Cecil Moore wrote:
Challenges that the steady-state religion has failed to answer:

How can a standing-wave exist without a forward-traveling wave
superposed with a rearward-traveling wave?

How does reflected wave momentum change directions?

Why does a TDR indicate that reflections actually exist?

What causes TV ghosting in a transmission line if reflections
don't exist?

How does radar work if reflections don't exist?

That's what puts the straw in the men, and the red in the herrings.
If it's a reflection, then it must be power! Nothing else reflects,
evidently.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
That's what puts the straw in the men, and the red in the herrings.
If it's a reflection, then it must be power! Nothing else reflects,
evidently.

Please make some sort of a technical assertion instead of your
usual metaphysical cagada. Any energy passing a point *is* power,
by IEEE definition.

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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
That's what puts the straw in the men, and the red in the herrings.
If it's a reflection, then it must be power! Nothing else reflects,
evidently.

Please make some sort of a technical assertion instead of your
usual metaphysical cagada.

After you, sir. :-)

Any energy passing a point *is* power,
by IEEE definition.

That's an equality, not a definition. I suspect you're not completely
comfortable with the difference in those two things.

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.

73, Jim AC6XG

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 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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

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.

Cecil, my "concepts" about ghosting predict exactly the same thing as
your "concepts" about ghosting. That's why I asked you whether you were
trying to prove, or to disprove something. The 'clear picture' thing
was just a little pun - intended to inject some levity into this rather
dour exchange.

73, Jim AC6XG