wow

And I thought Maxwell/Heaviside/Gibbs
Gauss/Fourier
Newton.......

-- oh never mind.

This was beaten to death over 100 years ago.

Resonate your antennas, best radiation efficiency.
Match your impedances.

Get on the air.
Meet people who are mostly still stupid at this level.

Join the Spiderwebnet on 14.347 every morning at 8 Eastern.
The 7290 Traffic Net has been around since I was an eighth grade ham.
Every morning at 10 AM local Texas time.
They only skip Sundays.








--------------------------------------------------
And the Real "God" who set off the BIG BANG,
You the real deal, so am I.
Bless the Maritime Mobile Service Net.
14.3
----------------------------------------------------






I check in as best I can.

H.
NQ5H


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
snip
by IEEE definition.
deletia

On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:35:39 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
When you view your reflection in a mirror, do you ignore the
ExB power involved without which you would see nothing?
You would if it were a conjugate mirror.

On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:23:42 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
I don't notice it until it the resulting chemical reaction takes place
on the retina of my eye.

Hi All,

Sorry to intrude with some actual technical content (well I guess this
would be twice, what with the mention of the conjugate mirror that
stumped Cecil). The reaction takes all of 8 femtoseconds whereas the
translation to an electrical signal at a synapse takes the
inordinately long time of 1 millisecond.

My correspondent's characterization is:
"One ms roughly the time constant for the production of the
first activated intermediate in the transduction cascade, the
other steps in the cascade are still slower ( for example, the
single photon response peaks in about 150 ms in mammals)."

Quantum efficiency is a remarkably high 0.7, easily twice the best
instrumentation which barely compares across bandwidth. The
transduction cascade that Dr. Detwiler refers to is much like the
amplification of a PMT whereby the single photon gives rise to a
current of 1000 electrons.

However, to return this to the conjugate mirror; if you looked into
one, not one electron would twitch.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Any energy passing a point *is* power,
by IEEE definition.

That's an equality, not a definition.

No, it is from the IEEE Dictionary. Therefore, it is a
definition, by definition.

When you view your reflection in a mirror, do you ignore the
ExB power involved without which you would see nothing?

I don't notice it until it the resulting chemical reaction takes place
on the retina of my eye. Until then, I can only imagine E crossing B,
and write the expression for it down on a piece of paper as it has no
physical manifestation.

Therefore, using your metaphysics, since I live one mile from
where I was born, I can only imagine that I ever worked for
Intel in Arizona.

There is a real world experiment that you can perform to
prove your concepts are incorrect.

TV XMTR--tuner----2 uS long 600 ohm line---75 ohm TV RCVR

The first ghost will occur 4 uS after the primary image.
This can only be explained by part of the energy in the
primary signal changing direction and momentum at the RCVR
and making a round trip to the tuner and back to the RCVR.
In order to make that round trip, the energy in the signal
had to change direction and momentum at the tuner. (There are
no reflections between the XMTR and the tuner.)

Likewise, the second ghost will occur 8 uS after the primary
image, indicating four reversals of direction and momentum
of the energy contained in the second ghost.
--
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! =-----

Cecil,
Instead of, "Translation: My "posting filters" allow me to
deny reality. :-)", how about, "My posting filters allow me to
deny ~opinion~"? That would seem to better 'fit' your prior
post...
'Doc

'Doc wrote:
Instead of, "Translation: My "posting filters" allow me to
deny reality. :-)", how about, "My posting filters allow me to
deny ~opinion~"? That would seem to better 'fit' your prior
post...

Quoting something J. C. Slater, a physics prof at MIT, wrote
when I was two years old is not merely my opinion.
--
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! =-----

Henry Kolesnik wrote in message
. ..
There are no stupid questions about reflected power only stupid me asking
and I'm still stupid on the question I assume you're referring to..

--

Just to clarify, was your question-what happens when there isn't a tuneable
output circuit that provides a match to what ever impedance actually exists
at the transmitter end of the transmission line?

No, a final with a regular pi network.

--
73
Hank WD5JFR
"WB2JKX" wrote in message
...

Henry Kolesnik wrote in message
. ..
There are no stupid questions about reflected power only stupid me
asking
and I'm still stupid on the question I assume you're referring to..

--

Just to clarify, was your question-what happens when there isn't a
tuneable
output circuit that provides a match to what ever impedance actually
exists
at the transmitter end of the transmission line?

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Any energy passing a point *is* power,
by IEEE definition.

That's an equality, not a definition.

No, it is from the IEEE Dictionary.

The IEEE Dictionary shows the relationship between energy passing a
point and the equivalent in units of power. That is a fact.

There is a real world experiment that you can perform to
prove your concepts are incorrect.

TV XMTR--tuner----2 uS long 600 ohm line---75 ohm TV RCVR

The first ghost will occur 4 uS after the primary image.
This can only be explained by part of the energy in the
primary signal changing direction and momentum at the RCVR
and making a round trip to the tuner and back to the RCVR.
In order to make that round trip, the energy in the signal
had to change direction and momentum at the tuner. (There are
no reflections between the XMTR and the tuner.)

Likewise, the second ghost will occur 8 uS after the primary
image, indicating four reversals of direction and momentum
of the energy contained in the second ghost.

Proving that reflections actually exist, and that when all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail. Are you trying to prove
something, or disprove it with your ghost story? You're not generating
a clear picture. ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Proving that reflections actually exist, and that when all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail. Are you trying to prove
something, or disprove it with your ghost story? You're not generating
a clear picture. ;-)

Translation: You have just proven my concepts wrong so
I need a not-clear-picture diversion.
--
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! =-----