source. When you calculate
the results and realize that it is not 0.01 - 0.009801 watts,
you will begin to understand the nature of interference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Any given wave front will never reflect 100% from a surface which is
only 50% reflective,


That's all you have to say, Jim, to defeat your argument.

I am quite content to agree to disagree on that point if you wish.
Any exceptions to it that you would try to make could only derive from
fiction.

73, ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Any given wave front will never reflect 100% from a surface which is
only 50% reflective,

That's all you have to say, Jim, to defeat your argument.

I am quite content to agree to disagree on that point if you wish. Any
exceptions to it that you would try to make could only derive from fiction.

I seriously doubt that you are blind to the contradictions
in your argument and are simply hoping to slip them through
while no one is paying attention. Suffice it to say, it is
impossible for a 50% reflective surface to cause 100% reflections
without help from interference in the form of wave cancellation
due to permanent destructive interference. Anybody who understands
the process of anti-reflective thin-film coatings understands
the process of destructive interference redistributing the energy
in the direction that allows for constructive interference.

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."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

At the risk of being both a dullard and messing up all the fun, does
not every destructive interference have to be balanced by a constructive
interference, which in turn leads to a condition of "Okey dokey?"

A canceled wave needs a reinforced wave, and then nothing is lost,
nothing is gained.

Not quite, but close. It's ok to have two waves that cancel at one place
but go their separate ways at others without reinforcing. Any
combination of canceled, reinforced, and independent waves is ok as long
as the energy all adds up to the amount put into the system.

The purveyors of these contrived questions have never been able to
explain how they create these exquisite co-traveling canceled waves
without also creating those nagging reinforced or non-canceled waves.
Since it requires magic to create them, it should be no surprise that it
requires magic to explain what happens to the energy once the magical
canceling waves have been conjured up.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current WAS rraa LaughRiot continues
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
The purveyors of these contrived questions have never been able to
explain how they create these exquisite co-traveling canceled waves
without also creating those nagging reinforced or non-canceled waves.

Strawman alert!
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever been stupid enough
to say waves cancel and the energy in them is destroyed. In fact,
I have said exactly the opposite, i.e. waves cancel and the energy
that existed in them before they were canceled is preserved.

I believe it is you who is on record as not caring where the
energy goes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com