Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:36:02 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

there is not strange Schrödinger cats in ham radio! (or in
radio technics) :)

Is yours dead? Maybe if you looked again....

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)

You can't see it! That is the point. It is also by definition. To
understand it, you have to understand the conjugate match. Have you
been following that story with Walt and myself?

Like I said, trying to learn two things at the same time, when you
cannot understand either of them singly, is foolish. Metaphors (RF as
photon theory) often fail at the wrong time without being noticed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On May 28, 5:46*pm, lu6etj wrote:
Tonight I said to me: -the worst term
that you could use, Miguel, was "ether"- :), because "ether" is a
hipotetical MATERIAL thing, ...

The first guesses at the nature of the ether were obviously wrong. But
we now know that if you replace the word "ether" with "quantum soup"
in your statements about ether, that you will be technically correct
as far as quantum physics can determine. Take a look at the Casimir
Effect to see if empty space is really empty. In reality, totally
empty space would be outside of the space/time of the known universe.

http://www.answers.com/topic/casimir-effect

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).

At the junction of two transmission lines, if the characteristic
impedances (Z01 and Z02) are not the same value, then reflections and
subsequent interference will usually occur. This is similar to saying:
At the junction of two light mediums, if the index of refraction is
not the same value in both mediums, then reflections will occur from a
(laser) light beam normal to the two surfaces. I am specifying
normal=90 deg. and ignoring refraction which is of little importance
in an RF transmission line.

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".

And Shakespeare said:

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet; ..."

There's not much argument between the definition of "rose" and
"rosal". I call that a 1st level abstraction. Things get a little more
complicated at the Nth level abstraction. If in Texan I said, "Ah
reckon Ah'm gonna amble over yonder directly", you might have trouble
with the meaning (except for "amble". :-)

Cecil I want to ask you if you are using "photon" term to
methaforically refer to "light".

No, EM (light and RF) waves are known to be quantized and therefore
consist of photons. The reason that I refer to the photons is that
photons must obey a certain set of laws of physics. For instance, they
must move at the speed of light in a medium. Photons cannot stand
still in a standing wave. Therefore, any theory of physics that
requires photons to stand still is incorrect. That would include the
particular interpretation of the lumped-impedance model that some
folks are pushing here on this newsgroup. The only time I will refer
to photons is when the presented EM wave theory contradicts the
accepted laws of quantum physics. It is simply an attempt at trying to
keep some folks honest.

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 ).

The point is that what we see at visible light frequencies also
happens at RF frequencies but we cannot see RF. By switching to a
visible light example, I can point out the errors of someone
attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the unwashed masses.

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

Note that Roy seems to be completely ignorant of this fact of physics:
"... the photons are redistributed to regions that permit constructive
interference ..." as described on the Florida State web page at the
bottom of the page:

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

In an RF transmission line, the only "regions that permit constructive
interference" is the single opposite direction in the transmission
line from the direction of destructive interference. In the absence of
a localized source of energy, any destructive interference in one
direction (at an isolated impedance discontinuity in a transmission
line) must be balanced by an equal magnitude of constructive
interference in the opposite direction. The conservation of energy
theorem will have it no other way.

If you are familiar with the scattering parameter/matrix equations,
much can be learned by analyzing them. Note that the equations are
phasor math, not simple algebra equations.

http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/hpan95-1.pdf

b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2

b1, the total reflected voltage toward the load, is equal to the
forward voltage (from the source) reflected from the impedance
discontinuity, phasor added to the transmitted reflected voltage
through the impedance discontinuity (from the load).

b2 = s21*a1 + s22*a2

The total forward voltage toward the load, is equal to the transmitted
forward voltage through the impedance discontinuity (from the source),
phasor added to the reflected voltage (from the load) that is re-
reflected back toward the load by the impedance discontinuity.

The a and b parameters are voltages normalized to the square root of
Z0. Squaring both sides of each equation will yield the interference
terms in watts, that indicate where the energy goes, i.e. which of two
directions in a transmission line.

Note that if b1 = 0, there is (by definition) total destructive
interference between s11*a1 and s12*a2, i.e. the same as a Z0-match in
a transmission line.

Even if no classic reflections (associated with a physical reflection
coefficient) exist, as in Roy's foot-for-thought example, destructive
interference at the source resistor will cause some or all of the
energy in the reflected wave to be *redistributed* (redirected) back
toward the load as constructive interference. Since the wave
cancellation causes a reversal in direction of reflected energy
(somewhat resembling a reflection) Walter Maxwell, in "Reflections"
defines that reversal as a "reflection from a virtual short".
Presumably the virtual short (or open) concept would also apply to a
1/4WL thin-film coating on non-reflective glass.

Miguel, "redistribute" is not in my Spanish/English dictionary but
"redirect" is and might be a reasonable mental substitute for you to
conceptualize. From the FSU web page, ...the photons are redistributed
(i.e. redirected) to regions that permit constructive
interference ... .
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

"lu6etj" wrote news:19d6b598-32b4-468d-9b2a-


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".

No Lorentz aether (motionless solid body).
In space is plasma (ions and electrons) and dust. They rotate with the Sun.
The electrons are the medium for the electric waves.
S*

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

"lu6etj" wrote news:0d91fd84-c798-4391-8e90-I do not
have useful knowledge in laser either.

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 :).

Maxwell equations are wrote by Heaviside.

Reconciling optcs models with electric models have its difficulties,
but can be productive undoubtedly I believe.

Now light is produced with the electric device:
"As the electrons are undergoing acceleration they radiate electromagnetic
energy in their flight direction, and as they interact with the light
already emitted, photons along its line are emitted in phase, resulting in a
"laser-like" monocromatic and coherent beam. The mirrors show in the sketch
below are superfluous, as all the light is emitted in one direction anyway."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array

When electrons oscillate they disturb the "electron see" and that are waves.
To achive the oscillations we use different devices.
The Halbach array is for light. The dipole for RF. For radar and microwaves
the another.
S*

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On 29 mayo, 14:27, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"lu6etj" wrote news:0d91fd84-c798-4391-8e90-I do not
have useful knowledge in laser either.

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 :).

Maxwell equations are wrote by Heaviside.

Reconciling optcs models with electric models have its difficulties,

but can be productive undoubtedly I believe.

Now light is produced with the electric device:
"As the electrons are undergoing acceleration they radiate electromagnetic
energy in their flight direction, and as they interact with the light
already emitted, photons along its line are emitted in phase, resulting in a
"laser-like" monocromatic and coherent beam. The mirrors show in the sketch
below are superfluous, as all the light is emitted in one direction anyway."
From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array

When electrons oscillate they disturb the "electron see" and that are waves.
To achive the oscillations we use different devices.
The Halbach array is for light. The dipole for RF. For radar and microwaves
the another.
S*

I all

Richard, I can not translate "Is yours dead?", I suppose means
something as "if it is my last word about it". Well...I do not believe
in witches but there are, there are! I shall not bet :)

Have you been following that story with Walt and myself?
Sorry, no. ocassionally I read the topic in this newsgroup long time
ago.
.....
I agree Cecil, be indulgent with my poor translations, I should have
written "I don not postulate Ether, without 'an' before", pointing -
with the capital "L"- to our old friend "luminiferous ether"; quantic
ether it is a different and very interesting stuff, isn't it?
I can not tranlate your Texan sentence, is a dialect? (patois?). Would
you mind write it in basic "english for aliens" for me).
I do not quite understand this = "Photons cannot stand still in a
standing wave." -You do not ascribe to wave-particle duality notion?-

As I understand quantic numbers of HF energy are a such extremely
small quantities that have unmeasurable effects, I understood (or
suppose) you wanted mean quantic physics born of fail of classical
electrodynamics to explain all phenomena.
When I pointed to dimensions of transmission line space vs
tridimensional space I am thinking of what you called (named?)
"redistribution" as meaning the only possible solution in such space
is redirection (or reflection). Is it OK?
From me understanding "reflection" is a way of "redirection" of light
that obey to the reflection law of optics, in transmission line space
I think would be synonymous (at last in spanish language). Do not you
agree?
Anyway, I think that classic physics is enough to explain phenomena on
extremly low quantic number systems, as HF energy or cars in
movement :)

Returning to analogy. I can not realize how associate Zc changes to
refraction because I learnt refraction as a differente speed of light
medium phenomenom. Give me a hand.

["re" it is only a prefix, look for "distribute" (or verb "distribuir"
in spanish = "Give something its timely placement or convenient
location". I bet it has same meaning in english]

Before advance more. I am not yet quite discern your (plural)
conceptual differences. Please remember that I did a question and you
answer with concepts of advanced stages of your discussion. Until now -
seems to me- Owen sustain our clasic Terman et al teachings and is
critic of Walter's theory; you too but from different point of view
(redistribution of energy, interference, photon laws, etc). I do not
know yet Roy's differences, and Richard would support all Walter's
hipothesis.

Also seems to me that a piece of discussion revolves around
"truthness" (in weak sense of word) of respective models more than
capacity of each one to give correct results to empiric measurements.
Perhaps a little summary of coincidences and differences can serve to
other readers, and me, obviously :)

73 and good weekend to all

Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ

PS: QSL to Szczepan comments

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:24:47 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Richard, I can not translate "Is yours dead?", I suppose means
something as "if it is my last word about it". Well...I do not believe
in witches but there are, there are! I shall not bet :)

It was a Quantum joke. It has groans AND laughs until you read it.

Have you been following that story with Walt and myself?
Sorry, no. ocassionally I read the topic in this newsgroup long time
ago.

Too bad. I find plate resistance an interesting application of macro
and micro action. I thought you would too.

"Photons cannot stand still in a
standing wave."

Gad, what an awful statement.

As I understand quantic numbers of HF energy are a such extremely
small quantities that have unmeasurable effects,

They are measured. Your "understanding" is an example of how a
metaphor can throw you into the ditch. Trying to go down the optical
path to discuss RF will find you walking in the bushes.

Zc changes to
refraction

Gad, another awful statement.

["re" it is only a prefix, look for "distribute" (or verb "distribuir"
in spanish = "Give something its timely placement or convenient
location". I bet it has same meaning in english]

Your English is fine.

Richard would support all Walter's
hipothesis.

No, I don't support Walt's hypothesis, I support his data. Walt and I
disagree about Plate resistance being "real." It is a very small step
over a very large boulder. (Quantum tunneling would make it easier.)

The "problem" with Plate resistance seems to have arrived through
creationism - a novel superstition instead of a simple superposition.

Also seems to me that a piece of discussion revolves around
"truthness" (in weak sense of word) of respective models more than
capacity of each one to give correct results to empiric measurements.
Perhaps a little summary of coincidences and differences can serve to
other readers, and me, obviously :)

The word you are trying to find is "validity," that is, if this is a
scientific issue. You are right about "truthfulness" if it is a
religious issue. Or possibly a boolean logical result if we left the
realm of analog.

Validity is a result of testing results (scientific method) against
expectations.

Truth is a result of burning someone (auto de fé) until they agree
with you.

Choose your company with care. Do they work at the bench, or do they
play with matches? :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On May 29, 4:24*pm, lu6etj wrote:
I agree Cecil, be indulgent with my poor translations, I should have
written "I don not postulate Ether, without 'an' before", pointing -
with the capital "L"- to our old friend "luminiferous ether"; quantic
ether it is a different and very interesting stuff, isn't it?

Miguel, your English is a magnitude better than my Spanish so don't
worry about it. "Quantum ether" are two words that I have never seen
together before. Maybe you will be famous for that concept.

I can not tranlate your Texan sentence, is a dialect? (patois?). Would
you mind write it in basic "english for aliens" for me).

Northern Americans cannot understand it either. :-) The translation
is: "I think I will walk over there after awhile." The Texan word
"amble" came from the Spanish word "amblar".

I do not quite understand this = "Photons cannot stand still in a
standing wave." -You do not ascribe to wave-particle duality notion?-

Some of the RF gurus will try to convince you that the energy in RF
standing waves is standing still. But since those RF waves consist of
photons which must necessarily move at the speed of light in the
medium, they are dead wrong. The correct concept is that a pure
standing wave doesn't transfer any *net* energy but the two equal
component traveling waves, forward and reverse, are still moving at
the speed of light in opposite.

As I understand quantic numbers of HF energy are a such extremely
small quantities that have unmeasurable effects, I understood (or
suppose) you wanted mean quantic physics born of fail of classical
electrodynamics to explain all phenomena.

The point is that the photonic energy in an RF wave cannot stand
still. That defeats the argument that reflected waves don't exist or
don't contain any energy. Such is simply nonsense.

When I pointed to dimensions of transmission line space vs
tridimensional space I am thinking of what you called (named?)
"redistribution" as meaning the only possible solution in such space
is redirection (or reflection). Is it OK?

Light waves can be reflected, refracted, and/or redistributed in any
3D direction. RF waves in a transmission line can only flow in two
directions, forward and reverse. That simplifies things considerably.
Coherent waves flowing in the same direction in a transmission line
suffer permanent interaction.

From me understanding "reflection" is a way of "redirection" of light
that obey to the reflection law of optics, in transmission line space
I think would be synonymous (at last in spanish language). Do not you
agree?

Yes, but wave cancellation accompanied by destructive interference can
also redirect EM energy. Wave cancellation is what w7el is missing in
his food-for-thought article.

Anyway, I think that classic physics is enough to explain phenomena on
extremly low quantic number systems, as HF energy or cars in
movement :)

Yes, but when classic physics allegedly doesn't obey the laws of
quantum electrodynamics, something is wrong, and quantum
electrodynamics wins every time.

Returning to analogy. I can not realize how associate Zc changes to
refraction because I learnt refraction as a differente speed of light
medium phenomenom. Give me a hand.

For the purposes of RF waves in a transmission line, you can forget
refraction as an irrelevant effect.

["re" it is only a prefix, look for "distribute" (or verb "distribuir"
in spanish = "Give something its timely placement or convenient
location". *I bet it has same meaning in english]

Yes, that is probably correct.

... you too but from different point of view
(redistribution of energy, interference, photon laws, etc).

My concepts are directly from the field of optical physics. You might
want to obtain a copy of "Optics", by Hecht. It is available in
Spanish:

http://www.astronomyinspanish.org/sl...l/optica_hecht

This book will teach you more about EM *energy flow* than any RF
engineering book that I know of.

Perhaps a little summary of coincidences and differences can serve to
other readers, and me, obviously :)

The model that w7el uses for his food-for-thought article on forward
and reflected power is obviously wrong because it doesn't indicate
where the reflected energy goes. When a model confuses the user and
obviously doesn't represent reality, it's time to upgrade to a better
model. The EM wave model used in optics does necessarily track the
reflected energy because optical physicists cannot easily measure
voltage.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On 29 mayo, 22:21, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 29, 4:24*pm, lu6etj wrote:

I agree Cecil, be indulgent with my poor translations, I should have
written "I don not postulate Ether, without 'an' before", pointing -
with the capital "L"- to our old friend "luminiferous ether"; quantic
ether it is a different and very interesting stuff, isn't it?

Miguel, your English is a magnitude better than my Spanish so don't
worry about it. "Quantum ether" are two words that I have never seen
together before. Maybe you will be famous for that concept.

I can not tranlate your Texan sentence, is a dialect? (patois?). Would
you mind write it in basic "english for aliens" for me).

Northern Americans cannot understand it either. :-) The translation
is: "I think I will walk over there after awhile." The Texan word
"amble" came from the Spanish word "amblar".

I do not quite understand this = "Photons cannot stand still in a
standing wave." -You do not ascribe to wave-particle duality notion?-

Some of the RF gurus will try to convince you that the energy in RF
standing waves is standing still. But since those RF waves consist of
photons which must necessarily move at the speed of light in the
medium, they are dead wrong. The correct concept is that a pure
standing wave doesn't transfer any *net* energy but the two equal
component traveling waves, forward and reverse, are still moving at
the speed of light in opposite.

As I understand quantic numbers of HF energy are a such extremely
small quantities that have unmeasurable effects, I understood (or
suppose) you wanted mean quantic physics born of fail of classical
electrodynamics to explain all phenomena.

The point is that the photonic energy in an RF wave cannot stand
still. That defeats the argument that reflected waves don't exist or
don't contain any energy. Such is simply nonsense.

When I pointed to dimensions of transmission line space vs
tridimensional space I am thinking of what you called (named?)
"redistribution" as meaning the only possible solution in such space
is redirection (or reflection). Is it OK?

Light waves can be reflected, refracted, and/or redistributed in any
3D direction. RF waves in a transmission line can only flow in two
directions, forward and reverse. That simplifies things considerably.
Coherent waves flowing in the same direction in a transmission line
suffer permanent interaction.

From me understanding "reflection" is a way of "redirection" of light
that obey to the reflection law of optics, in transmission line space
I think would be synonymous (at last in spanish language). Do not you
agree?

Yes, but wave cancellation accompanied by destructive interference can
also redirect EM energy. Wave cancellation is what w7el is missing in
his food-for-thought article.

Anyway, I think that classic physics is enough to explain phenomena on
extremly low quantic number systems, as HF energy or cars in
movement :)

Yes, but when classic physics allegedly doesn't obey the laws of
quantum electrodynamics, something is wrong, and quantum
electrodynamics wins every time.

Returning to analogy. I can not realize how associate Zc changes to
refraction because I learnt refraction as a differente speed of light
medium phenomenom. Give me a hand.

For the purposes of RF waves in a transmission line, you can forget
refraction as an irrelevant effect.

["re" it is only a prefix, look for "distribute" (or verb "distribuir"
in spanish = "Give something its timely placement or convenient
location". *I bet it has same meaning in english]

Yes, that is probably correct.

... you too but from different point of view
(redistribution of energy, interference, photon laws, etc).

My concepts are directly from the field of optical physics. You might
want to obtain a copy of "Optics", by Hecht. It is available in
Spanish:

http://www.astronomyinspanish.org/sl...l/optica_hecht

This book will teach you more about EM *energy flow* than any RF
engineering book that I know of.

Perhaps a little summary of coincidences and differences can serve to
other readers, and me, obviously :)

The model that w7el uses for his food-for-thought article on forward
and reflected power is obviously wrong because it doesn't indicate
where the reflected energy goes. When a model confuses the user and
obviously doesn't represent reality, it's time to upgrade to a better
model. The EM wave model used in optics does necessarily track the
reflected energy because optical physicists cannot easily measure
voltage.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Hi to all...

Richard, do you agree with Walter's theory on "Another look at
reflections" in reflections topic -out of plate resistance
differences-?

The word you are trying to find is "validity,"

No, it was more near of your second = "Truth", or "The Truth", the
metaphysical "truth" :)

Walt and I disagree about Plate resistance being "real"

What is "real" for you? For me it is a slippery word ever ready to
disputes, in knowledge matters makes us think of the "thing itself"
and with it, we quickly fall into endless scholastic discussions. With
models "the thing" it is a little more ease, models only must be
internal and measurements consistent. Models are neither "True" nor
"Real", they are modestly "valid" :) What do you think?
........
I believe I am in a privileged position because my english weakness :
when I am about to disagree with you, I tell me -"probably you do not
translate well, Miguel, ask again"- and when you answer to me then
voilá! I do not disagree... Viceversa, perhaps language give me a
second chance with you because you are more forgiving with me :)

Example:
Miguel =
I do not quite understand this = "Photons cannot stand still in a
standing wave." -You do not ascribe to wave-particle duality notion?-
Cecil =
Some of the RF gurus will try to convince you that the energy in RF
standing waves is standing still. But since those RF waves consist of
photons which must necessarily move at the speed of light in the
medium,

So, now I believe what he is trying to tell me is stationary wave is a
measured time dependent magnitude resulting of two near speed of light
traveling waves, manifestating in our measurement apparatus (observer
or "load" as said Richard)... It is good to me.. Then, I do not care
anymore the ugly (nasty?) word "photon" :), and finally to my joy,
next Cecil sentence confirms my translation/interpretation!.

Coherent waves flowing in the same direction in a transmission line
suffer permanent interaction.

It is difficult to me reconcile superposition principle with
"interaction", because in spanish "interacción" word means: "Action
exerted MUTUALLY between two or more objects, agents, forces,
functions, etc" (capitals are mine) And I learnt two or more
electromagnetic waves can pass one through other by same point of the
SPACE without recognizing themselves (unlike particles that
"collide"), then, by definition, they not interactuate themselves at
all.
We do not "see" any standing wave in space when two same path opposite
direction RF rays cross themselves and there is not contradiction. Are
you agree?
In transmission lines instead it is not easy to think that because
more "tangible" standing wave voltages and currents make us think they
are "interacting". What do you think about it?,

but wave cancellation accompanied by destructive interference can
also redirect EM energy

To satisfy the energy conservation principle, isn' it? This produces a
reflection, right?

but when classic physics allegedly doesn't obey the laws of
quantum electrodynamics, something is wrong, and quantum
electrodynamics wins every time.

Could be classic electrodynamics be right but we are not applying
correctly, and then classic model not become a losser in this matter?

I see you do not agree with some Roy Lewallen proposition: do you
agree with Walter Maxwell on this topic?

Sorry (for me) Cecil "quantum ether" is not mine :(

Thanks for optics book recommendation.

73

Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Sat, 29 May 2010 22:59:49 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hi to all...

Richard, do you agree with Walter's theory on "Another look at
reflections" in reflections topic -out of plate resistance
differences-?

Hi Miguel,

Walt is not espousing a theory.

The word you are trying to find is "validity,"

No, it was more near of your second = "Truth", or "The Truth", the
metaphysical "truth" :)

Then this will be great sport.
(sport: from Old French desport , pleasure ,
from desporter , to divert
- I assume it is not very different
from the Spanish desportes)

Walt and I disagree about Plate resistance being "real"

What is "real" for you?

Children.

For me it is a slippery word ever ready to
disputes, in knowledge matters makes us think of the "thing itself"
and with it, we quickly fall into endless scholastic discussions. With
models "the thing" it is a little more ease, models only must be
internal and measurements consistent. Models are neither "True" nor
"Real", they are modestly "valid" :) What do you think?

They have what is called "internal consistency."
.......
I believe I am in a privileged position because my english weakness :

I have designed natural language parsers (NLP). Non-native speakers
of English know the language far better than native born speakers.

That is your privilege.

when I am about to disagree with you, I tell me -"probably you do not
translate well, Miguel, ask again"- and when you answer to me then
voilá! I do not disagree... Viceversa, perhaps language give me a
second chance with you because you are more forgiving with me :)

I have lived in more countries and spoken more languages than most
here. There are many here that speak and write perfectly poor English
that makes better sense that some of the strange statements you are
trying to parse.

Example:
Miguel =
I do not quite understand this = "Photons cannot stand still in a
standing wave." -You do not ascribe to wave-particle duality notion?-
Cecil =
Some of the RF gurus will try to convince you that the energy in RF
standing waves is standing still. But since those RF waves consist of
photons which must necessarily move at the speed of light in the
medium,

So, now I believe what he is trying to tell me is stationary wave is a
measured time dependent magnitude resulting of two near speed of light
traveling waves, manifestating in our measurement apparatus (observer
or "load" as said Richard)... It is good to me.. Then, I do not care
anymore the ugly (nasty?) word "photon" :), and finally to my joy,
next Cecil sentence confirms my translation/interpretation!.

Coherent waves flowing in the same direction in a transmission line
suffer permanent interaction.

It is difficult to me reconcile superposition principle with
"interaction", because in spanish "interacción" word means: "Action
exerted MUTUALLY between two or more objects, agents, forces,
functions, etc" (capitals are mine) And I learnt two or more
electromagnetic waves can pass one through other by same point of the
SPACE without recognizing themselves (unlike particles that
"collide"), then, by definition, they not interactuate themselves at
all.

You have the second privilege of understanding a confused statement
when you see it. This is language independent.

We do not "see" any standing wave in space when two same path opposite
direction RF rays cross themselves and there is not contradiction. Are
you agree?

To see is to witness, or be an observer (from the Latin observare, ob-
over, -servare watch). When two light waves illuminate the same load,
and the load is observable, you see the combination of two energies at
that load.

A standing wave does not exist until you measure the combination of
the contributions at a point. You can, of course, populate a large
area with many point-loads if you wish to map a region. Under very
controlled circumstances, you will get to see a nice pattern.

The sport is found he Of course, you could see the same pattern at
the same points by the projection of an image upon them from one
source.

Could you tell the difference between (1) that single source projected
image and (2) the standing wave combination of several sources?

This is too much fun already, but.....

So, for Truth: Is a movie projector acted upon by the movie it
projects? Was your camera happy because your photograph shows a
smile? The Truth would say yes. What would Schrodinger see?

Does that help?

In transmission lines instead it is not easy to think that because
more "tangible" standing wave voltages and currents make us think they
are "interacting". What do you think about it?,

A confused statement.

but wave cancellation accompanied by destructive interference can
also redirect EM energy

To satisfy the energy conservation principle, isn' it? This produces a
reflection, right?

You are in the bushes.

but when classic physics allegedly doesn't obey the laws of
quantum electrodynamics, something is wrong, and quantum
electrodynamics wins every time.

Could be classic electrodynamics be right but we are not applying
correctly, and then classic model not become a losser in this matter?

Let's see now. You have three things to figure out. RF, Light, and
QED. I hestitate to wonder what could possibly follow if you prove to
be to slow to figure these out. Perhaps sudoko patterns revealing the
entanglement of strange attractors. (Sorry for the translation
overload.)

And this started with Truth? :-)

Write when you receive more inspiration. (A supernatural divine
influence on the prophets, apostles, or sacred writers, by which they
were qualified to communicate moral or religious truth with authority;
a supernatural influence which qualifies men to receive and
communicate divine truth; also, the truth communicated.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

Uzytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 29, 4:24 pm, lu6etj wrote:


Light waves can be reflected, refracted, and/or redistributed in any
3D direction.

In optics are mirrors which reflect and transmit the desired proportion of
light.

RF waves in a transmission line can only flow in two
directions, forward and reverse.

It can also transmit.

That simplifies things considerably.
Coherent waves flowing in the same direction in a transmission line
suffer permanent interaction.

But the reflected is weaker.

From me understanding "reflection" is a way of "redirection" of light
that obey to the reflection law of optics, in transmission line space
I think would be synonymous (at last in spanish language). Do not you
agree?

Yes, but wave cancellation accompanied by destructive interference can
also redirect EM energy. Wave cancellation is what w7el is missing in
his food-for-thought article.

Anyway, I think that classic physics is enough to explain phenomena on
extremly low quantic number systems, as HF energy or cars in
movement :)

Yes, but when classic physics allegedly doesn't obey the laws of
quantum electrodynamics, something is wrong, and quantum
electrodynamics wins every time.

Returning to analogy. I can not realize how associate Zc changes to
refraction because I learnt refraction as a differente speed of light
medium phenomenom. Give me a hand.

For the purposes of RF waves in a transmission line, you can forget
refraction as an irrelevant effect.

["re" it is only a prefix, look for "distribute" (or verb "distribuir"
in spanish = "Give something its timely placement or convenient
location". I bet it has same meaning in english]

Yes, that is probably correct.

... you too but from different point of view
(redistribution of energy, interference, photon laws, etc).

My concepts are directly from the field of optical physics. You might
want to obtain a copy of "Optics", by Hecht. It is available in
Spanish:

http://www.astronomyinspanish.org/sl...l/optica_hecht

This book will teach you more about EM *energy flow* than any RF
engineering book that I know of.

Perhaps a little summary of coincidences and differences can serve to
other readers, and me, obviously :)

The model that w7el uses for his food-for-thought article on forward
and reflected power is obviously wrong because it doesn't indicate
where the reflected energy goes. When a model confuses the user and
obviously doesn't represent reality, it's time to upgrade to a better
model. The EM wave model used in optics does necessarily track the
reflected energy because optical physicists cannot easily measure
voltage.

The intensity is also accurate.
The end of the dipole reflect and transmit. The proportion is measured as
VWSR.
But for this you need the Electric Wave Model.
EM was stripped away by Royal Society in 1864.
S*
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com