Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Jun 1, 8:42*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 31, 5:58 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



Up to now we have agreed that Maxwell/Lorents aether is bogus and that in
the space is the plasma (ions and electrons) and the dust. They rotate
with
the Sun in the form of a whirl.

You are the first radioman who admit this.
the solar wind is well know and easily studies with the satellite data

available today. *but it is not an aether,

The aether in sense of medium for light propagation.

the interplanetary plasma

does not propagate the light from the sun,

In the interstellar medium (ISM) are ions, electrons and dust.http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s2.htm

The medium are the electrons ony. The rest are contaminations, like the fog
and dust in the air for the sound waves.
Do you see any sensible another solution?
S*

the electrons can not do it either. there are not enough of them and
they move too slowly in the plasma to propagate light. these are
easily measured, you can watch the density directly using the ace
satellite web page and calculate the speed of longitudinal waves if
you want, but it won't be anywhere near light speed.

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Jun 1, 12:52*am, lu6etj wrote:
Returning: Cecil, given A+B=C, do you you see C as result of an
interaction (or mutual action) among A and B, or C a simply result of
A added to B?

Of course, there are all types of "addition", e.g. arithmetic,
algebraic, voltage phasor, Poynting vector, scalar power,
superposition, merging, mixing, ... Which type of "addition" is
appropriate depends upon the nature of what is being added.

Simply put, if A + B = C creates an irreversible result, then A has
(obviously?) interacted with B. If the result is reversible, then A
has not interacted with B. For the great majority of cases,
superposition does not result in interaction. For the great majority
of cases, interference does not result in interaction. For some
(special?) cases, superposition (plus associated interference and wave
cancellation) results in interaction and the result is irreversible.
Non reflective glass is an example of wave interaction. The internal
reflection cancels the external reflection and the energy in those two
reflections changes directions. A Z0-match at an impedance
discontinuity in an RF transmission line is another example. Again, if
two waves are coherent, collimated, and traveling in the same
direction, those two waves will interact, i.e. their superposition
result is not reversible.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Jun 1, 3:42*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Do you see any sensible another solution?

What about the "quantum soup", particles winking in and out of
existence throughout space? How do you explain the Casimir effect? How
do you explain the flow of photons through evacuated space that is
devoid of electrons?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Jun 1, 11:23*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:52*am, lu6etj wrote:

Returning: Cecil, given A+B=C, do you you see C as result of an
interaction (or mutual action) among A and B, or C a simply result of
A added to B?

Of course, there are all types of "addition", e.g. arithmetic,
algebraic, voltage phasor, Poynting vector, scalar power,
superposition, merging, mixing, ... Which type of "addition" is
appropriate depends upon the nature of what is being added.

Simply put, if A + B = C creates an irreversible result, then A has
(obviously?) interacted with B. If the result is reversible, then A
has not interacted with B. For the great majority of cases,
superposition does not result in interaction. For the great majority
of cases, interference does not result in interaction. For some
(special?) cases, superposition (plus associated interference and wave
cancellation) results in interaction and the result is irreversible.
Non reflective glass is an example of wave interaction. The internal
reflection cancels the external reflection and the energy in those two
reflections changes directions. A Z0-match at an impedance
discontinuity in an RF transmission line is another example. Again, if
two waves are coherent, collimated, and traveling in the same
direction, those two waves will interact, i.e. their superposition
result is not reversible.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what exactly is the 'interaction' and why is it unique to that
special coherent, collimated, etc, case? if two waves can 'interact'
in that case there should be other evidence that they can interact in
other situations. just because a+b=c doesn't mean that a and b have
magically disappeared for some reason, in mathematics c=a+b is just as
valid and implies that c is made up of a and b... or using your water
analogy, adding one pint to another pint doesn't magically cause them
to 'interact' in some way, the original water is still there, perhaps
indistinguishable from each other, but still there. it may be
convenient to represent the result of summing an infinite series of
reflections as a single number, but it is not necessary.

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Jun 1, 8:10*am, K1TTT wrote:
what exactly is the 'interaction' *and why is it unique to that
special coherent, collimated, etc, case?

Is it not obvious that when two reflected waves cancel in one
direction, as at the surface of a 1/4WL thin-film coating on glass,
and their combined EM energy is redistributed in the opposite
direction, that those two waves have interacted, i.e. have suffered a
permanent change and have lost their original identities?

Is it not obvious that when two waves are traveling two different
paths where the incident angle is, e.g. two degrees, that those two
waves will superpose and interfere throughout a certain space after
which they emerge intact, unaffected, and have obviously not
interacted, i.e. they suffered no permanent change and have maintained
their original identities?

Did superposition occur in both cases? Yes. Did interference occur in
both cases? Yes. Did wave cancellation occur in both cases? No, just
in the non-reflective glass case.

Consider a transmission line with an SWR of 5.83:1. The sourced power
is 100 watts. The forward power is 200 watts. The reflected power is
100 watts. All of the reflected power is redistributed back toward the
load at a Z0-match through reflection and wave cancellation. Zero
reflected power is incident upon the source.

Does the 100w source wave lose its identity when it merges with the
100w of redistributed reflected wave to become the 200w forward wave?
Is the steady-state load energy coming from the source wave or the
redistributed reflected wave or both? Seems to me, it is obvious that
the two original component waves have interacted and lost their
original identities for good if they are pure coherent sine waves
traveling in the same direction confined to a coaxial transmission
line.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:52:35 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Richard, you said: -"Because" leads to superstition-; you are pointing
to causal relations?

Hi Miguel,

Language would have us believe that causal relations "be" from
"cause." Common language sometimes uses "because" as a bridge between
phrases without necessarily implying causality - in other words, the
word "because" is verbal noise when that happens. "Because" is often
a one word reply to a child's question "Why?"

I believe was you who said dislike representations, if it is yes, were
you aiming to create mental images of physical phenomena?

Oh, I do that all the time. However, I do not mistake representations
as being the real thing. In other contexts, they are more real than
the real thing. So, if there is dislike, it comes from seeing
inferior representation when better work requires so little more
effort.

Here we often use the word "methafor"
now there's a curious and suggestive spelling
in figured sense instead
"analogy", for example, "my car it is as strong as a locomotive" it is
a true methaphor. In metaphor, there are two levels or terms: the real
(my car) and evoked or imaginary (locomotive). Coulored water is it a
true methaphor or an analogy?

Both. But context should resolve that, or it could still be both.
That is why metaphor and analogy are so dangerous. That is also why
it is so useful in fiction. We get enough fiction here.

Simple analogies as useful things until one (or more) of they not
work... then, ciao analogy..!, not so bad :), however... notice!, our
ideas are not equal to the "out there" world. Concepts, models,
(mathematical models also, of course)... are not they our mind's
"analogies" "out there" sensorial/injstrumental perceived world?
These are not trivial epistemology issues, our "observer" leads
directly to the question about "Is the moon there when nobody
looks?" (N. D.Mermin). When we go out of our classic-simplistic-
realistic-traditional ham world... "we are in troubles, Houston",
slippery soil!, I make the sign of the cross! :)

Namaste.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

3. character assignation.

Hi Miguel,

How well does this translate to Spanish?

As I've offered, native speakers are often the poorest communicators
in their own language. Imagine trying to visualize an optical
metaphor when this comet hits the windshield.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Jun 1, 1:52*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 1, 8:10*am, K1TTT wrote:

what exactly is the 'interaction' *and why is it unique to that
special coherent, collimated, etc, case?

Is it not obvious that when two reflected waves cancel in one
direction, as at the surface of a 1/4WL thin-film coating on glass,
and their combined EM energy is redistributed in the opposite
direction, that those two waves have interacted, i.e. have suffered a
permanent change and have lost their original identities?

Is it not obvious that when two waves are traveling two different
paths where the incident angle is, e.g. two degrees, that those two
waves will superpose and interfere throughout a certain space after
which they emerge intact, unaffected, and have obviously not
interacted, i.e. they suffered no permanent change and have maintained
their original identities?

no, it is not obvious. where do you draw the line... 1 degree, .1
degree, .001 degree? at what point is the angle small enough to say
that they have 'interacted' and the energy is redistributed?


Did superposition occur in both cases? Yes. Did interference occur in
both cases? Yes. Did wave cancellation occur in both cases? No, just
in the non-reflective glass case.


i propose that 'cancellation' is just a special case of interference
where the waves are 'close enough' to collinear that you never see the
interference pattern. this would of course always apply in a
transmission line because they are confined.

closely analyze the transient response of your non-reflective glass in
the case where the wave is not incident perpendicular to the glass.
do each reflection from each interface separately as the wave travels
in the coating at an angle. then reduce the angle to very near
perpendicular and you should see that there are indeed reflections
that should very nearly 'cancel' each other out as the number of
reflections gets bigger.

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:41:03 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Richard: OK to "representations". Do you think there are things
accesible (or "visible") to our intelect (objectivism) or all we have
are models of external world built by our minds with the help and
mediation of our biological and technical sensing/measurements
apparatus?

Hi Miguel,

This has gotten pretty metaphysical.

I insist in that because I think that two or more models could be
capable to "explain" observed phenomena and we could partially agree
on they instead dispute hard about the "right one" :)

Data explains - the rest is the ego of pride of authorship.

Metaphysical discussions about the "thing itself" was very strong and
sterile before Newton stop caring about the "whys" and decided dealts
with "howtos" :). I think you were thinking about this when you
equalize "because"="superstition". Am I right?

I don't know.

However, though causality is an epistemological issue, usually in the
macroscopic phenomena we accept "If A, then B" as a causal relation,
example: If a rock hits my feet I absolutelly think the pain is due to
the stone, not a simple acausal correlation. In this sense is it valid
to use "because the stone")? Thanks to all for your comments

Don't you think your pain is due to nerve sensations? Rocks hit rocks
all the time and there is no pain due to anything any where.

Or maybe there is an optical proof that refutes this.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Jun 1, 3:41*pm, lu6etj wrote:
the only reason you can see standing waves is because a measurement or observation makes them look like they are 'standing' when it is really the interaction of two or more regular traveling waves.

If I do not bad understand your response to Cecil, In your sentence I
would change "interaction" by "manifestation". What do you think?

I don't remember writing that, Miguel. If I did write that, then I
misused the word "interaction". I wrote elsewhere that forward and
reflected waves don't interact as long as Z0 stays constant.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com