On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:41:04 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
All EM waves contain moving energy and cannot stand
still.
To you, they appear to be moving, but that is only the illusion of a
perception-limited neanderthalic legacy of low bandwidth
comprehension.

To argue otherwise is just denying reality.
op. cit. ;-)

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
What do you think the Bird actually measuring?

It is phasor-adding/subtracting a voltage proportional to the
RF voltage to/from a voltage proportional to the RF current.

Voltage, correct. What other physical parameter(s) of the EM wave
besides voltage and/or current could an in-line meter directly measure?
Why?

Instead of posing and then solving a different problem, why not just
answer the question I asked?

I did.

Actually, you didn't. It's a multiple choice question.

How much energy passes a point on that open transmission line in one
second? The choices again are 100 Joules, 200 Joules, or zero Joules.
Please indicate the correct answer from the list of choices.

73, Jim AC6XG

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:40:41 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
destructive interference causes an energy reflection
:-)

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I'm not arguing that at all. In a transmission line, destructive
interference causes an energy reflection in which the ratio of
the E-field to H-field is transformed from one characteristic
impedance to another. It's all described on the Melles-Groit
web page. They don't call it an energy reflection but that's
what it is.

Really? It doesn't act like a reflection. There isn't a reflective
surface.

Of course, it acts like a reflection and of course there is a reflective
surface if it is non-glare glass or a point if it is in a transmission
line. It is exactly what Walt has dubbed a "virtual short" and it is
a short for voltage, but not for current. Walt and my disagreements
are really minor.

The amplitude of the "reflection" seems unrelated to any
"reflection" coefficient.

It is *exactly* related to the reflection/transmission coefficients.
You cannot possibly be ignorant of that fact so you are merely being
unethical.

If it were a reflection, I think it would be
much easier to understand - much less controversial. Don't you agree?

It *IS* a reflection. Any of your statements to the contrary is just
obfuscation (something in which you seem to have a master's degree).
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
All EM waves contain moving energy and cannot stand
still.

To you, they appear to be moving, but that is only the illusion of a
perception-limited neanderthalic legacy of low bandwidth
comprehension.

OK, Richard, here's a challenge for you: Please prove that
photons can stand still.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
How much energy passes a point on that open transmission line in one
second? The choices again are 100 Joules, 200 Joules, or zero Joules.
Please indicate the correct answer from the list of choices.

I did, Jim. Hint: One must assume either component energies or
*NET* energy. Knowing you, I assumed *NET* energy and answered
that the *NET* energy is zero. You couldn't possibly have missed
that answer.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
destructive interference causes an energy reflection

:-)

Seems you don't understand the Melles-Groit web page. What it it about
"In the absence of absorption or scatter, the principle of conservation
of energy indicates all "lost" reflected intensity will appear as enhanced
intensity in the transmitted beam."

Richard, can you explain how the above occurs without the energy changing
directions, i.e. being reflected?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 21:47:05 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
destructive interference causes an energy reflection

:-)

Richard, can you explain how the above occurs without the energy changing
directions, i.e. being reflected?
:-)

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 21:11:42 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
OK, Richard, here's a challenge for you: Please prove that
photons can stand still.
from your narrow confines of perspective this illusion of perception,
religion, is not very interesting. However, such cartoon panels from
your comic book of science continue to amuse a few. :-)

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
How much energy passes a point on that open transmission line in one
second? The choices again are 100 Joules, 200 Joules, or zero Joules.
Please indicate the correct answer from the list of choices.

I did, Jim. Hint: One must assume either component energies or
*NET* energy.

It's a distinction without a difference. So your answer is?

73, Jim AC6XG