Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:10:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

2) What would be Rs optical analog?

Superman's cataracts with his xray vision. This is probably going to
be your only direct answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On 28 mayo, 03:18, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:10:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

2) What would be Rs optical analog?

Superman's cataracts with his xray vision. *This is probably going to
be your only direct answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OK, good example. Cataracts presents absortion, transmission and
reflection (they are whitish). To be analog I think should not have
reflection. What do you think? (Perhaps seems maieutics but really I
am trying to put my thoughts in order at first).

What about the third point? I consider it important because light
waves are in three dimensional space, so when they cancels in a
region, reinforces in other and I can understand redistribution, but
line travelling waves are in unidimensional space and here I can not
visualize (realize?) the energy redistribution as in light
interference. Sorry, when I put interrogation words inside
parentheses is that I am not sure the better/adecuated translation.

73

Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On 28 mayo, 05:47, lu6etj wrote:
On 28 mayo, 03:18, Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:10:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

2) What would be Rs optical analog?

Superman's cataracts with his xray vision. *This is probably going to
be your only direct answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OK, good example. Cataracts presents absortion, transmission and
reflection (they are whitish). To be analog I think should not have
reflection. What do you think? (Perhaps seems maieutics but really I
am trying to put my thoughts in order at first).

What about the third point? I consider it important because light
waves are in three dimensional space, so when they cancels in a
region, reinforces in other and I can understand redistribution, but
line travelling waves are in unidimensional space and here I can not
visualize (realize?) the energy redistribution as in light
interference. *Sorry, when I put interrogation words inside
parentheses is that I am not sure the better/adecuated translation.

73

Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ

Sorry I thought it was a very simple Cecil's answer. It was a joke,
wasn't it?. It is my fault... I did not realize the signature and not
translate well the paragraph :)

Miguel

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On May 27, 9:10*pm, lu6etj wrote:
1) I did not think of (or is think on?) a laser source, I was one step
before, I think only of a "coherent" source to match monofrequency
simple AC generator analogy.

Let's consider an *ideal* single-frequency laser to be a coherent
monofrequency source for the purposes of discussion.

2) What would be Rs optical analog?

I don't know enough about lasers to answer that question. In any case,
I don't think reflections incident upon a laser encounter whatever Rs
that might exist. I think we are going to have to settle for what
happens outside of the laser which in important because what happens
to photons in free space and other mediums cannot be hidden inside a
transmission line. Standing waves of photons cannot stand still in a
coaxial transmission line any better than they can stand still in free
space.

What some people are missing is that visible light waves and RF waves
are exactly the same phenomena, just at a different frequency. The
laws of physics governing light waves also govern RF waves. When
someone says, "RF waves are different from light waves" or "RF waves
can stand still", they are just showing their ignorance. They must
also prove that reflected visible light waves in free space contain no
energy and can stand still or else they are just blowing smoke.

3) Superposition is a medium phenomenon ¿yes?, for example "eter".
Interference an result of it on a other "thing", for example
photographic plate or screen. Are we agree? K

No, in our context, superposition is the merging of two or more EM
waves in any medium. If the waves are coherent, constructive/
destructive interference can occur. If partial or complete wave
cancellation (permanent destructive interference) occurs, then the
energy in the waves that existed before cancellation must be
redistributed in another direction AND there are only two directions
in an RF transmission line.

I believe that Walter Maxwell defines any reversal in direction of
reflected energy flow in a transmission line to be a "re-reflection".
I prefer to call what happens to a single reflected wave a 1. "re-
reflection" and what happens when two waves cancel a 2.
"redistribution" of reflected energy.

What about the third point? I consider it important because
light waves are in three dimensional space, ...

Let's compare coax with 0.2 square inches of cross-sectional area to a
laser beam with 0.2 square inches of cross-sectional area. For the
same power level, the power density, watts/in^2, will be the same -
therefore the Poynting vectors will be the same. With such a concept
in place, we can talk about a 100w RF source or a 100w laser source.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On May 27, 10:34*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Note that the reflection coefficient, r, is 1.0 for air.

Sorry, I misspoke here. Instead of "reflection coefficient", I should
have said "index of refraction". The two are related but they are not
the same parameter.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Fri, 28 May 2010 01:47:40 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

On 28 mayo, 03:18, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:10:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

2) What would be Rs optical analog?

Superman's cataracts with his xray vision. *This is probably going to
be your only direct answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OK, good example. Cataracts presents absortion, transmission and
reflection (they are whitish). To be analog I think should not have
reflection. What do you think? (Perhaps seems maieutics but really I
am trying to put my thoughts in order at first).

Whatever reflects, also absorbs and vice-versa. The notion that the
interface is a singularity (infinitely thin) cannot be found in
reality. Arguments that hinge on this non-existent property are made
for the novice to intermediate student. Those who practice the
science of optics at the bench never observe this metaphor in reality.

What about the third point? I consider it important because light
waves are in three dimensional space, so when they cancels in a
region, reinforces in other and I can understand redistribution, but
line travelling waves are in unidimensional space and here I can not
visualize (realize?) the energy redistribution as in light
interference. Sorry, when I put interrogation words inside
parentheses is that I am not sure the better/adecuated translation.

Superposition is the collapse of all possible solutions to a real one.
To be real, we must have an observer. Frequently that is called a
load. That load may be a transducer (light cell). Without the
observer, both energies are present - nothing cancels. What is called
redistribution is a superstitious necessity of trying to visualize the
math. Redistribution is a strained term that is useful as a placebo,
but nothing moves in the redistribution (an irony or a paradox which
is more useful in entertainment).

Traveling along the road of using optical metaphors is troubling for
those who have never worked at an optic bench. Cut and paste theory
from eminent authors occludes vision.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Fri, 28 May 2010 02:03:51 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

It was a joke,
wasn't it?.

It was the only explicit answer you will ever get.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On 28 mayo, 15:12, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 01:47:40 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:





On 28 mayo, 03:18, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:10:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

2) What would be Rs optical analog?

Superman's cataracts with his xray vision. *This is probably going to
be your only direct answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OK, good example. Cataracts presents absortion, transmission and
reflection (they are whitish). To be analog I think should not have
reflection. What do you think? (Perhaps seems maieutics but really I
am trying to put my thoughts in order at first).

Whatever reflects, also absorbs and vice-versa. *The notion that the
interface is a singularity (infinitely thin) cannot be found in
reality. *Arguments that hinge on this non-existent property are made
for the novice to intermediate student. *Those who practice the
science of optics at the bench never observe this metaphor in reality.

What about the third point? I consider it important because light
waves are in three dimensional space, so when they cancels in a
region, reinforces in other and I can understand redistribution, but
line travelling waves are in unidimensional space and here I can not
visualize (realize?) the energy redistribution as in light
interference. *Sorry, when I put interrogation words inside
parentheses is that I am not sure the better/adecuated translation.

Superposition is the collapse of all possible solutions to a real one.
To be real, we must have an observer. *Frequently that is called a
load. *That load may be a transducer (light cell). *Without the
observer, both energies are present - nothing cancels. *What is called
redistribution is a superstitious necessity of trying to visualize the
math. *Redistribution is a strained term that is useful as a placebo,
but nothing moves in the redistribution (an irony or a paradox which
is more useful in entertainment).

Traveling along the road of using optical metaphors is troubling for
those who have never worked at an optic bench. *Cut and paste theory
from eminent authors occludes vision.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Hi Cecil and Richard (thanks for answer my questions Cecil, and add
your technical comments Richard).

I reply (is it OK "reply"?) to Richard first because it is part of my
comment to Cecil. Yes, Richard. Tonight I said to me: -the worst term
that you could use, Miguel, was "ether"- :), because "ether" is a
hipotetical MATERIAL thing, so, as on other material mediums we
usually can literally see interference because interference is
manifested on matter, but we need photographic plates, screens,
retinas, etc. to manifest electromagnetic interference, "loads" as say
Richard, ("observer" it is more sutil and difficult concept, I dare
not with "him").
I needed know what represent that in a line discontinuity (in a load
seems obvious) to better understand Cecil's examples in web page
(http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm).
.....
Before continue I want to do a comment to know if we agree (more or
less). We partially think with words or symbols, words and symbols
represent concepts or perceptions, concepts are not "out there", as
Einstein said they a "free creations of human mind". There is not
energy out there, there is not velocity out there, that things are in
our brains (or consciusness if you prefer). We need consensus to
collective think on it, we need "sincrhonize" our minds to
colectivelly think the world...
You think in english, I think in spanish, I need translate "your"
words to "my" words to understand what you say, I can not say: "whats
the hell is a rig!", where are "rigs"! only there are "equipos"
boys! :) For that I need understand what means Cecil with
redistribution, I belieive I can understand his idea behind the word,
I must make the effort because my own language barrier. Perhaps the
consensus word to it may be not "redistribution", but... what Cecil
tries explain to me? I try never identify the "map" (words, concepts)
with the "territory" (hipotetical real world) because misleading me.
.....
Cecil I want to ask you if you are using "photon" term to
methaforically refer to "light". I am not qualified at all to address
this issue in quantic physics terms I thougth we was fully inmersed in
ondulatory theory.
I do not have useful knowledge in laser either. but I can imagine (I
believe) the properties of Rs analogy.
I am interested in your optical analogy because analogies often are
useful to visualize a new thing knowing old things, it does not matter
if we use RF concepts to aproximate optical things or vice versa,
analogies are useful crutches (muletas in spanish). Even I agree at
our concept that electromagnetic spectrum includes RF waves and ligh
waves and they are the same phenomenon, I think that is a result of
great insight and efforts of the human mind, it is not so evident. We
see light, we sense infrared radiaton, but we can not perceive well RF
without instruments (unless we introduce ourselves in a micowave oven
or burn with the antenna, of course ).
To concentrate light we only need a piece of glass, to do the same on
HF RF region we need large wire antenna arrays. Because of this we
often need (or employ) very differents models to deal with the "same
thing". Probably Maxwell equations solve all of them, but they are
difficult ladies to deal :).
Reconciling optcs models with electric models have its difficulties,
but can be productive undoubtedly I believe.

(Richard I do not think wathever reflects also absorbs (ideally at
last), It can reflects an transmits but nor absorb, do you agree with
it?)

(I do not forget Roy's article, I'm still trying to sort out all the
puzzle pieces).

73

Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Fri, 28 May 2010 15:46:02 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I reply (is it OK "reply"?)

Hi Miguel,

Your usage is fine.

to Richard first because it is part of my
comment to Cecil. Yes, Richard. Tonight I said to me: -the worst term
that you could use, Miguel, was "ether"- :), because "ether" is a
hipotetical MATERIAL thing,

Hypothetical.

so, as on other material mediums we
usually can literally see interference because interference is
manifested on matter, but we need photographic plates, screens,
retinas, etc. to manifest electromagnetic interference, "loads" as say
Richard, ("observer" it is more sutil and difficult concept, I dare
not with "him").
I needed know what represent that in a line discontinuity (in a load
seems obvious) to better understand Cecil's examples in web page
(http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm).

Representing, representation, like the term redistribution, are all
crutches for intellect. If you get stuck on one, you are forever
behind. If it works - fine. When the crutch breaks, you have to be
able to walk away without feeling cheated. (Amusing, being able to
walk away means you never needed the crutch in the first place.)

....
Before continue I want to do a comment to know if we agree (more or
less). We partially think with words or symbols, words and symbols
represent concepts or perceptions, concepts are not "out there", as
Einstein said they a "free creations of human mind". There is not
energy out there, there is not velocity out there, that things are in
our brains (or consciusness if you prefer). We need consensus to
collective think on it, we need "sincrhonize" our minds to

Synchronize.

colectivelly think the world...
You think in english, I think in spanish, I need translate "your"
words to "my" words to understand what you say, I can not say: "whats
the hell is a rig!", where are "rigs"! only there are "equipos"
boys! :) For that I need understand what means Cecil with
redistribution, I belieive I can understand his idea behind the word,
I must make the effort because my own language barrier. Perhaps the
consensus word to it may be not "redistribution", but... what Cecil
tries explain to me? I try never identify the "map" (words, concepts)
with the "territory" (hipotetical real world) because misleading me.

Redistribute is an action verb. Nothing happens until you measure it
(you need a load). This speaks to your Ether (or Aether or Æther)
being a medium, but there is no evidence of Ether existing. So for
action, it is in the loading - nothing else happens (has action)
without a load.

The "concept" of redistribution collapses to zero if you do not take a
measure, but it exists if you do? Logically, the causal relationship
is with the observation, not with the energy. The load reveals a
concept that does not exist without it.

What you wonder about and call a map, or territory, is a forest of
loads that give a population of varied responses that are a product of
phase differences. Mathematical "representations" of this are called
surface maps (your term of map is appropriate) or contour maps. Within
these types of representation, you can see patterns. However, the
patterns are those revealed by a multitude of loads. Take away the
loads and you would see nothing.

(Richard I do not think wathever reflects also absorbs (ideally at
last), It can reflects an transmits but nor absorb, do you agree with
it?)

No. I have measured light at the bench, and I have studied its
applications at many scales down to subwavelength dimensions. All
materials absorb light without qualification. All materials reflect
light without qualification. All materials transmit light without
qualification.

You may be tempted to tightly constrain what you call light to force
an artificial solution. Do not do it, because that serves no useful
purpose.

Consider the sun, light (a photon) from its center has to penetrate
its bulk before we see it. It takes something like 10,000 years for
that light to reach the surface. Any material you think of here on
our mud ball planet is inconsequential in comparison.

Using an optical analogy for RF is very dangerous if you cannot
measure it at the bench. Why try to understand two unknowns together?

The greatest danger of an optical analogy is in your perception (I
choose that word with care) that IF you are able to "see" it, THEN
that means that you "understand" it. Sight is an illusion (another
word chosen with care) that is most often clouded by the mind. This
topic fills books from both academic and popular writers.

In simple terms, there are optical events that you are certain you can
see, but that you cannot measure or show anyone else. There are
optical events you and others can measure, but you cannot see.

A simple (but complex one to build) example is the conjugate mirror.
It reflects light, but when you look into it, all you see is black. If
you have no experience at the bench, then what I write is a puzzle.
Although I have described why this happens, I doubt anyone remembers
or knows the answer to this contradiction.

If you want a hint, it relates ENTIRELY to your trying to tie together
RF, reflection, and other transmission/transmitter topics. Look at
the ongoing discussion on source resistance, and note the same word
conjugate's appearance in that commentary.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On 28 mayo, 21:05, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 15:46:02 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I reply (is it OK "reply"?)

Hi Miguel,

Your usage is fine.

to Richard first because it is part of my
comment to Cecil. Yes, Richard. Tonight I said to me: -the worst term
that you could use, Miguel, was "ether"- *:), because "ether" is a
hipotetical MATERIAL thing,

Hypothetical.

so, as on other material mediums we
usually can literally see interference because interference is
manifested on matter, but we need photographic plates, screens,
retinas, etc. to manifest electromagnetic interference, "loads" as say
Richard, ("observer" it is more sutil and difficult concept, I dare
not with "him").
I needed know what represent that in a line discontinuity (in a load
seems obvious) to better understand Cecil's examples in web page
(http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm).

Representing, representation, like the term redistribution, are all
crutches for intellect. *If you get stuck on one, you are forever
behind. *If it works - fine. *When the crutch breaks, you have to be
able to walk away without feeling cheated. *(Amusing, being able to
walk away means you never needed the crutch in the first place.)

....
Before continue I want to do a comment to know if we agree (more or
less). We partially think with words or symbols, words and symbols
represent concepts or perceptions, concepts are not "out there", as
Einstein said they a "free creations of human mind". There is not
energy out there, there is not velocity out there, that things are in
our brains (or consciusness if you prefer). We need consensus to
collective think on it, we need "sincrhonize" our minds to

Synchronize.

colectivelly think the world...
You think in english, I think in spanish, I need translate "your"
words to "my" words to understand what you say, I can not say: "whats
the hell is a rig!", where are "rigs"! *only there are "equipos"
boys! :) For that I need understand what means Cecil with
redistribution, I belieive I can understand his idea behind the word,
I must make the effort because my own language barrier. Perhaps the
consensus word to it may be not "redistribution", but... what Cecil
tries explain to me? I try never identify the "map" (words, concepts)
with the "territory" (hipotetical real world) because misleading me.

Redistribute is an action verb. *Nothing happens until you measure it
(you need a load). *This speaks to your Ether (or Aether or Æther)
being a medium, but there is no evidence of Ether existing. *So for
action, it is in the loading - nothing else happens (has action)
without a load.

The "concept" of redistribution collapses to zero if you do not take a
measure, but it exists if you do? *Logically, the causal relationship
is with the observation, not with the energy. *The load reveals a
concept that does not exist without it.

What you wonder about and call a map, or territory, is a forest of
loads that give a population of varied responses that are a product of
phase differences. *Mathematical "representations" of this are called
surface maps (your term of map is appropriate) or contour maps. Within
these types of representation, you can see patterns. *However, the
patterns are those revealed by a multitude of loads. *Take away the
loads and you would see nothing.

(Richard I do not think wathever reflects also absorbs (ideally at
last), It can reflects an transmits but nor absorb, do you agree with
it?)

No. *I have measured light at the bench, and I have studied its
applications at many scales down to subwavelength dimensions. *All
materials absorb light without qualification. *All materials reflect
light without qualification. *All materials transmit light without
qualification. *

You may be tempted to tightly constrain what you call light to force
an artificial solution. *Do not do it, because that serves no useful
purpose.

Consider the sun, light (a photon) from its center has to penetrate
its bulk before we see it. *It takes something like 10,000 years for
that light to reach the surface. *Any material you think of here on
our mud ball planet is inconsequential in comparison.

Using an optical analogy for RF is very dangerous if you cannot
measure it at the bench. *Why try to understand two unknowns together?

The greatest danger of an optical analogy is in your perception (I
choose that word with care) that IF you are able to "see" it, THEN
that means that you "understand" it. *Sight is an illusion (another
word chosen with care) that is most often clouded by the mind. *This
topic fills books from both academic and popular writers.

In simple terms, there are optical events that you are certain you can
see, but that you cannot measure or show anyone else. *There are
optical events you and others can measure, but you cannot see.

A simple (but complex one to build) example is the conjugate mirror.
It reflects light, but when you look into it, all you see is black. If
you have no experience at the bench, then what I write is a puzzle.
Although I have described why this happens, I doubt anyone remembers
or knows the answer to this contradiction.

If you want a hint, it relates ENTIRELY to your trying to tie together
RF, reflection, and other transmission/transmitter topics. *Look at
the ongoing discussion on source resistance, and note the same word
conjugate's appearance in that commentary.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard.

Really brilliant and good arguments, it is a pleasure for me to read
them. In certain dialog level I can agree with almost all of it (I
said I am interested in knowledge theory or science philosophy) but,
you know, they are philosophical and controversial topics. Reality,
duality, consciousness, observer...
In technics we are (or use) a much more naive vison of world and It
works!, there is not strange Schrödinger cats in ham radio! (or in
radio technics) :)

Models Richard, all are models, mathematical models, physical models,
naive models, "Ideas", representations of "reality" in our minds. We,
humans, walk with our crutches -always- = simple crutches, elaborated
crutches, little crutches, BIG crutches... :)
All of my physics and electronics books have "representations",
thousands of them, why not? they work...! -except when don't
work :( - Well...when not work = chao with electron "little balls",
chao with clasical electrodynamics, chao with Newton's laws, chao with
Reality!, It is good for me... very exciting!

I understand what you say Richard but also I think that you seems (to
me) adscribe to a sort of, "right model" or "true model", I'm not, I
am a little exceptical about "truths" o "rigth sciences", for that
reason I like listen as carefully as I can, others ideas. Listen, this
not a criticism to you, remember I said "In certain level of dialog I
can agree..."

The bench... all of my life spent on the bench. The bench it is a good
friend, -probably an essential friend- but tends to be a fa little
"gross" friend. We need also a rational friend (and -why not- an
intuitive friend) to make a bingo. With "rational" friend we have,
mathematics, calculus, idealized models,:real world is: this tree,
that tree, it is not easy (for not tell impossible) to understand a
world of individual trees. Rational friend invents the "ideal
tree" (certainly not a "bench tree") and works...! we can operate very
well with ideal trees!, we can put them into simbolic equations,
inside computer memories, good thing (for me) ideal things, total
reflection, full transparent thinghs, cuasi-infinitely thin things.

Yes, analogies are dangerous, I know, women too... I dare to risk :D

It reflects light, but when you look into it, all you see is black.

Very interesting thing, I like to see one (better if I can understand
it)

Richard, I feel that I must to return to Ham radio world and try to
see if it is possible compatibilize my old Terman model with yours.
This dialog does not bother me at all, as I said It is a pleasure, but
without wanting, I am going out off topic :) I truly enjoyed your
comments.

73

Miguel

PS: Certainly I did not postulate the existence of an ether, here we
usually call it figuratively, like an old friend, as a kind of "Santa
Claus".