K7ITM wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:35 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

What you seem to be missing, Tom, is that if the two signals
are not coherent, interference is not possible.

There is NO WAY I'm interested in moving to a one-dimensional world
that requires me to special-case a particular type of wave to get the
right answer and FORSAKE the multi-dimensional linear circuits world
I'm in, that quite accurately describes what happens regardless of the
content of forward and reverse.

Coherency, non-coherency, and interference is covered well
in "Optics" by Hecht and other textbooks. Optical physicists
have been tracking the EM energy flow for centuries. This
information may be new to you but it is old hat in physics.

What I have proved in Part 1 is that average reflected energy
is not always reflected back toward the load. Equally false
is the flip side old wives tale that says: "Reflected energy
is always dissipated in the source."

It's takes only one case to prove an old wives' tale to
be false. That's why I chose the special case of zero
interference. One needs to understand the special case of
zero interference before one tries to understand the general
case involving interference which will be Part 2 and Part 3
of my articles.

If you choose to remain ignorant, "NO WAY I'm interested",
then that's your choice and that's OK. But understanding
interference is the easiest way I know of to track the
energy flow.

Your one-dimensional world apparently
limits you to thinking about interference in a way that mine does
not. I may post the results of a 'speriment I'm setting up in a day
or two that may spark some interesting discussion. Till then, I'm
outta here.

If you come up with an easier analysis of average energy flow
and average power, that will be great.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:


Coherency, non-coherency, and interference is covered well
in "Optics" by Hecht and other textbooks. Optical physicists
have been tracking the EM energy flow for centuries. This
information may be new to you but it is old hat in physics.


Cecil,

You may or may not already know this, but a lot of detailed optical
analysis these days is done with full 3-D electromagnetic simulation,
starting from Maxwell equations and boundary conditions. Interference,
coherence, energy flow, and all of the other stuff you like to discuss
can be *output* from that analysis, but those items are not part of the
input. The "centuries old" optics simply does not get the job done. The
"centuries old" stuff may work in the (impossible) cases where
everything is completely lossless and ideal, but it doesn't give the
right answers in the real world.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
You may or may not already know this, but a lot of detailed optical
analysis these days is done with full 3-D electromagnetic simulation,
starting from Maxwell equations and boundary conditions. Interference,
coherence, energy flow, and all of the other stuff you like to discuss
can be *output* from that analysis, but those items are not part of the
input. The "centuries old" optics simply does not get the job done. The
"centuries old" stuff may work in the (impossible) cases where
everything is completely lossless and ideal, but it doesn't give the
right answers in the real world.

Ideal examples are time-honored ways of discussing concepts
and getting away from the vagaries of the real world. If one
understands the ideal examples, one is in a position to then
proceed to understanding the real world. If one fails to
understand the conceptual principles underlying the ideal
examples, one cannot possibly understand the real world.

Your posting seems to reflect your usual sour grapes attitude.
I will expect you to object to every example that uses lossless
transmission lines from now on including ones by Ramo & Whinnery,
Walter Johnson, Walter Maxwell, J. C. Slater and Robert Chipman.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
You may or may not already know this, but a lot of detailed optical
analysis these days is done with full 3-D electromagnetic simulation,
starting from Maxwell equations and boundary conditions. Interference,
coherence, energy flow, and all of the other stuff you like to discuss
can be *output* from that analysis, but those items are not part of
the input. The "centuries old" optics simply does not get the job
done. The "centuries old" stuff may work in the (impossible) cases
where everything is completely lossless and ideal, but it doesn't give
the right answers in the real world.

Ideal examples are time-honored ways of discussing concepts
and getting away from the vagaries of the real world. If one
understands the ideal examples, one is in a position to then
proceed to understanding the real world. If one fails to
understand the conceptual principles underlying the ideal
examples, one cannot possibly understand the real world.

Your posting seems to reflect your usual sour grapes attitude.
I will expect you to object to every example that uses lossless
transmission lines from now on including ones by Ramo & Whinnery,
Walter Johnson, Walter Maxwell, J. C. Slater and Robert Chipman.

I don't know why you would choose to accuse me of "sour grapes". That is
a characteristic of someone who has lost an argument. 8-)

You keep referring to the optical masters of old as being a huge
resource that is largely unknown to the RF crowd. I am merely
introducing the 21st century into the discussion.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

On Mar 7, 8:17 am, Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Coherency, non-coherency, and interference is covered well
in "Optics" by Hecht and other textbooks. Optical physicists
have been tracking the EM energy flow for centuries. This
information may be new to you but it is old hat in physics.

Cecil,

You may or may not already know this, but a lot of detailed optical
analysis these days is done with full 3-D electromagnetic simulation,
starting from Maxwell equations and boundary conditions. Interference,
coherence, energy flow, and all of the other stuff you like to discuss
can be *output* from that analysis, but those items are not part of the
input. The "centuries old" optics simply does not get the job done. The
"centuries old" stuff may work in the (impossible) cases where
everything is completely lossless and ideal, but it doesn't give the
right answers in the real world.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

You can sure say that again...in fact, Maxwell doesn't really do it
either when you get to quantum mechanical effects. But that's a story
for another day.

Certainly, those who design and build FTIR spectrometers know
perfectly well that interference does not depend on a narrow-band
coherent source. Blackbody radiation works just fine, thank you. But
it doesn't take much beyond belief in linear systems to understand
that. I recall explaining to a company VP how it worked in terms of a
linear system, and it was very gratifying to see the virtual light
bulb lighting up in his head...he really got it.

Cheers,
Tom

K7ITM wrote:
Certainly, those who design and build FTIR spectrometers know
perfectly well that interference does not depend on a narrow-band
coherent source.

How narrow-band? How coherent? In the irradiance (power
density) equation, Ptot = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(A),
if the angle 'A' is varying rapidly, what value do you
use for cos(A)?

A constant average sustained level of destructive
interference cannot be maintained between two waves
unless they are coherent. If they are not coherent
the interference will average out to zero.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Certainly, those who design and build FTIR spectrometers know
perfectly well that interference does not depend on a narrow-band
coherent source.

How narrow-band? How coherent? In the irradiance (power
density) equation, Ptot = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(A),
if the angle 'A' is varying rapidly, what value do you
use for cos(A)?

A constant average sustained level of destructive
interference cannot be maintained between two waves
unless they are coherent. If they are not coherent
the interference will average out to zero.

Gee, I wonder if the experts may have moved beyond the elementary optics
textbook descriptions?

Are you suggesting that FTIR cannot work unless one has your nice 1-D
configurations with perfectly monochromatic waves? Does everything need
to be collinear and coherent?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
Are you suggesting that FTIR cannot work unless one has your nice 1-D
configurations with perfectly monochromatic waves?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Please cease and
desist with your diversions in the form of innuendo.

It is not my fault that a transmission line is essentially
one-dimensional but I am willing to take technical advantage
of that fact of physics. It is not my fault that CW transmitters
emit essentially monochromatic waves but I am willing to take
technical advantage of that fact of physics.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 7, 2:34 pm, Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Certainly, those who design and build FTIR spectrometers know
perfectly well that interference does not depend on a narrow-band
coherent source.

How narrow-band? How coherent? In the irradiance (power
density) equation, Ptot = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(A),
if the angle 'A' is varying rapidly, what value do you
use for cos(A)?

A constant average sustained level of destructive
interference cannot be maintained between two waves
unless they are coherent. If they are not coherent
the interference will average out to zero.

Gee, I wonder if the experts may have moved beyond the elementary optics
textbook descriptions?

Are you suggesting that FTIR cannot work unless one has your nice 1-D
configurations with perfectly monochromatic waves? Does everything need
to be collinear and coherent?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

So--I have a classic Michelson interferometer, and I see the classic
ring pattern on the screen at the "output" port. I also have a
sensitive microchannel plate detector system that I propose to put in
place of the screen, so that I can reduce the light amplitude to where
it makes sense to be observing it with the very sensitive detector.
In fact, I propose to reduce the light level to the point that the
short wavelength light I'm using is only putting a few photons per
second into the interferometer. I'll count a significant fraction of
those photons and identify where they landed on the microchannel
plate. Do you suppose, Gene, that I'll still see the same
interference pattern that I saw with the much higher intensity light?
Is there any limit to how low a light level I can use and still see
the pattern?

If I do still see the pattern, there must be yet another "dimension" I
need to add to my understanding of the situation -- not rooted in
classical Maxwell e&m.

And of course a dimension that is removed if you think only of average
quantities is time; one who thinks only in terms of averages removes
the possibility of the deeper understanding that resolution as a
function of time allows.

Cheers,
Tom

K7ITM wrote:
On Mar 7, 2:34 pm, Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Certainly, those who design and build FTIR spectrometers know
perfectly well that interference does not depend on a narrow-band
coherent source.
How narrow-band? How coherent? In the irradiance (power
density) equation, Ptot = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(A),
if the angle 'A' is varying rapidly, what value do you
use for cos(A)?
A constant average sustained level of destructive
interference cannot be maintained between two waves
unless they are coherent. If they are not coherent
the interference will average out to zero.
Gee, I wonder if the experts may have moved beyond the elementary optics
textbook descriptions?

Are you suggesting that FTIR cannot work unless one has your nice 1-D
configurations with perfectly monochromatic waves? Does everything need
to be collinear and coherent?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

So--I have a classic Michelson interferometer, and I see the classic
ring pattern on the screen at the "output" port. I also have a
sensitive microchannel plate detector system that I propose to put in
place of the screen, so that I can reduce the light amplitude to where
it makes sense to be observing it with the very sensitive detector.
In fact, I propose to reduce the light level to the point that the
short wavelength light I'm using is only putting a few photons per
second into the interferometer. I'll count a significant fraction of
those photons and identify where they landed on the microchannel
plate. Do you suppose, Gene, that I'll still see the same
interference pattern that I saw with the much higher intensity light?
Is there any limit to how low a light level I can use and still see
the pattern?

If I do still see the pattern, there must be yet another "dimension" I
need to add to my understanding of the situation -- not rooted in
classical Maxwell e&m.

And of course a dimension that is removed if you think only of average
quantities is time; one who thinks only in terms of averages removes
the possibility of the deeper understanding that resolution as a
function of time allows.

Cheers,
Tom

Tom,

One step at a time. Cecil has not yet accepted the real world in the
classical state. The quantum state will need to wait.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ