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

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

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".

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

"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*

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

"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*

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

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