what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:46:10 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

a 100 W TX power during one second to gives certain amount of
energy

Hi Miguel,

POWER. Please observe the distinction as appeals to 100W or "one
second" have no bearing on where you seem to be fixated with quanta
and energy. Introducing distractions is not very useful. [I can
appreciate that you are not the source of the distractions.]

I do not confussing wavelengh with quanta!, quantized energy it is

Then quanta is a distraction, or wavelength is.

What sort of human eye we use to see 80 m "light"? :)

Why do you compare 80M to green light? The more wavelength
appropriate scale would be invisible in the 800nM Infra Red or in the
80nM Ultra Violet. Green light's correlative would be in the 55.5M
band (tropical SW).

I did not want go out off topic, I claimed quantum mechanics do not
help so much to solve TL related problems and give some reasons for
that.

Indeed, no doubt this [distraction] is attributable to a Texas
[distracting] snake in the grass.

Quantum mechanics can give a certain perspective and sense of scale,
but [distracting] amateurs shouldn't try that at home or on the
Internet.

I am not an expert in quantum physics and I am not going further
that my elementary physic book examples. Are they wrong? well... then,
I am wrong too :) PSE do not argue with me, I am innocent of charges,
read the references...

The Cosmic Radiation Background has been measured to about 2.76 K,
where the mapping variation (fluctuations of 30 microKelvins) are
within the Energy perturbation (contribution) of our Amateur
transmissions.

So as to not argue, I firmly agree with you that no one is going to
find any utility in any of this. But the debate will rage on
heedless.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 30, 3:03*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
lu6etj wrote:
On 29 jun, 15:08, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:54 pm, Jim Lux wrote:

photons can flow through a dielectric.. isn't that what EM propagation
is, after all?
Yes, after I posted it, I realized that it was a rhetorical question.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I learnt displacement current inside a condenser it was = eo* d(phi E)/
dt no EM radiation inside the condenser to made that current possible,
in any case EM radiation in physical condenser will come out from
condenser to the rest of the universe :).
I also learnt photons was necessary to explain certain energy
interchange phenomena such as fotoelectric effect or subatomic
particle interactions, wave-particle duality for me means "duality",
not "wave kaput" :) to account for EM wave well explainable
phenomenom.
As it was taught to me (I am not physicist), quantum nature of a 80 m
wavelenght energy it is useless for calculations and invisible to our
instrument resolution because its immensely large quantic number. Is
it wrong?

Miguel LU6ETJ

Photons are very useful in the analysis of transmission lines. They can
be brought into the discussion to divert it from taking a path that
makes a participant uncomfortable. If unable to answer a question
logically, simply toss photons, optics, quantum mechanics, aether, and
other confounding factors in, and presto, people will begin arguing
about the spurious concepts and forget that you've avoided answering the
difficult question. It's called misdirection, a time-honored technique
used by politicians and prestidigitators as well as promoters of
pseudoscience.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

That reminds me that somewhere in the morass of this thread, I believe
I saw an "exchange" about whether it was more proper to think of a TEM
line in terms of inductance and capacitance, or in terms of (electric
and magnetic) fields. I suppose someone had lost sight of the fact
that capacitance is simply a model that relates energy stored in an
electric field to the applied voltage, and inductance is simply a
model that relates energy stored in a magnetic field to the conducted
current. How easy it seems for some to become so invested in a
particular viewpoint that they can't see that other viewpoints are
equally valid (and often just a different way to say the same thing)
-- and may on occasion lead to new insights. Of course, those
viewpoints that have little to recommend them don't have to be given a
particularly prominent position in our thoughts. Far be it from me to
say that 10MHz energy isn't quantized, but since the quanta are far
too small for me to measure, I seldom give them much thought.

Cheers,
Tom

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Jun 30, 1:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Photons are in the real light. The natural light is not coherent. It is
emitted in the portions (packets).
Radio waves are emitted continously. Radar waves are in the portions.

Laser light can usually be considered to be coherent light

No. People produce the coherent light in :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HalbachArrayFEL.png

as are
waves generated by an RF transmitter. But of course, nothing is
perfect.

Radio waves and the light photons flow directly through the dielectric
layer
of a capacitor.

Energy flow, just not as "current".

Each waves transports the mass and energy.

Electrons are compressed in the ends of the open circuit (condenser and
antenna).

"Compressed" may be overstating the phenomenon. Have you ever
calculated exactly how far an electron moves at 10 MHz?

Electro gas behaves like all gases.

Electrons are simple.

Yes, too simple to move at the speed of light.

Air particles move with the speed temperature dependent.
Electrons do the same.
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"Roy Lewallen" wrote
...

I'd make a small addition, that . . .there is never at any instant a *net*
flow of energy away from the load. . .

Each wave transports the mass and energy from the source (or mirror).
In the microwave oven the all energy is transfered into heat.

In antenna the part of energy and mass is emitted. The reflected part is
smaller.
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 6:14*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Cecil Moore" ...
On Jun 30, 1:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Photons are in the real light. The natural light is not coherent. It is
emitted in the portions (packets).
Radio waves are emitted continously. Radar waves are in the portions.

Laser light can usually be considered to be coherent light

No. People produce the coherent light in :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HalbachArrayFEL.png

as are

waves generated by an RF transmitter. But of course, nothing is
perfect.

Radio waves and the light photons flow directly through the dielectric
layer
of a capacitor.
Energy flow, just not as "current".

Each waves transports the mass and energy.

Electrons are compressed in the ends of the open circuit (condenser and
antenna).
"Compressed" may be overstating the phenomenon. Have you ever

calculated exactly how far an electron moves at 10 MHz?

Electro gas behaves like all gases.

Electrons are simple.
Yes, too simple to move at the speed of light.

Air particles move with the speed temperature dependent.
Electrons do the same.
S*

you can do better than that, you just aren't being any fun now!

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 30, 11:29*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
Check the a0 coefficient in the Fourier transform. This represents
the DC component of the signal.

And the result is zero EM waves, either forward or reflected, and your
argument falls apart.

Without this, how would you deal with a signal such as
* V(t) = 10 + 2 cos(3t)

If the cosine term is zero, there are zero EM waves, either forward or
reflected, and your argument falls apart.

Incidentally, V(t) = 10, is a perfect way to prove that energy and the
time derivitive of energy are not the same thing and your argument
falls apart.

Alternatively, one can use the standard trick for dealing with
non-repetitive waveforms: choose an arbitrary period. 24 hours
would probably be suitable for these examples and transform from
there. Still, you will have zero frequency component to deal
with, but there will be some at higher frequencies (if you
choose your function to make it so).

Windowing doesn't generate EM waves where none exist in reality and
your argument falls apart.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 12:37*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:29*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

Check the a0 coefficient in the Fourier transform. This represents
the DC component of the signal.

And the result is zero EM waves, either forward or reflected, and your
argument falls apart.

Without this, how would you deal with a signal such as
* V(t) = 10 + 2 cos(3t)

If the cosine term is zero, there are zero EM waves, either forward or
reflected, and your argument falls apart.

Incidentally, V(t) = 10, is a perfect way to prove that energy and the
time derivitive of energy are not the same thing and your argument
falls apart.

Alternatively, one can use the standard trick for dealing with
non-repetitive waveforms: choose an arbitrary period. 24 hours
would probably be suitable for these examples and transform from
there. Still, you will have zero frequency component to deal
with, but there will be some at higher frequencies (if you
choose your function to make it so).

Windowing doesn't generate EM waves where none exist in reality and
your argument falls apart.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

a better argument is that a constant voltage produces a constant
electric field everywhere, since the field is not varying in time or
space there is no time or space derivative to create a magnetic field
so there can be no propagating em wave. you could do the same with
zero or constant current producing a constant magnetic field.

essentially the dc case IS unique in that you must wait forever for it
to reach sinusoidal steady state since the lowest frequency component
is 0hz.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 12:37*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:29*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

Check the a0 coefficient in the Fourier transform. This represents
the DC component of the signal.

And the result is zero EM waves, either forward or reflected, and your
argument falls apart.

Without this, how would you deal with a signal such as
* V(t) = 10 + 2 cos(3t)

If the cosine term is zero, there are zero EM waves, either forward or
reflected, and your argument falls apart.

Incidentally, V(t) = 10, is a perfect way to prove that energy and the
time derivitive of energy are not the same thing and your argument
falls apart.

Alternatively, one can use the standard trick for dealing with
non-repetitive waveforms: choose an arbitrary period. 24 hours
would probably be suitable for these examples and transform from
there. Still, you will have zero frequency component to deal
with, but there will be some at higher frequencies (if you
choose your function to make it so).

Windowing doesn't generate EM waves where none exist in reality and
your argument falls apart.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

a better argument is that a constant voltage produces a constant
electric field everywhere, since the field is not varying in time or
space there is no time or space derivative to create a magnetic field
so there can be no propagating em wave. you could do the same with
zero or constant current producing a constant magnetic field.

essentially the dc case IS unique in that you must wait forever for it
to reach sinusoidal steady state since the lowest frequency component
is 0hz.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 30, 11:30*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
But you are NOT adding up the energy flows - you are adding up the
power.

Ummm. Energy flow is power. Joules/s!

If it helps, any place I have written 'power', please replace with
'energy flow'.

One too many words - what I meant to say is that you are not adding up
the energy - you are adding up the power. There is no such thing as
conservation of energy flow. That is proved by your own graphs. There
are times when the energy flow is destroyed. There are other points on
your power graphs where energy flow is created.

There is no conflict with conserving flows, ...

The conflict is that conservation of flows doesn't exist. Keith, you
need to go back to college. There is no such thing as conservation of
energy flow so your argument falls apart. When one looks up
"conservation" in a physics book one finds:

conservation of energy principle
conservation of mass-energy
conservation of mechanical energy
conservation of momentum principle

There is NO conservation of energy flow or conservation of power.
Until you give up on that ridiculous concept, we don't have much to
discuss except your religion.

What happens when energy = 1 joule, and de/dt = 0 watts. This happens
all the time during an RF cycle so you are not using actual energy
flows. You are using power which goes to zero even when maximum energy
is still present.

Yes, indeed. That is a fundamental possibility and occurs on
transmission lines with infinite VSWR.

If power goes to zero, power has been destroyed. Therefore, there is
no conservation of power principle. Anything that can go to zero, i.e.
can disappear, cannot be conserved.

Power is the time derivitive of energy. They are related
but definitely not one-to-one.

Well, that shoots your argument down. If power and energy do not have
a one-to-one correspondence, then you cannot use the conservation of
energy principle to prove that power is conserved and your argument
falls apart. You must then product a conservation of power principle,
something that every physics professor has warned us doesn't exist.

I can provide any number of references to support the conservation of
energy principle. Please provide just one bona fide reference that
supports your conservation of energy flow (power) principle.

This is quite incorrect. Energy flows must balance, otherwise energy
is being created or destroyed to sustain a difference in flow.

Good grief! Any physicist knows that is false. Any number of examples
prove that is false.

Energy flows must balance as well. Otherwise,
energy is coming from nowhere to sustain the flow.

Given a black box with an input and output. Measurements of the power
flow vector indicates that the magnitude of each power flow vector is
50 watts and both vectors are pointing inside the black box. How can
the instantaneous energy flows possibly balance?

Instead, think that at every instant, the energy flow between the
entities in the experiment must balance.

You are contradicting yourself. Assume the capacitor *IS* the system
inside a black box. The instantaneous energy flow does NOT balance.

It is the
total energy within the system that is conserved, just as it is
the total of the flows of energy between the entities within the
system that must be conserved.

You have it half right. Energy must be conserved. Energy flow is not
conserved.

Put more strictly: The sum of all the energy flows in to all of
the entities within the system must equal the energy flow in to
the system.

Please see the black box experiment above and balance the energy flow.
Please produce a reference for the conservation of power principle.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 30, 5:03*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's called misdirection, a time-honored technique
used by politicians and prestidigitators as well as promoters of
pseudoscience.

Translation: Don't bother me with technical facts based on the laws of
physics. I am perfectly happy with my present metaphysics.

Actually, recognizing that EM waves are photonic in nature and are
therefore bound by the laws of physics governing photons is an attempt
to correct the previous years of misdirection engaged in by some RF
gurus. Such concepts as zero energy in EM reflected waves comes to
mind. If EM reflected waves do not obey the laws of physics, then they
don't exist - but they do.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 30, 7:03*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
I think this is the genesis of Cecil's view that energy waves
somehow bounce off the standing wave node.

I'm sorry, Roy, but I never said anything of the sort. Keith
apparently believes that energy waves somehow bounce off a standing
wave node. I am on the opposite side of that argument. I believe that
the forward wave and reflected wave flow right through a standing wave
node. I am on record as saying the only time a reflection occurs is at
a physical impedance discontinuity.

Misdirection is also accusing someone of saying something that they
never said, is a low blow, and is not an ethical act.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 1:25*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
In the microwave oven the all energy is transfered into heat.

If that is true, then why is there a pacemaker warning posted around
many microwave ovens in public places? Doesn't that warning imply that
not all energy is transfered into heat?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 1:14*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Cecil Moore" wrotenews:a75e79a9-d0fd-4717-a451-
Laser light can usually be considered to be coherent light

No. People produce the coherent light in :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HalbachArrayFEL.png

You say lasers are not coherent and then post the url containing
"Description: Free Electron Laser Diagram"?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Jul 1, 1:14 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrotenews:a75e79a9-d0fd-4717-a451-
Laser light can usually be considered to be coherent light

No. People produce the coherent light in :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HalbachArrayFEL.png

You say lasers are not coherent and then post the url containing
"Description: Free Electron Laser Diagram"?

Free electron laser it is a quite different thing than laser.

The free electron laser produces the "laser-like" light:

" 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". From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Jul 1, 1:25 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
In the microwave oven the all energy is transfered into heat.

If that is true, then why is there a pacemaker warning posted around
many microwave ovens in public places? Doesn't that warning imply that
not all energy is transfered into heat?

Mirrors are not perfect.
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jul 1, 6:14 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Electro gas behaves like all gases.


Air particles move with the speed temperature dependent.
Electrons do the same.
S*

you can do better than that, you just aren't being any fun now!

I do my best.

May be the Wiki is better: "The electron temperature of a plasma can be
several orders of magnitude higher than the temperature of the neutral
species or of the ions. This is a result of two facts. Firstly, many plasma
sources heat the electrons more strongly than the ions. Secondly, atoms and
ions are much heavier than electrons, and energy transfer in a two-body
collision is much more efficient if the masses are similar."

You know: The Sun produces the plasma (it rotate with the Sun) and the
plasma is a medium for the longitudinal electric waves (Tesla - the father
of the radio). Is not it funny?
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 11:16*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Free electron laser it is a quite different thing than laser.

When is a laser not a laser? When it is a free electron laser.
Unfortunately, I understand completely.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 11:20*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Mirrors are not perfect.

Moral: One should never use the word "all" when describing
imperfection.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 5:05*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:16*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Free electron laser it is a quite different thing than laser.

When is a laser not a laser? When it is a free electron laser.
Unfortunately, I understand completely.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

you have been in here too long.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 1 jul, 11:43, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 30, 7:03*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:

I think this is the genesis of Cecil's view that energy waves
somehow bounce off the standing wave node.

I'm sorry, Roy, but I never said anything of the sort. Keith
apparently believes that energy waves somehow bounce off a standing
wave node. I am on the opposite side of that argument. I believe that
the forward wave and reflected wave flow right through a standing wave
node. I am on record as saying the only time a reflection occurs is at
a physical impedance discontinuity.

Misdirection is also accusing someone of saying something that they
never said, is a low blow, and is not an ethical act.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I swear I never read Cecill say such things!, Cecil's sin is conspire
to arrange a coup d'état to overthrow collegiate government of
physical duality to place photons at the imperial power :)

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Jul 1, 11:16 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Free electron laser it is a quite different thing than laser.

When is a laser not a laser? When it is a free electron laser.
Unfortunately, I understand completely.

Laser = "laser - an acronym for light amplification by stimulated emission
of radiation"

Laser rework natural light (radiation).

Antennas produce artifical radiation in the result of the electron
oscillations.

To make the oscillations we use different devices.
LC for radio waves, megatrons for microwaves, claystrons for radar waves and
the Halbach array for the light frequency.

The word "laser" is probably common name for the all atificical light
sources.
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 12:42*pm, K1TTT wrote:
you have been in here too long.

Sorry, just my feeble attempt at some comic relief. Guess I should
have included a smiley face.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 3:58*pm, lu6etj wrote:
I swear I never read Cecill say such things!,

If the perpetuator of that unethical false inuendo can present any
posting where I said EM waves can bounce off of current or voltage
nodes, I will personally write him a check for $1000. Of course, if he
cannot produce proof of what he asserts, he should post a public
apology.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 2, 3:21*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
The word "laser" is probably common *name for the all atificical light
sources.

No, it is not. From answers.com: "Definition: laser - Any of several
devices that emit highly amplified and coherent radiation of one or
more discrete frequencies."

From Wikipedia: "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of
Radiation (LASER or laser) is a mechanism for emitting
electromagnetic radiation, typically light or visible light, via the
process of stimulated emission. The emitted laser light is (usually) a
spatially coherent, narrow low-divergence beam, that can be
manipulated with lenses. In laser technology, 'coherent light' denotes
a light source that produces (emits) light of in-step waves of
identical frequency, phase,[1] and polarization. The laser's beam of
coherent light differentiates it from light sources that emit
incoherent light beams, of random phase varying with time and
position."
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 2, 2:35*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 2, 3:21*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

The word "laser" is probably common *name for the all atificical light
sources.

No, it is not. From answers.com: "Definition: laser - Any of several
devices that emit highly amplified and coherent radiation of one or
more discrete frequencies."

From Wikipedia: "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of
Radiation (LASER *or laser) is a mechanism for emitting
electromagnetic radiation, typically light *or visible light, via the
process of stimulated emission. The emitted laser light is (usually) a
spatially coherent, narrow low-divergence beam, that can be
manipulated with lenses. In laser technology, 'coherent light' denotes
a light source that produces (emits) light of in-step waves of
identical frequency, phase,[1] *and polarization. The laser's beam of
coherent light differentiates it from light sources that emit
incoherent light beams, of random phase varying with time and
position."
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

should we even bring up its close cousin, the MASER? I particularly
like this definition:

"MASER stands for Microwave Amplification by Stimulation Emission of
Radiation. A LASER is a MASER that works with higher frequency photons
in the ultraviolet or visible light spectrum"
from: http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/maser.html

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 2, 11:19*am, K1TTT wrote:
should we even bring up its close cousin, the MASER?

According to something I read, the MASER, which was introduced while I
was still in high school, was the original idea behind the development
of the LASER. Thanks for your reference which says: "Basically, a man-
made MASER is a device that sets up a series of atoms or molecules and
excites them to generate the chain reaction, or amplification, of
photons."

What??? A MASER is an RF devices. When discussing RF, aren't photons
just a diversion away from "The Truth According to the Great RF
Gurus"? Someone should tell the MASER guys that they are just wasting
their time associating their RF devices with atoms and photons when
they really should be using fields and waves to explain the MASER
phenomena. Good luck on that one. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 1 jul, 02:42, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:46:10 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

a 100 W TX power during one second to gives certain amount of
energy

Hi Miguel,

POWER. *Please observe the distinction as appeals to 100W or "one
second" have no bearing on where you seem to be fixated with quanta
and energy. *Introducing distractions is not very useful. *[I can
appreciate that you are not the source of the distractions.]

I do not confussing wavelengh with quanta!, quantized energy it is

Then quanta is a distraction, or wavelength is.

What sort of human eye we use to see 80 m "light"? :)

Why do you compare 80M to green light? * The more wavelength
appropriate scale would be invisible in the 800nM Infra Red or in the
80nM Ultra Violet. *Green light's correlative would be in the 55.5M
band (tropical SW).

I did not want go out off topic, I claimed quantum mechanics do not
help so much to solve TL related problems and give some reasons for
that.

Indeed, no doubt this [distraction] is attributable to a Texas
[distracting] snake in the grass. *

Quantum mechanics can give a certain perspective and sense of scale,
but [distracting] amateurs shouldn't try that at home or on the
Internet.

I am not an expert in quantum physics and I am not going further
that my elementary physic book examples. Are they wrong? well... then,
I am wrong too :) PSE do not argue with me, I am innocent of charges,
read the references...

The Cosmic Radiation Background has been measured to about 2.76 K,
where the mapping variation (fluctuations of 30 microKelvins) are
within the Energy perturbation (contribution) of our Amateur
transmissions. *

So as to not argue, I firmly agree with you that no one is going to
find any utility in any of this. *But the debate will rage on
heedless.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hello Richard:

(I am not quoting with "" because I get unpredictable results with
google :) )

You said: "Please observe the distinction as appeals to 100W or "one
second" have no bearing on where you seem to be fixated with quanta
and energy."
I could not translate this sentence, (sometimes your writings are
complicated for me Richard, try Tarzan style or better yet... try as
you were writing to Cheeta! :)
(I handed the sentence to a friend who lives in England and today said
to me that have so many interpretations and did not solve my
problem...)

"Why do you compare 80M to green light?"

Well... I like it! photons born from light, green light it is a
central zone of visible light spectrum, and 80 m is my favourite ex-
novice band...
Look, light has a very rough "texture", light quanta is a very
energetic thing, its "granularity" it is high and we easily perceive
its quantic nature, 80 m energy instead has a very, very "soft"
texture, 10^8 time softer than green light, and we can not measure its
"granularity" with our instruments. Think of a 1000 kg car smashing
against your car at 100 km/h, now think of a mosquito (10 mg) smashing
against your windshield at the same speed.. well if the one green
light quantum had the cinetc energy of a 1000 kg thrown against your
car, 80 m quantum would have the mosquito energy! It is a really good
example... you should congratulate me for that formidable approach!!
no?, hi hi

Physicists said that we can better perceive energy glanularity at
lower temperatures and they say we have classic behaviour when hv
kT, well... at 1 K, kT it is 6000 times bigger than 80 m hv, a very
classic oscilator indeed!, at 293 K ambient temperature I think we can
not appreciate quantized nature of RF waves!, (at least with my Bird
43) :)

I have a question too, please tell me (I am very curious): why you
take every opportunity to bite (sting?) my friend Cecil, ah? ;). I
read carefully Cecil writings and I do not find flawings in his
affirmations; usually he is very precise and scholar on this matters,
sometimes he has an occasional forgivable habit, such his predilection
for photons and polished glass things, but I think he has not so
"distractive", usually I understand wiich is "his point" to bring
another physics areas on the table... I think often we have a little
stubborn too :D

73, and thank you very much for your company - Miguel - LU6ETJ

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Jul 2, 3:21 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
The word "laser" is probably common name for the all atificical light
sources.

No, it is not. From answers.com: "Definition: laser - Any of several
devices that emit highly amplified and coherent radiation of one or
more discrete frequencies."

You should add: "Basically, a man-
made MASER is a device that sets up a series of atoms or molecules and
excites them to generate the chain reaction, or amplification, of
photons."

Laser and maser reworks the light produced by atoms or molecules.

In the Halbach array no atoms or molecules.
There are working only the electrons in vacuum. Like in transmitters,
megatrons and claystrons.
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 2, 2:04*pm, lu6etj wrote:
I have a question too, please tell me (I am very curious): why you
take every opportunity to bite (sting?) my friend Cecil, ah? ;).

I once caught Richard red-handed, blatently superposing powers and he
has never forgiven me for that. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 2, 2:04 pm, lu6etj wrote:
I have a question too, please tell me (I am very curious): why you
take every opportunity to bite (sting?) my friend Cecil, ah? ;).

I once caught Richard red-handed, blatently superposing powers and he
has never forgiven me for that. :-)

Is a MASER actually a LASER?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:04:57 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hello Richard:

(I am not quoting with "" because I get unpredictable results with
google :) )

You said: "Please observe the distinction as appeals to 100W or "one
second" have no bearing on where you seem to be fixated with quanta
and energy."
I could not translate this sentence, (sometimes your writings are
complicated for me Richard, try Tarzan style or better yet... try as
you were writing to Cheeta! :)

Hi Miguel,

Fair enough - and sorry for the density of style.

(I handed the sentence to a friend who lives in England and today said
to me that have so many interpretations and did not solve my
problem...)

Well, that sentence was more about context than it was about style. I
am glad you did not ask your friend to read the thread.

"Why do you compare 80M to green light?"

Well... I like it! photons born from light, green light it is a
central zone of visible light spectrum, and 80 m is my favourite ex-
novice band...

Yes, green (actually green-yellow) light corresponds to photopic (day)
vision. Scotopic (moonless night) vision is blue-shifted. Sitting
inside would tend towards a combination called mesopic vision.

The analogue of the eye as "receiver" gives us the peculiar action of
resonance shifting due to strength of the QSO. Propagation fading
would find the contact drifting from the 80M Band up through the 60M
band.

Look, light has a very rough "texture",

Is Cheeta trying to say photons?

light quanta is a very
energetic thing, its "granularity" it is high and we easily perceive
its quantic nature,

The eye can sense one photon out of two under the best of conditions,
but what that means as far as "granularity" is lost on me. A RADAR
(even if not an 80M one) can respond to a pulse it sends and senses in
an echo. The packet contains at least 100 to 10000 cycles. Pulse
shape signatures would suggest that individual cycles are resolved -
granularity?

80 m energy instead has a very, very "soft"
texture, 10^8 time softer than green light, and we can not measure its
"granularity" with our instruments.

The granularity can be expressed in microKelvins of temperature which
can be (and has been) resolved. What you describe as "we can not
measure" is more a function of background noise, not ability, nor
instrumentation incapacity.

Think of a 1000 kg car smashing
against your car at 100 km/h, now think of a mosquito (10 mg) smashing
against your windshield at the same speed.. well if the one green
light quantum had the cinetc energy of a 1000 kg thrown against your
car, 80 m quantum would have the mosquito energy! It is a really good
example... you should congratulate me for that formidable approach!!
no?, hi hi

Analogies, as we have mulled them over in the past, often lead to
their own failure and that, in turn, brings down the central point
trying to be argued.

Case in point with your mosquito: The two collision events can also
be expressed as energy translation into temperature change. This is
called phononic energy - or sound. The crash of cars or bugs resolves
into a sound. Do we hear, or do we have the capacity to hear either?
Both? There are 8 orders of magnitude difference between the two
masses at the same velocities. Our hearing dynamic range easily
encompasses that. I can hear bugs bump against my living room window
at far slower velocity. I would not hear them with the background
noise of an operating automobile and the various road, wind,
conversational or radio noises raising the noise floor.

This points out that measurement failures are often a matter of
method, hence the human component of psychological impairment. Science
is more fascinating in its stories of overcoming shortfalls of
perception. Einstein wasn't known for his math, or his benchwork, he
gave us perspective.

Physicists said that we can better perceive energy glanularity at
lower temperatures and they say we have classic behaviour when hv
kT, well... at 1 K, kT it is 6000 times bigger than 80 m hv, a very
classic oscilator indeed!, at 293 K ambient temperature I think we can
not appreciate quantized nature of RF waves!, (at least with my Bird
43) :)

All the matter of background noise.

I have a question too, please tell me (I am very curious): why you
take every opportunity to bite (sting?) my friend Cecil, ah? ;).

Probably because you enjoy reading it, otherwise why are you offering
another opportunity? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 2 jul, 16:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:04:57 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hello Richard:

(I am not quoting with "" because I get unpredictable results with
google :) *)

You said: "Please observe the distinction as appeals to 100W or "one
second" have no bearing on where you seem to be fixated with quanta
and energy."
I could not translate this sentence, (sometimes your writings are
complicated for me Richard, try Tarzan style or better yet... try as
you were writing to Cheeta! :)

Hi Miguel,

Fair enough - and sorry for the density of style.

(I handed the sentence to a friend who lives in England and today said
to me that have so many interpretations and did not solve my
problem...)

Well, that sentence was more about context than it was about style. *I
am glad you did not ask your friend to read the thread.

"Why do you compare 80M to green light?"

Well... I like it! *photons born from light, green light it is a
central zone of visible light spectrum, and 80 m is my favourite ex-
novice band...

Yes, green (actually green-yellow) light corresponds to photopic (day)
vision. *Scotopic (moonless night) vision is blue-shifted. *Sitting
inside would tend towards a combination called mesopic vision.

The analogue of the eye as "receiver" gives us the peculiar action of
resonance shifting due to strength of the QSO. *Propagation fading
would find the contact drifting from the 80M Band up through the 60M
band.

Look, light has a very rough "texture",

Is Cheeta trying to say photons?

light quanta is a very
energetic thing, its "granularity" it is high and we easily perceive
its quantic nature,

The eye can sense one photon out of two under the best of conditions,
but what that means as far as "granularity" is lost on me. *A RADAR
(even if not an 80M one) can respond to a pulse it sends and senses in
an echo. *The packet contains at least 100 to 10000 cycles. *Pulse
shape signatures would suggest that individual cycles are resolved -
granularity?

80 m energy instead has a very, very "soft"
texture, 10^8 time softer than green light, and we can not measure its
"granularity" with our instruments.

The granularity can be expressed in microKelvins of temperature which
can be (and has been) resolved. *What you describe as "we can not
measure" is more a function of background noise, not ability, nor
instrumentation incapacity.

Think of a 1000 kg car smashing
against your car at 100 km/h, now think of a mosquito (10 mg) smashing
against your windshield at the same speed.. *well if the one green
light quantum had the cinetc energy of a 1000 kg thrown against your
car, 80 m quantum would have the mosquito energy! It is a really good
example... you should congratulate me for that formidable approach!!
no?, hi hi

Analogies, as we have mulled them over in the past, often lead to
their own failure and that, in turn, brings down the central point
trying to be argued.

Case in point with your mosquito: *The two collision events can also
be expressed as energy translation into temperature change. *This is
called phononic energy - or sound. *The crash of cars or bugs resolves
into a sound. *Do we hear, or do we have the capacity to hear either?
Both? *There are 8 orders of magnitude difference between the two
masses at the same velocities. *Our hearing dynamic range easily
encompasses that. *I can hear bugs bump against my living room window
at far slower velocity. *I would not hear them with the background
noise of an operating automobile and the various road, wind,
conversational or radio noises raising the noise floor.

This points out that measurement failures are often a matter of
method, hence the human component of psychological impairment. Science
is more fascinating in its stories of overcoming shortfalls of
perception. *Einstein wasn't known for his math, or his benchwork, he
gave us perspective.

Physicists said that we can better perceive energy glanularity at
lower temperatures and they say we have classic behaviour when hv
kT, well... at 1 K, kT it is 6000 times bigger than 80 m hv, a very
classic oscilator indeed!, at 293 K ambient temperature I think we can
not appreciate quantized nature of RF waves!, (at least with my Bird
43) :)

All the matter of background noise.

I have a question too, please tell me (I am very curious): why you
take every opportunity to bite (sting?) my friend Cecil, ah? ;).

Probably because you enjoy reading it, otherwise why are you offering
another opportunity? *;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi hi, no, not Cheeta... Resnick & Halliday & Krane use "granularity"
metaphor, "granularity" and "texture" are words that denote same idea:
ligth photons are really very big Jerry Lee's "Great balls of fire",
80 m photons are very very tiny balls :) For that reason your eyes
catch light photon, they (photons) are fat guys, you know?.
Glanularity is not about "cycles" but quantum energy = hv,
v=frequency, high frequency = high energy quantum = high
granularity, not cycles

Not "analogies", no, no, I am only comparing energy magnitud
differences! (I am not resigning my rights to analogies, with this),
10^8 more bigger cinetic E represents so much energy difference at any
scale; obviously a light photon has very, very much lower energy as a
1 t (Tm) car at 100 km/h (it has 3.6*10^-19 J) but 80 m photon it is
100000000 lower!, Can you hear 80 dB sounds below mosquito buzzing?
are you the six million dollar man? :)
You talk about "fluctuations" OK, can you assure to me those
fluctuations are due quantized nature of RF signals? have you
references about that? Naturally I have my doubts, what you say do not
match my sacred Wiley & sons bible physics verses: remember at only 1
K, kt hv, and for R, H & K elders, granularity can not be
perceived.

Well, but stop here, please: I did not say we can not measure 100 W
oscillator granularity, eh?, I am not any authority to say such
thing!, look what the fathers of my church say in page 483:
"Quantized energy simply not reveales in large scale oscillators, the
smallness of the h Plank component make the granulosity very fine
(thin?) so that we can not detect it"
I bet you live a little more near them than I, Ask to them why they
said that. I am innocent, I am only the postman who brings the news
(where is Petrocelli?) :D :D

73 - Miguel - LU6ETJ

PS: Cecil, friend, this man this is already yours. Just confessed his
inconditional love for RF quanta...

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:16:05 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 2, 2:04 pm, lu6etj wrote:
I have a question too, please tell me (I am very curious): why you
take every opportunity to bite (sting?) my friend Cecil, ah? ;).

I once caught Richard red-handed, blatently superposing powers and he
has never forgiven me for that. :-)

Is a MASER actually a LASER?

It reads TASER (Cecil didn't know which end to hold).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hi hi, no, not Cheeta... Resnick & Halliday & Krane use "granularity"
metaphor, "granularity" and "texture" are words that denote same idea:
ligth photons are really very big Jerry Lee's "Great balls of fire",
80 m photons are very very tiny balls :) For that reason your eyes
catch light photon, they (photons) are fat guys, you know?.
Glanularity is not about "cycles" but quantum energy = hv,
v=frequency, high frequency = high energy quantum = high
granularity, not cycles

**** warning: Stylistic alert, skip to next comment ********
Mmmm, that is at least the second time with glanularity that I cannot
allow to pass:
Ovarian waves? Cyclic period? Menstraphotons?
well, enough English....

Not "analogies", no, no, I am only comparing energy magnitud
differences! (I am not resigning my rights to analogies, with this),
10^8 more bigger cinetic E represents so much energy difference at any
scale; obviously a light photon has very, very much lower energy as a
1 t (Tm) car at 100 km/h (it has 3.6*10^-19 J) but 80 m photon it is
100000000 lower!, Can you hear 80 dB sounds below mosquito buzzing?
are you the six million dollar man? :)

Is a car crash 80dB down from mosquitos? You have your magnitudes
inverted or you are crossing between metaphors (another failure
mechanism).

You talk about "fluctuations" OK, can you assure to me those
fluctuations are due quantized nature of RF signals? have you
references about that? Naturally I have my doubts, what you say do not
match my sacred Wiley & sons bible physics verses: remember at only 1
K, kt hv, and for R, H & K elders, granularity can not be
perceived.

It isn't their field, but that doesn't mean science is invalid. Google
the terms (you already have one in quotes). This has been around for
a decade or more.

"Quantized energy simply not reveales in large scale oscillators, the
smallness of the h Plank component make the granulosity very fine
(thin?) so that we can not detect it"

The problem with selective quoting is that the reader doesn't know the
boundaries - aside from it being a paraphrase and not a literal quote
- unless they write like Cheeta. Sorry for the allusion to a monkey,
but the grammar reveals this is not a true source. I can read between
the lines, but then I get to expand upon that to introduce my own
spin. That doesn't get things very far, does it? Don't pick up on
Cecil's bad habit of leaning on the Xerox copy button.

I bet you live a little more near them than I, Ask to them why they
said that. I am innocent, I am only the postman who brings the news
(where is Petrocelli?) :D :D

Why don't I? The price of email is the same from any location on
earth (or through a satellite link freely accessible from outerspace).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 2 jul, 20:32, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hi hi, no, not Cheeta... Resnick & Halliday & Krane use "granularity"
metaphor, "granularity" and "texture" are words that denote same idea:
ligth photons are really very big Jerry Lee's "Great balls of fire",
80 m photons are very very tiny balls :) *For that reason your eyes
catch light photon, they (photons) are fat guys, you know?.
Glanularity is not about "cycles" but quantum energy = hv,
v=frequency, high frequency = high energy quantum = high
granularity, not cycles

**** warning: *Stylistic alert, skip to next comment ********
Mmmm, *that is at least the second time with glanularity that I cannot
allow to pass:
* * * * Ovarian waves? *Cyclic period? *Menstraphotons?
well, enough English....

Not "analogies", no, no, I am only comparing energy magnitud
differences! (I am not resigning my rights to analogies, with this),
10^8 more bigger cinetic E represents so much energy difference at any
scale; obviously a light photon has very, very much lower energy as a
1 t (Tm) car at 100 km/h (it has 3.6*10^-19 J) but 80 m photon it is
100000000 lower!, Can you hear 80 dB sounds below mosquito buzzing?
are you the six million dollar man? :)

Is a car crash 80dB down from mosquitos? *You have your magnitudes
inverted or you are crossing between metaphors (another failure
mechanism).

You talk about "fluctuations" OK, can you assure to me those
fluctuations are due quantized nature of RF signals? have you
references about that? Naturally I have my doubts, what you say do not
match my sacred Wiley & sons bible physics verses: remember at only 1
K, kt hv, *and for R, H & K elders, granularity can not be
perceived.

It isn't their field, but that doesn't mean science is invalid. Google
the terms (you already have one in quotes). *This has been around for
a decade or more.

"Quantized energy simply not reveales in large scale oscillators, the
smallness of the h Plank component make the granulosity very fine
(thin?) so that we can not detect it"

The problem with selective quoting is that the reader doesn't know the
boundaries - aside from it being a paraphrase and not a literal quote
- unless they write like Cheeta. *Sorry for the allusion to a monkey,
but the grammar reveals this is not a true source. *I can read between
the lines, but then I get to expand upon that to introduce my own
spin. *That doesn't get things very far, does it? *Don't pick up on
Cecil's bad habit of leaning on the Xerox copy button.

I bet you live a little more near them than I, Ask to them why they
said that. I am innocent, I am only the postman who brings the news
(where is Petrocelli?) :D :D

Why don't I? *The price of email is the same from any location on
earth (or through a satellite link freely accessible from outerspace).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi, hi, I do not quite understand/translate your jokes: do you dislike
Resnick's "granularity"? I think it is a sort of energy acne :)

You said you could hear an insect shooting your window then I asked
you if you can hear sound 80 dB below insect shooting your window. 80
dB example it is only a about difference (quotient) of magnitudes. Or
you do not read well or I not write well my sentences -the last has a
probability of 0,99- :)

Certainly, my book is in spanish, the original is "Physics" Vol II,
Extended version, 4th ed. ISBN 0-471-54804-9 (I do not have it), read
from here. Yes, it is dated 1992 a little old, doesn't it?. so... can
we today measure quantum acne from large scale 3,5 MHz oscillator at
room temperature? (Use caution to answer me because your words can
turn against us and someone may be tempted to postulate "The
uncerntainty VSWR principle" and rots all here :D )

Yes, yes, I by far prefer Xerox button to my own non senses :=D :=D.
(another sting to my friend Cecil?).

Well, I stop here because I think our friends are going to reprimand
me for not posting serious matters.

Thank you very much for your friendly and patient with me posts .
Miguel LU6ETJ.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:13:27 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hi, hi, I do not quite understand/translate your jokes: do you dislike
Resnick's "granularity"? I think it is a sort of energy acne :)

Hi Miguel,

Good joke. Others may not be aware that Buenos Aires is one among
cities that have the highest psychiatrist to population ratio in the
world. To set the record straight, Seattle has a very high suicide
rate. This in no way intimates that you are crazy and I am about to
off myself (this may disappoint some that drawl).

You said you could hear an insect shooting your window then I asked
you if you can hear sound 80 dB below insect shooting your window.

You presented the analogue of car vs mosquito. You expressed the
magnitude of difference. I disputed neither, accepted them, showed
that the difference(s) could be perceived. Why add a new variable? If
you are not, are you challenging your own analogue?

80
dB example it is only a about difference (quotient) of magnitudes. Or
you do not read well or I not write well my sentences -the last has a
probability of 0,99- :)

You are now extending it to 160dB of difference.

As I said, you either have your magnitudes inverted, or are now mixing
metaphors. The argument is in failure mode. This is invariably the
fate of metaphor/analog/allegory when it is forced to replace simple
math for observable and demonstrable science.

To touch on allegory, the snake in Eden (read Texas) introduced
analogues (read Hallelujah - let there be Photons!) and seduced (read
perverted) logic to obtain mastery over creation (read RRAA).

Don't blame the guy with the horn. :-)

Certainly, my book is in spanish, the original is "Physics" Vol II,
Extended version, 4th ed. ISBN 0-471-54804-9 (I do not have it), read
from here. Yes, it is dated 1992 a little old, doesn't it?.

Not too many of us get new copies from the future, so I am not
particularly upset about its copyright date.

so... can
we today measure quantum acne from large scale 3,5 MHz oscillator at
room temperature?

Did you miss my comments about noise floor? Can you breath,
unassisted, under water? Does a tree make a noise when it topples on
the Moon? Can you feel the tingle of 110VAC when you are being struck
by lightning? Do these questions sound like Cecileo? (As I have long
ago blocked his postings, I assume our newsgroup victim has at least
once made an allusion to his torment by the inquisition.)

There are 10,000 ways to fail and you found at least one that was
documented. I showed you an equal number of success (1) and that is
unsatisfactory. Could it be answered that between the two examples
that one exhibits a huge S+N/N? In other words, why at:
room temperature?
Do you have a New York flight to catch to solve the Financial crisis?
Plan on the next flight out tomorrow and cool the room down.

(Use caution to answer me because your words can
turn against us and someone may be tempted to postulate "The
uncerntainty VSWR principle" and rots all here :D )

"However your VSWR may vary, no Standing Waves were interfered with in
the making of this response."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 3 jul, 21:00, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:13:27 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hi, hi, I do not quite understand/translate your jokes: do you dislike
Resnick's "granularity"? I think it is a sort of energy acne :)

Hi Miguel,

Good joke. *Others may not be aware that Buenos Aires is one among
cities that have the highest psychiatrist to population ratio in the
world. *To set the record straight, Seattle has a very high suicide
rate. *This in no way intimates that you are crazy and I am about to
off myself (this may disappoint some that drawl).

You said you could hear an insect shooting your window then I asked
you if you can hear sound 80 dB below insect shooting your window.

You presented the analogue of car vs mosquito. *You expressed the
magnitude of difference. *I disputed neither, accepted them, showed
that the difference(s) could be perceived. *Why add a new variable? If
you are not, are you challenging your own analogue?

80
dB example it is only a about difference (quotient) of magnitudes. Or
you do not read well or I not write well my sentences -the last has a
probability of *0,99- :)

You are now extending it to 160dB of difference.

As I said, you either have your magnitudes inverted, or are now mixing
metaphors. *The argument is in failure mode. *This is invariably the
fate of metaphor/analog/allegory when it is forced to replace simple
math for observable and demonstrable science.

To touch on allegory, the snake in Eden (read Texas) introduced
analogues (read Hallelujah - let there be Photons!) and seduced (read
perverted) logic to obtain mastery over creation (read RRAA). *

Don't blame the guy with the horn. *:-)

Certainly, my book is in spanish, the original is "Physics" Vol II,
Extended version, 4th ed. ISBN 0-471-54804-9 (I do not have it), read
from here. Yes, it is dated 1992 a little old, doesn't it?.

Not too many of us get new copies from the future, so I am not
particularly upset about its copyright date.

so... can
we today measure quantum acne from large scale 3,5 MHz oscillator at
room temperature?

Did you miss my comments about noise floor? *Can you breath,
unassisted, under water? *Does a tree make a noise when it topples on
the Moon? *Can you feel the tingle of 110VAC when you are being struck
by lightning? *Do these questions sound like Cecileo? *(As I have long
ago blocked his postings, I assume our newsgroup victim has at least
once made an allusion to his torment by the inquisition.)

There are 10,000 ways to fail and you found at least one that was
documented. *I showed you an equal number of success (1) and that is
unsatisfactory. *Could it be answered that between the two examples
that one exhibits a huge S+N/N? *In other words, why at:room temperature?

Do you have a New York flight to catch to solve the Financial crisis?
Plan on the next flight out tomorrow and cool the room down.

(Use caution to answer me because your words can
turn against us and someone may be tempted to postulate "The
uncerntainty VSWR principle" and rots all here :D *)

"However your VSWR may vary, no Standing Waves were interfered with in
the making of this response."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi hi, Why I find it more hard to translate your writings than another
guys ones? is it a peculiarity of your playing with words or your zone
manners? I am sorry because I miss some of your subtleties or
grammatical tricks and I suspect they have more funny meanings that I
can capture :)

I believe what we have more here are psychoanalysts not psychiatrists
(I read something about it time ago), but do not worry I am a little
crazy too! :)

Look, my first idea example was compare difference in marbels size
with hydrogen atom size (about 10^8) to point to granularity, but
inmediately I realized that dealing with differences in size was not a
correct example and turn to Ec example. You said our retinas sometimes
can perceive individual light photons, no? then I pointed to an eigty
meters photon had 10^-8 smaller energy than green photon.
I was telling we are talking about truly classics system therefore
quantum effects (photon) it is useless because in our level of
discussion oscillators/transmitters do not manifest quantum effects
because its very high quantum numbers Of course I know (do I know?,
really?, mmm) correspondence principle.

Why at room temperature? Do we see if I understood your question... at
room temperature because we Hams usually make our TL Bird Truline
measurements at room temperatures. Answer this your question? (my
freezer do not go beyond -20 Celcius degrees!). Theorical/extreme
cases are welcomed too but... to rebut normal/standard situations?
I do not believe you has blocking Cecil posts, no no, you say it = we
have a lot of psychoanalysts he one of them are whispering to my
ear just now, you really like him, remember TV series: "The odd
couple"? :D
......
(You see?, I'm lost with some interesting sentences such "However your
VSWR may vary, no Standing Waves were interfered with in the making of
this response." If tomorrow I find my london friend I ask his helping
to translate better your entire post :) )

73, and now being 23:31 I will take my girlfriend LU2ET to a night
trip motorcycle by the city. Well... 2ET has been my XYL for over
thirty years :)
Have you a really nice motorcycle as Cecil? eh?

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 19:34:14 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hi hi, Why I find it more hard to translate your writings than another
guys ones? is it a peculiarity of your playing with words or your zone
manners? I am sorry because I miss some of your subtleties or
grammatical tricks and I suspect they have more funny meanings that I
can capture :)

Hi Miguel,

Sorry for the loss in translation. It is what is called "deep
metaphors" that go beyond the simpler ones of mosquitoes against the
windshield.

I believe what we have more here are psychoanalysts not psychiatrists
(I read something about it time ago), but do not worry I am a little
crazy too! :)

You are correct (about analysts...).

Here, the game of language is found in the ellipsis (or the
parenthetical aside - this one being doubly self-referential).

Look, my first idea example was compare difference in marbels size
with hydrogen atom size (about 10^8) to point to granularity, but
inmediately I realized that dealing with differences in size was not a
correct example and turn to Ec example. You said our retinas sometimes
can perceive individual light photons, no?

Yes, in the best of circumstances half of those that impact the
retina. This returns us to background noise and S+N/N.

then I pointed to an eigty
meters photon had 10^-8 smaller energy than green photon.

Hence the eight orders of scale comparison. Yes.

I was telling we are talking about truly classics system therefore
quantum effects (photon) it is useless because in our level of
discussion oscillators/transmitters do not manifest quantum effects
because its very high quantum numbers Of course I know (do I know?,
really?, mmm) correspondence principle.

You can experience one photon, however could you state that it was not
two instead? I have designed with components that are specifically
photon counters. These are called photomultiplier tubes (PMTs for
short). Where they do not match up against the eye for dynamic range,
spectral bandwidth, or quantum efficiency; they do present us with
individual events within a group. Our eyes do not count very well.

Why at room temperature? Do we see if I understood your question... at
room temperature because we Hams usually make our TL Bird Truline
measurements at room temperatures. Answer this your question? (my
freezer do not go beyond -20 Celcius degrees!).

So, I am to understand that you want to measure quantum effects at
energy background levels in excess of 0.04 eV or roughly 10 TeraHertz.
I don't think you can afford the Bird plug for that band.

I come from a field called Metrology. This is so rare that many, many
engineers have never heard of it. It is the science of measurement.
If you want a quantum correlative to frequency, this field abounds in
them. The Atomic Clock (Cesium Beam Standard) comes close, but the
Josephson Junction is a direct translation of frequency to voltage. It
is also an instrument in quantum computing.

I will offer a page for your consideration:
http://www.ptb.de/en/org/2/Inhalte/J...n/_josephs.htm

Anticipating your objection that the frequencies involved are not in
the 80M band; I would offer that is satisfied easily through frequency
multiplication. (The Atomic Clock does this in reverse and no one
complains about that.)

Anticipating your objection that this is not done at room temperature;
true, the junction is cooled far below what is available to you - but
is this about your limited resources, or is it about being done? Don't
join the legions pleading destitution (poverty) as that might migrate
into the metaphors and analogies for a very poor (sorry for the pun)
outcome.

Theorical/extreme
cases are welcomed too but... to rebut normal/standard situations?
I do not believe you has blocking Cecil posts, no no, you say it = we
have a lot of psychoanalysts he one of them are whispering to my
ear just now, you really like him, remember TV series: "The odd
couple"? :D

Yes, I do block him. There are traces that sift through the cracks,
but that doesn't elevate them to poignancy. Again (do I have to
repeat this?), this is about S+N/N.

"The Odd Couple" is a good cultural reference. I would suggest (and I
hope you have access to) "House." Cecil is among those who cannot be
trusted to write on the white board.

If you don't have TV access to this series, try an episode from:
http://www.hulu.com/search?query=house&st=0
You write and understand English quite well, but if listening to it is
not easy, I am sure that watching 10 minutes around that white board
will give you enough "body language" to translate the psychology
easily.

.....
(You see?, I'm lost with some interesting sentences such "However your
VSWR may vary, no Standing Waves were interfered with in the making of
this response." If tomorrow I find my london friend I ask his helping
to translate better your entire post :) )

This might be lost on your English friend too, because it constructed
with cultural references (it is suppose to be bad form to have to
explain a joke - but here we go):
"However your VSWR may vary"
is a variant on YMMV that you may see as shorthand. It means Your
Mileage May Vary. It is a reference to how car gas performance was
reported by those who sold cars. They would quote government tests
that were generally optimistic, and the real experience would
disappoint customers who saw poorer results. The customers would
complain to the vendor. Thus the vendor would qualify with "the
government reports this car gets 50MPG on the Highway - but your
mileage may vary." Thus the usage of YMMV is a cultural joke
indicating disappointment was likely.
" no Standing Waves were interfered with
in the making of this response."
is a variant on the disclosure you see at the end of movies:
"No animal was harmed during the filming of this movie."
You will, no doubt, draw out the meaning of Standing Waves,
interference, and response as being related to soothing those people
who cry uncontrollably when they see the movie "Bambi." We have a
similar class of sob-sisters (your English friend should be able to
translate that).

73, and now being 23:31 I will take my girlfriend LU2ET to a night
trip motorcycle by the city. Well... 2ET has been my XYL for over
thirty years :)
Have you a really nice motorcycle as Cecil? eh?

I drive an engineer's car with a rotary engine (pistons suck): Mazda
RX-7.

However, you would probably like House's ride.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"lu6etj" wrote
...

Hi hi, Why I find it more hard to translate your writings than another
guys ones? is it a peculiarity of your playing with words or your zone
manners? I am sorry because I miss some of your subtleties or
grammatical tricks and I suspect they have more funny meanings that I
can capture :)

Try to understand. Richard gives the free English lessons. I have learnt a
lot from him.
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 4, 8:28*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"lu6etj" ...

Hi hi, Why I find it more hard to translate your writings than another

guys ones? is it a peculiarity of your playing with words or your zone
manners? I am sorry because I miss some of your subtleties or
grammatical tricks and I suspect they have more funny meanings that I
can capture :)

Try to understand. Richard gives the free English lessons. I have learnt a
lot from him.
S*

just nothing about electromagnetics i guess.