Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
I honestly don't believe you to be a liar. So I have to believe that
you may not be completely in possession of your faculties. That which
you describe above never happened, Cecil.

A crazy person believes that everyone else is crazy. I googled
and couldn't find exactly what I was looking for but here are
a couple of your quotes that I did find:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Aug 26, 2003, "Again, Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht."

On exactly what subjects do Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht?
After I obtained a copy of Born and Wolf, I discovered that
your above statement, repeated more than once, was false.

Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."

Exactly what sections of "Optics" by Hecht is "too old and
out of date"?

If I spent more time, I could find many other quotes of
yours like the above.

Google is a bitch, huh?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does.

Seems you have changed your mind from this earlier
assertion of yours.

There is no way to describe the mechanism for a
reversal in the direction of energy by means other
than reflection.

Can you spell R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

I googled
and couldn't find exactly what I was looking for but here are
a couple of your quotes that I did find:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Aug 26, 2003, "Again, Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht."
Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."

"You once said that the irradiance equation that I quoted from
"Optics" by Hecht did not appear in Born and Wolf"

Exactly what sections of "Optics" by Hecht is "too old and
out of date"?

Presumably the answer lies within the omitted part of the cited post.

If I spent more time, I could find many other quotes of
yours like the above.

I really wish you would, Cecil. It might help freshen your memory about
the whole thing.

But as you are so apt to do (when it best suits you), you've neglected
to include any context of the conversation that would have provided the
exact nature of my comments, and should have, according to you, proved
your assertion.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does.

Seems you have changed your mind from this earlier
assertion of yours.

There is no way to describe the mechanism for a reversal in the
direction of energy by means other than reflection.

Not at all. But drawing such a conclusion does reveal that you
apparently still have misconceptions consistent with the 4th mechanism
of reflection you introduced to us. Your vehement protestations and
testimonials about retractions and apologies notwithstanding.

Can you spell R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N?

Well if not, I'm sure my spell checker can. But you're demonstrated
that you can, and we're all very proud of you. :-)

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
But as you are so apt to do (when it best suits you), you've neglected
to include any context of the conversation that would have provided the
exact nature of my comments, and should have, according to you, proved
your assertion.

I gave you the dates of your postings, Jim. Here are
another two of your ridiculous statements:

Jun 18, 2003, "Your idea about a reversal in the direction
of the flow of energy being caused by something other than
reflection is nonsense."

Can you spell R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N?

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html

If the redistribution occurs within a transmission line,
it becomes a reversal of direction of energy flow since
there are only two directions available. At the Z0-match
point in an otherwise mismatched system, the reflected
wave energy from the load is redistributed back toward
the load at the Z0-match point.

Jun 20, 2003, "The waves continue to propagate, 180
degrees out of phase, transferring no energy.

Exactly how do you prove they continue to exist? If you
measure them, you prove that they contain energy and
thus prove yourself wrong. If you measure zero energy,
you cannot prove they exist plus they do not even
meet the definition of "wave". What happens if those
waves, which are transferring no energy, encounter
a resistive load?

Can you spell M-E-T-A-P-H-Y-S-I-C-S?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
But drawing such a conclusion does reveal that you
apparently still have misconceptions consistent with the 4th mechanism
of reflection you introduced to us.

As you know, years ago I changed the "4th mechanism
of reflection" to the "redistribution" described on
the FSU web page and apologized for my poor choice
of words. You are still kicking the dog after he
stopped wetting the floor years ago.

You asked for the mechanism that causes reversal of
the direction of energy flow during wave cancellation
and I provided it. Here it is again:

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html

Previously I was using the definition of "reflection",
common to amateur radio, as any reversal in the
direction of energy flow in a transmission line. I
then realized that a "reflection" only applies to a
single wave, not to two interacting waves. I apologized
and revised my article.

Please drag yourself into the present. Some of your
past assertions were/are false. I can dig up many
more if you desire.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecileo, master of the Universe wrote:

Aug 26, 2003, "Again, Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht."
Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."

If I spent more time, I could find many other quotes of

More time???? Six years and nothing sorted out - how much time are we
talking about?

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Richard Clark wrote:
More time???? Six years and nothing sorted out ...

Myths and old wives' tales die hard.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
More time???? Six years and nothing sorted out ...

Myths and old wives' tales die hard.

So please stop trying to invent new ones.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Myths and old wives' tales die hard.

So please stop trying to invent new ones.

I'm not doing that, Jim, just trying to lay the
old ones to rest, e.g. a 3 nS delay through a
10" long 75m bugcatcher loading coil. Please
don't tell me that you believe that a 4 MHz
signal can travel through a large 10" inch
coil in 3 nS - a coil that exhibits a VF of
0.04. That's about seven times the speed of
light.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com