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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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