On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:41:32 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Perhaps I have misread the message traffic for the past 5 years or so,
but it appears that most of the heat over wave reflections is about what
happens during the reflections, including detailed concern about energy
and momentum.

Hi Gene,

This behavior exhibits the failure of rote science in the face of
experience and there are many here who flip through a book to replace
thinking or stepping up to the bench.

This harkens back to Cecil's inability to come to terms with the
failure of anti-glare glass of some years ago. As it applies to this
current debate these discussions are not found in school books, except
by parts - and even rarely there as some of the topic transcends their
derivative coverage. Putting editorialization aside (wagging fingers
at fools only fixates their gaze), let us proceed into the interface,
a dimension of greater than 2 dimensions (the so-called plane in other
correspondence).

Thumb through all the favorite "Optics" books, and I dare say none of
them really dwell on the research with Plasmonics that has been
carried out around the world at a hundred or more laboratories. I
feel full well confident in this expectation because every time I
introduce this word (Plasmonics) it is met with universal HUH? I have
no illusions that this posting will raise any but one or two reader's
consciousness on the subject - and even then I am probably
over-estimating interest, or capacity.

Thumb through all the favorite "Optics" books, and I dare say FEW
dwell on Frustrated Total Internal Reflection. Of those few, perhaps
in the appendix.

Thumb through all the favorite "Optics" books, and I dare say some
dwell on Evanescent Waves. Of those some, perhaps in other terms if
they cover the physics of it at all. The good "Optics" text will.

Thumb through all the favorite "Optics" books, and I dare say NONE
dwell on antennas. Not even in the appendix.

Plasmonics reveals the energy relationships at the interface, at each
side of it, and within the media which are separated by the interface.
This word (Plasmonics) merely applies a new label to the old wine of
other disciplines, but those who coined the label, are performing far
more profound probing of the interface than those older vintners.

A Plasmon is the energy on the other side of the reflecting interface.
This necessarily gives rise to the third (non-planar) dimension of
depth (or a new, thick plane, which is to say, not what has been
typically discussed). The fields found on the other side of the 2D
plane (that is, within the second media) are what is responsible for
reflection and provide the complete mechanism. This much is covered
already by conventional "Optics" and "RF" teaching, so Plasmonics is
not a discovery, nor is it introducing a novel concept - except to
those who skimmed their assigned reading, skipped classes, and shaved
points off their exams when tests revealed their shortfall of study. I
won't repeat that material here. Suffice it to say that reflection
mechanics are found in the boundary layer - not in the Xeroxed math
from the concluding paragraph of a chapter.

When we approach the "Optics" of reflection, there, too, conventions
are suggested by math that solutions are unspoiled by reality (anti
reflective glass is chief among these to fail in the real world). The
benchmark of reflection is found in the right angle glass prism. This
standard, by math, exhibits what is so distinct as to ascend to
capitalization, chapter heading, and study title: Total Internal
Reflection. This standard even deserves its own acronym TIR. Every
"Optics" text champions this standard, but few move on to its failure.
Failures are left for advanced study, as academia has enough work to
teach success. Experience that follows graduation is thoroughly
acknowledged as introducing acolytes to reality and providing actual
learning. I will not dwell on the material of Total Internal
Reflection, as the reader to this point is undoubtedly aware of either
the mechanics, or the implication.

The evidence of Frustrated Total Internal Reflection arrives by the
application of the same standard: the glass prism, classically two of
them (although this is not strictly required). When two prisms are
joined, then light will pass through them both (there is no TIR
exhibited). When both are removed a substantial distance, then light
entering the first prism will be returned back to the source (offset
by the geometry of internal reflections). However, when that
separated, second prism is drawn closer to the first, without touching
it, but within several wavelengths of that former join, then light
will again transit BOTH prisms. TIR has failed, hence the term
"Frustrated Total Internal Reflection."

This example, supported by evidence, finds the two prisms isolated one
from the other. If the 2D plane of the reflective surface of the
first prism was all that was necessary to provide reflection (that is
to say, to the neglect of the 3D boundary layer); then this
neighboring prism would have absolutely no effect and TIR would not
fail. However, it does, and with that failure goes the notion of the
2D plane providing all the substance of reflection. Naturally, this
is already covered in conventional "Optics" books, but the
demonstration is almost universally surprising. I am sure many
readers who have made it this far are agog how light can leap between
two prisms.

The answer (a conventional one) is that the boundary beyond the first
prism face supports fields that provide the mechanics of reflection.
What is more interesting, is that when a second interface inhabits the
same region of waves, they couple across and provide a transmission
mechanics to pass light on through the second prism.

So, we find there is a defined region of waves that first accounts for
reflection, and secondly that same defined region accounts for
transmission. In the study of Plasmonics, these waves are called
Plasmons, or are expressed by specialized "Optics" as evanescent
waves. The characteristic of these Plasmons or evanescent waves is
that they do not persist beyond several wavelengths, and exhibit "zero
net energy." These two are not novel concepts discussed here, but it
appears that such information is not knowledge for many.

Basically, evanescent waves are what we characterize as the near field
of an antenna. Those with the information, but lacking the knowledge
may roll their eyes - after all, they "knew it all the time." If
only professors accepted such demonstration of learning, colleges
would be awash in Phi Beta Kappas.

I will provide some practical examples of this last that correlate to
the nearly joined prisms. Harkening back to the work of N. Tesla in
my hometown of Colorado Springs; he once set out to establish a
commercial means to transmit power without wires. Same stuff. The
trick to the success of this has been reported in these threads as
discussion trivia (certainly no intelligent thought beyond the simple
skill of browsing ever entered into the discussion). The Google topic
is how in the future we can recharge our iphone/ipod/laptop by simply
being in the same room as a special power antenna.

Here, again, the mechanics have been known for at least 100 years or
more (and we don't even need to lean on Tesla to reveal them). Those
mechanics, as in evanescent waves, as in Plasmons, as in Frustrated
Total Internal Reflection, are found in proximity and the 3D boundary
layer. You with your iphone/ipod/laptop are merely inhabiting that
layer. The latest research demonstrates that a tuned but lossy load
(the drained battery or a light bulb) can effectively absorb up to 60%
of that available power from the (long wave near) field (not generally
called a Plasmon, and rarely described as evanescent). This is a no
more complex relationship than that between a driven element, and a
director or reflector (except for the novel application of a tuned
load).

I chose the iphone for another reason (rather than for the "hip"
factor) because it also reveals Plasmons, evanescent waves, and the
application of Frustrated Total Internal Reflection in its interface
(which is a "hip" factor). ;-)

The iphone's unique (and patented) "Optical" interface relies on the
3D boundary layer of your fingers doing multiple touch manipulations
(if you are "hip" enough) of images, files, and operations with its
screen. I will leave the readers to Google this.

If you are an international traveler, you may have noted a small
windowed box at the border control (another interface, but I won't
stretch that point) that travelers use to provide fingerprint
information. Similar gizmos also are sold for security access to
laptops where the user wants a single password (actually the
fingerprint as proof of identity) access. These instruments, too,
employ Frustrated Total Internal Reflection. I won't belabor the
obvious mechanics here.

So, a discussion of the complex reflection (and refraction too) 3D
interface employing examples from Plasmonics, Frustrated Total
Internal Reflection, Evanescent Waves, Near Fields, and Antennas.

And now for a bit of finger wagging to mesmerize the fools once more.
How is it that waves are influenced by other waves in the absence of
an interface or load? How is it that numerical coincidences
prove/disprove energy/power cannot migrate past lines drawn in the
sand of math?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
This harkens back to Cecil's inability to come to terms with the
failure of anti-glare glass of some years ago.

My failure????? You are the one who said the reflections
from an anti-reflective thin-film coating are brighter
than the surface of the sun. And you proved it by
superposing powers.

For anyone who wants to understand anti-reflective
thin-film coatings, here is an example:

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

What is the total reflected power at t3 when the
external reflection of 0.01 watts is interfered
with by the first internal reflection of 0.009801
watts. Hint: It is NOT (0.01w - 0.009801w) as
Richard C. earlier calculated it to be.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com