U¿ytkownik "Szczepan Bia³ek" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...


Raman discovered that some substances can rework one frequency into many
(also in higher).
May be that a cotton screan also rework.

Next Dr. wrote:
" This is a subject I have considerable experience in. My group at Eastman
developed a process Raman spectrometer that used communications grade
fibers to transmit both the excitation wavelength and the anti-Stokes
Raman scattered light. Chalcogenide fibers, at around $1K per foot, would
be needed to transmit the IR wavelengths needed for the analysis we were
doing. The communication grade fibers cost less than one foot of the
expensive fibers for the entire several hundred feet needed to separate
the analyzer from the chemical process. Our patents were eventually
licensed to the Rosemount division of Emerson Electric.

Raman spectroscopy is based on the _non-linear_ (inelastic) scattering of
photons. It is quite weak; more than 100 million photons are reflected by
the linear (elastic) Rayleigh scattering for every photon reflected by
Raman scattering.

For this reason it was observed very late (1928). It is seen on the film
after many hours of continued radiation.

I am convinced now that Szczepan Bialek is nothing more than an offensive
troll. It is best to ignore him as the physics newsgroups seem to have
done. May he bask in his own stupidity! Or perhaps he and Art and the
gays and the gay bashers could form their own "alt.troll" newsgroup.

YOU ALL make me troll. For my simple question, instead of answers, you send
questions. "Why you want to know?", "Why you write here?". I simply try to
be polite and I write.
You was the first who wrote ( in the answer in my topic): "Nowhere in all of
the respected literature will you find frequency
doubling caused by the two ends of a dipole."
Till now nobody answered me why the polarisation of radio waves disappear
after long way.
Only Richard wrote that the term "polarisation" apply to an equipment. To
waves rather "polarity".
Too late for me for study. "Trolling" is more efficient. About the frequency
multiplying now I know eneugh.
About light polarisation not all. The radio waves and the apparatus are
large enough to observe this phenomenon. The Hertz apparatus is the best for
it. Of course the emitter only. To analise the waves is necessary more
sophisticated than the ring.
S*





In the case of a TV screen, you're seeing either:

- The mixed emissions of a set of red, green, and blue phosphors,
individually excited by electron beams [for CRT displays], or

- The emission from the phosphors of a cold-cathode fluorescent
backlighting lamp (a complex spectrum with multiple peaks) filtered
through red, green, and blue pixel-sized filters (for most LCD
tubes).

In traditional film cinema, you're seeing the emissions of an
incandescent or halogen bulb (fairly continuous spectrum) filtered
through three colors of dye in the film print.

The fact that these complex mixtures of overlapping color spectra can
look "pure white" to our eyes, is due in large part to our complex
nervous systems. Our eye/brain systems adapt to the mix of colors
present under differnet lighting conditions, and interpret different
combinations as "pure white" depending on what's available at the time.

Yes. But for me is interesting the phenomenon at reflecting, scatering and
refraction. May be that "polarisation" is an effect of that.

This is why, for example, indoor fluorescent lighting can actually
look half-decent to our eyes once we get used to it (we "see" a fairly
complete range of colors there) but what looks "white" to use under
fluorescents will actually have a distinctly greenish cast to a film
or digital camera.

It's also why a rather curious phenomenon can be demonstrated. The
*exact* same mix of color emissions may look very different to us,
under different ambient lighting conditions... what might look
greenish outdoors will look pure white or even slightly pinkish under
indoor fluorescent lighting, because our brains *interpret* that input
differently due to the different surroundings.

Is the light polarisation the hard prove that light vaves are transversal?
S*



--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:40:04 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

YOU ALL make me troll.

You must suffer terribly from our imposition, but your form of cure
isn't going to answer the absolutely stupid things that you write.

Only Richard wrote that the term "polarisation" apply to an equipment. To
waves rather "polarity".

Something you still don't understand - even in direct translation.

Too late for me for study.

Too lazy, rather, as evidenced by:

"Trolling" is more efficient.

If you had been sent out of the caves to "efficiently" discover fire,
we would have returned to living in the trees.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
For instance, standing waves
consist of photons that cannot stand still.

As opposed to consisting of photons that _can_ stand still? :-)

Some people will argue that EM standing waves are
actually standing still which implies that photons
can stand still which they cannot.

Some might infer such things, but I don't know who. You're the only one
that I know of who says things like that.

On another newsgroup, I pointed out the above
concept of EM waves just standing there is similar
to the idea that since the number of northbound
vehicles on the Golden Gate Bridge equal the number of
southbound vehicles, there is no net traffic flow and
therefore no maintenance of the bridge is required.

Certainly a far cry from the idea you tried to sell on this newsgroup
that interference patterns cause northbound vehicles to move in a
southbound direction and southbound vehicles to move in a northbound
direction.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Certainly a far cry from the idea you tried to sell on this newsgroup
that interference patterns cause northbound vehicles to move in a
southbound direction and southbound vehicles to move in a northbound
direction.

There you go again, Jim, continuing to blame me for a
poor choice of words that, at your urging, I recanted more
than a year ago. I rewrote my energy article to remove any
reference to interference as the cause of anything. The
footnote says: "...since interference can occur with or
without wave cancellation, any reference to interference
as the cause of the redistribution of energy has been removed."

Exactly how long can you hold a grudge about a poor choice
of words that was corrected long ago at your urging? Would
you like for me to change it back so you can justify
continuation of your incessant compulsive bitching?

Or is it that you still don't understand the FSU web page?

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/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."

That redistribution of energy cannot happen without
interference. For the umteenth time, I apologize for ever
saying that interference causes the redistribution. If
you will mail me a Xerox of your posterior, I will kiss
it and send it back to you if that would help.

Here is how Hecht defines "interference" in "Optics":

"Briefly then, optical Interference corresponds to the
interaction of two or more lightwaves yielding a resultant
irradiance that deviates from the sum of the component
irradiances."

Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Certainly a far cry from the idea you tried to sell on this newsgroup
that interference patterns cause northbound vehicles to move in a
southbound direction and southbound vehicles to move in a northbound
direction.

Or is it that you still don't understand the FSU web page?

:-) Why are there never any examples provided to support these
'suggestions' of yours?

So now you minimize the fact that you argued vehemently with everyone
for endless months over your malformed ideas about how energy moves in
impedance matching systems. After I found the Melles-Griot web page
which seemed to support your idea, I realized the idea was physically
impossible and tried to persuade you away from it. I let you know in
every way I could that you had it wrong, and gave you every possible
example of it that I could think of, and in the process you called me
every nasty insulting thing you could think of. So yeah, I guess I do
have a tendency not to overlook it as easily as you do.

If
you will mail me a Xerox of your posterior, I will kiss
it and send it back to you if that would help.

No, but an admission that for months you behaved like a horse's
posterior would.

Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does. In fact that's one of the many ways I explained it to you
back when you wrote about how stupid, ignorant, and wrong I was about it
and how everyone from Galileo to Eugene Hecht agreed with you. What I
don't recall is ever seeing you take any of that back.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
So now you minimize the fact that you argued vehemently with everyone
for endless months over your malformed ideas about how energy moves in
impedance matching systems.

I apologized over a year ago and changed my article.
Exactly how long are you going to harass me about
a poor choice of words that I used in the distant
past for which I have apologized multiple times?

There was nothing wrong with the ideas and concepts
which have always been valid. The problem was with
the definitions of the words I was using, i.e. 100%
semantic.

I was using definitions of "reflection" and
"interference" that differ from the pure physics
definitions. I have admitted it and changed all my
articles. Do you want me to go to the nearest
police station and confess my semantic capital
offense or just go sit in the electric chair and
wait?

No, but an admission that for months you behaved like a horse's
posterior would.

I will admit to treating you the way you treat me.
Whatever ad hominem label you choose for your harassing
behavior is OK with me. But it is not clear why you
continue that same harassment years after I have repented
of my cardinal sins, been forgiven by God himself,
apologized to you multiple times, and changed my articles
at your urging.

Do you continue to kick your poor dog after he stopped
wetting the floor more than a year ago?

Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does.

Finally.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:40:04 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

YOU ALL make me troll.

You must suffer terribly from our imposition, but your form of cure
isn't going to answer the absolutely stupid things that you write.

Only Richard wrote that the term "polarisation" apply to an equipment. To
waves rather "polarity".

Something you still don't understand - even in direct translation.

I do my best. Posting is also a free English lessons. It is a good method
(only the long hair dictionary is better).
So do not discourage. You are doing a good job.

Too late for me for study.

Too lazy, rather, as evidenced by:

"Trolling" is more efficient.

If you had been sent out of the caves to "efficiently" discover fire,
we would have returned to living in the trees.

Laurence Hecht advices return to Ampere. Gauss, Weber. See:
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ar...odynamics.html
and:
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html

What do you think about such "funny" stories?
S*

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
So now you minimize the fact that you argued vehemently with everyone
for endless months over your malformed ideas about how energy moves in
impedance matching systems.

I apologized over a year ago and changed my article.

Changed your article, yes. Apology, not as such.

There was nothing wrong with the ideas and concepts
which have always been valid. The problem was with
the definitions of the words I was using, i.e. 100%
semantic.

Most of your ideas and concepts were of course correct, Cecil. Your
conceptual problem was pretty much as I said: that interference causes
northbound cars to travel southbound, and southbound cars to travel
northbound. It provided you with justification for adding, subtracting,
and superposing average power at will. It was related to the belief you
adopted about waves causing other waves to do things. You insisted that
it had to be so, otherwise energy would not be conserved. Fortunately
for the universe, energy was conserved despite your insistence. So it
wasn't merely a difference over semantics. That would have been an even
greater waste of time.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Most of your ideas and concepts were of course correct, Cecil. Your
... it wasn't merely a difference over semantics.

I have not changed any of my basic ideas or concepts.
All I have changed is the definitions of "interference"
and "reflection" that I was using. It was a trivial
problem and easily fixed by changing "causes" to
"corresponds to" and "reflected" to "redistributed". The
only problem left is your refusal to accept my apology
and lay the distant past to rest after I made all the
revisions that you suggested.

You absolute refusal to define any of the words you were
using was part of the problem.

It provided you with justification for adding, subtracting,
and superposing average power at will.

For your information, the use of the irradiance (power density)
equation from Born and Wolf is *NOT* superposition of powers.
It is, however, the proper way to add power densities when
interference is present. If the forward and reflected waves are
not 90 degrees out of phase, interference is present at every
impedance discontinuity and energy is being redistributed in
different directions. I would expect a physics major to know
such or at least know where to look to alleviate his ignorance.

You once said that the irradiance equation that I quoted from
"Optics" by Hecht did not appear in Born and Wolf and that
Hecht had been discredited or some such. I bought the Born and
Wolf book and found the exact equation to which you were objecting.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

You once said that the irradiance equation that I quoted from
"Optics" by Hecht did not appear in Born and Wolf and that
Hecht had been discredited or some such. I bought the Born and
Wolf book and found the exact equation to which you were objecting.

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.

ac6xg