On 25 mayo, 11:49, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 24, 10:31*pm, lu6etj wrote:

Anyway, my question is about validity of the assertion that reflected
wave -in that example- IS ABSORBED by the pad. According to my simple
calculations this hipothesis, as I see it, it does not coincide with
my early learnings.

Miguel, let's switch your example over to an easier to understand
example. Assume an ideal signal generator equipped with a resistive
circulator load. Let's call such a device an SGCR, a Signal Generator
equipped with a Circulator and a Resistor. Assume that 100% of the
reflected energy is dissipated in the circulator load resistor (none
re-reflected) and none of the reflected energy reaches the source. So
here is the block diagram.

SGCR--------feedline--------load

That model should be easier to discuss than the pad attenuator model.
What do you think?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Excuse me Cecil:

I am reading this newsgroup through Google groups web page and I just
realized that later replies to previous post are intercalated in the
thread, while I expected to see it always at the end of it, for that
reason I did not ACK before to it. (I hope yours be the only one, I
will review all thread tho chek for others).

In a early post I wrote = "of course if we insert a circulator to
separate both powers, generator now would see 1 ohm load, could
develope 1 W incident, 0 W reflected (Pn=1W) on circulator input, 0.36
W would be outputting on the other port to render 0.64 W (Pn) to the
load with 1 W Pf and 0,36 W Pr again"
Is this result OK for you?.

The thread advance toward more deeper issues since :), and now I have
been analizing all the matter because it quickly superceed my original
doubt. A few minutes ago had started to read your article (http://
www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm) and the Roy's one (http://eznec.com/misc/
Food_for_thought.pdf) and yesterday I have been reloading my old
"Transmission lines antennas and wave guides" from King, Mimno & Wing
to review the issue from that classical perspective.

I am interested in your optic analogy, I can imagine the load as a
partially reflecting surface, real part of it as absorbance
(transmittance if it was a radiator). line as a unidimensional medium
and reflection as the form of "redistribute energy" (is it OK?) and a
coherent light source for the voltage source, but I am still trying to
visualze the optical equivalent of source resistance and its job to be
a good analog, Also I am interested in check other values and
conditions in your other article (first part) with 45 degree line.

Thank you very much for your helping and inspiration.

73 - Miguel LU6ETJ

On May 27, 9:50*am, lu6etj wrote:
I am reading this newsgroup through Google groups web page and I just
realized that later replies to previous post are intercalated in the
thread, while I expected to see it always at the end of it, for that
reason I did not ACK before to it. (I hope yours be the only one, I
will review all thread tho chek for others).

I am also using Google since ATT dropped Usenet. I liked Thunderbird a
lot better than Google's usenet interface but I am adapting. The above
information is good to know. Thunderbird has a way to keep up with
unread vs read postings but Google doesn't seem to - at least I don't
know how to do it on Google.

In a early post I wrote = "of course if we insert a circulator to
separate both powers, generator now would see 1 ohm load, could
develope 1 W incident, 0 W reflected (Pn=1W) on circulator input, 0.36
W would be outputting on the other port to render 0.64 W (Pn) to the
load with 1 W Pf and 0,36 W Pr again"
Is this result OK for you?.

The SGCR source is usually designed for 50 ohms, i.e. the signal
generator always "sees" a 50 ohm load because it does not "see" any
reflected energy. The ideal circulator is usually designed with 50 ohm
line and a 50 ohm load resistor. If we could stick with that
particular configuration for the SGCR source, it would aid in my
understanding what is the actual system configuration, i.e. not your
fault but I am confused by your above posting.

I am interested in your optic analogy, I can imagine the load as a
partially reflecting surface, real part of it as absorbance
(transmittance if it was a radiator). line as a unidimensional medium
and reflection as the form of "redistribute energy" (is it OK?) and a
coherent light source for the voltage source, but I am still trying to
visualze the optical equivalent of source resistance and its job to be
a good analog, Also I am interested in check other values and
conditions in your other article (first part) with 45 degree line.

I don't think a laser source handles reflected energy like an RF amp
does. So, to start with, let's avoid reflected energy being incident
upon the laser source. Here is a good example to start with, a 1/4WL
non-reflective coating on glass.

Laser-----air-------|--1/4WL thin-film, r = 1.2222---|---Glass, r =
1.4938---...

The 1/4WL thin-film coating on the glass acts exactly like a 1/4WL
matching section of transmission line. Reflections at the air to thin-
film interface are eliminated by wave cancellation just as the FSU web
page says,

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."

Note that the reflection coefficient, r, is 1.0 for air. Thus the
SQRT[(1.0)(1.4938)] = 1.2222 ensures that reflections are eliminated
by the r = 1.2222 thin-film coating.

The same thing happens at the '+' Z0-match in the following RF system.

XMTR---50 ohm coax---+---1/4WL 300 ohm feedline---1800 ohm load

Note that SQRT[(50)(1800)] = 300 ensuring that reflections are
eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 27 mayo, 12:34, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 27, 9:50*am, lu6etj wrote:

I am reading this newsgroup through Google groups web page and I just
realized that later replies to previous post are intercalated in the
thread, while I expected to see it always at the end of it, for that
reason I did not ACK before to it. (I hope yours be the only one, I
will review all thread tho chek for others).

I am also using Google since ATT dropped Usenet. I liked Thunderbird a
lot better than Google's usenet interface but I am adapting. The above
information is good to know. Thunderbird has a way to keep up with
unread vs read postings but Google doesn't seem to - at least I don't
know how to do it on Google.

In a early post I wrote = "of course if we insert a circulator to
separate both powers, generator now would see 1 ohm load, could
develope 1 W incident, 0 W reflected (Pn=1W) on circulator input, 0.36
W would be outputting on the other port to render 0.64 W (Pn) to the
load with 1 W Pf and 0,36 W Pr again"
Is this result OK for you?.

The SGCR source is usually designed for 50 ohms, i.e. the signal
generator always "sees" a 50 ohm load because it does not "see" any
reflected energy. The ideal circulator is usually designed with 50 ohm
line and a 50 ohm load resistor. If we could stick with that
particular configuration for the SGCR source, it would aid in my
understanding what is the actual system configuration, i.e. not your
fault but I am confused by your above posting.

I am interested in your optic analogy, I can imagine the load as a
partially reflecting surface, real part of it as absorbance
(transmittance if it was a radiator). line as a unidimensional medium
and reflection as the form of "redistribute energy" (is it OK?) and a
coherent light source for the voltage source, but I am still trying to
visualze the optical equivalent of source resistance and its job to be
a good analog, Also I am interested in check other values and
conditions in your other article (first part) with 45 degree line.

I don't think a laser source handles reflected energy like an RF amp
does. So, to start with, let's avoid reflected energy being incident
upon the laser source. Here is a good example to start with, a 1/4WL
non-reflective coating on glass.

Laser-----air-------|--1/4WL thin-film, r = 1.2222---|---Glass, r =
1.4938---...

The 1/4WL thin-film coating on the glass acts exactly like a 1/4WL
matching section of transmission line. Reflections at the air to thin-
film interface are eliminated by wave cancellation just as the FSU web
page says,

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."

Note that the reflection coefficient, r, is 1.0 for air. Thus the
SQRT[(1.0)(1.4938)] = 1.2222 ensures that reflections are eliminated
by the r = 1.2222 thin-film coating.

The same thing happens at the '+' Z0-match in the following RF system.

XMTR---50 ohm coax---+---1/4WL 300 ohm feedline---1800 ohm load

Note that SQRT[(50)(1800)] = 300 ensuring that reflections are
eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

May we advance in little steps to ensure we share basic assumptions?

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.
2) What would be Rs optical analog?
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

On May 27, 9:10*pm, lu6etj wrote:
On 27 mayo, 12:34, Cecil Moore wrote:



On May 27, 9:50*am, lu6etj wrote:

I am reading this newsgroup through Google groups web page and I just
realized that later replies to previous post are intercalated in the
thread, while I expected to see it always at the end of it, for that
reason I did not ACK before to it. (I hope yours be the only one, I
will review all thread tho chek for others).

I am also using Google since ATT dropped Usenet. I liked Thunderbird a
lot better than Google's usenet interface but I am adapting. The above
information is good to know. Thunderbird has a way to keep up with
unread vs read postings but Google doesn't seem to - at least I don't
know how to do it on Google.

In a early post I wrote = "of course if we insert a circulator to
separate both powers, generator now would see 1 ohm load, could
develope 1 W incident, 0 W reflected (Pn=1W) on circulator input, 0..36
W would be outputting on the other port to render 0.64 W (Pn) to the
load with 1 W Pf and 0,36 W Pr again"
Is this result OK for you?.

The SGCR source is usually designed for 50 ohms, i.e. the signal
generator always "sees" a 50 ohm load because it does not "see" any
reflected energy. The ideal circulator is usually designed with 50 ohm
line and a 50 ohm load resistor. If we could stick with that
particular configuration for the SGCR source, it would aid in my
understanding what is the actual system configuration, i.e. not your
fault but I am confused by your above posting.

I am interested in your optic analogy, I can imagine the load as a
partially reflecting surface, real part of it as absorbance
(transmittance if it was a radiator). line as a unidimensional medium
and reflection as the form of "redistribute energy" (is it OK?) and a
coherent light source for the voltage source, but I am still trying to
visualze the optical equivalent of source resistance and its job to be
a good analog, Also I am interested in check other values and
conditions in your other article (first part) with 45 degree line.

I don't think a laser source handles reflected energy like an RF amp
does. So, to start with, let's avoid reflected energy being incident
upon the laser source. Here is a good example to start with, a 1/4WL
non-reflective coating on glass.

Laser-----air-------|--1/4WL thin-film, r = 1.2222---|---Glass, r =
1.4938---...

The 1/4WL thin-film coating on the glass acts exactly like a 1/4WL
matching section of transmission line. Reflections at the air to thin-
film interface are eliminated by wave cancellation just as the FSU web
page says,

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."

Note that the reflection coefficient, r, is 1.0 for air. Thus the
SQRT[(1.0)(1.4938)] = 1.2222 ensures that reflections are eliminated
by the r = 1.2222 thin-film coating.

The same thing happens at the '+' Z0-match in the following RF system.

XMTR---50 ohm coax---+---1/4WL 300 ohm feedline---1800 ohm load

Note that SQRT[(50)(1800)] = 300 ensuring that reflections are
eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

May we advance in little steps to ensure we share basic assumptions?

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.
2) What would be Rs optical analog?
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

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

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

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

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

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

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