Theory vs Reality
 

To me, the threads about reflected power on this NG over the last few days
are rather revealing. Some posters quote Terman, Lord Kelvin and others
with inapplicable/incomplete statements or formulae attempting to prove (or
intimidate) NG readers into accepting that poster's particular point of
view -- even when it has been shown by field experience NOT to fit the
observed, and measured reality.

Perhaps we should be more willing to further research and modify our
favourite, personal hypotheses when valid field experiences show them to be
inaccurate.

RF

Visit http://rfry.org for FM broadcast RF system papers.

Richard Fry wrote:
Perhaps we should be more willing to further research and modify our
favourite, personal hypotheses when valid field experiences show them to be
inaccurate.

Actually what has happened, Richard, is that a bunch of engineers and
scientists, including gurus on this newsgroup, believe that their
math models dictate reality, rather than vice versa. We can thank Einstein,
himself, for the following quote:

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against reality, is primitive and childlike ..." Albert Einstein

Too bad that some people on this newsgroup have adopted their steady-
state math models as their unquestioned religion, unrelated to reality.
--
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! =-----

the last few days??? these same discussions have been going on for years
with the same predictable outcome. i was unfortunately sucked back into the
recent ones becaues of a failure in my posting filters... that unfortunate
problem has been rectified.

"Richard Fry" wrote in message
...
To me, the threads about reflected power on this NG over the last few days
are rather revealing. Some posters quote Terman, Lord Kelvin and others
with inapplicable/incomplete statements or formulae attempting to prove
(or
intimidate) NG readers into accepting that poster's particular point of
view -- even when it has been shown by field experience NOT to fit the
observed, and measured reality.

Perhaps we should be more willing to further research and modify our
favourite, personal hypotheses when valid field experiences show them to
be
inaccurate.

RF

Visit http://rfry.org for FM broadcast RF system papers.

Dave wrote:
the last few days??? these same discussions have been going on for years
with the same predictable outcome. i was unfortunately sucked back into the
recent ones becaues of a failure in my posting filters... that unfortunate
problem has been rectified.

Translation: My "posting filters" allow me to deny reality. :-)



-----= 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! =-----

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..

--
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Richard Fry" wrote in message
...
To me, the threads about reflected power on this NG over the last few days
are rather revealing. Some posters quote Terman, Lord Kelvin and others
with inapplicable/incomplete statements or formulae attempting to prove
(or
intimidate) NG readers into accepting that poster's particular point of
view -- even when it has been shown by field experience NOT to fit the
observed, and measured reality.

Perhaps we should be more willing to further research and modify our
favourite, personal hypotheses when valid field experiences show them to
be
inaccurate.

RF

Visit http://rfry.org for FM broadcast RF system papers.

"Richard Fry" wrote in message
...
To me, the threads about reflected power on this NG over the last few days
are rather revealing. Some posters quote Terman, Lord Kelvin and others
with inapplicable/incomplete statements or formulae attempting to prove
(or
intimidate) NG readers into accepting that poster's particular point of
view -- even when it has been shown by field experience NOT to fit the
observed, and measured reality.

Perhaps we should be more willing to further research and modify our
favourite, personal hypotheses when valid field experiences show them to
be
inaccurate.

RF

Visit http://rfry.org for FM broadcast RF system papers.


Actually I am encouraged. There is a lot less divergence than during the Dr.
Slick postings. I have learned things, either from actual postings, or from
having to look things up in the literature.

Tam/WB2TT

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

Tam/WB2TT wrote:
Actually I am encouraged. There is a lot less divergence than during the Dr.
Slick postings. I have learned things, either from actual postings, or from
having to look things up in the literature.

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?
--
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:
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! =-----

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

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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
The IEEE Dictionary shows the relationship between energy passing a
point and the equivalent in units of power.

Feel free to look up "dictionary" in the dictionary.
--
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 in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
[snip]
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

Yikes!. Do I read this as being equivalent to saying that there is no
vibration in the air when a tree falls as long as no person is there to have
these vibrations intercept the ear drum??

--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

Richard Fry wrote:
"To me, the threads about reflected power in this NG over the last few
days are rather revealing. Some posters quote Terman, Lord Kelvin and
others with inapplicable/incomplete statements---."

You are affgorded ample opportunity to specify the inapplicability or
omissions. The only mistake I know of in Terman`s 1955 edition is a typo
in one instance only where KHz is substituted for MHz or vice versa, and
I can`t find that one right now.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

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

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil, my "concepts" about ghosting predict exactly the same thing as
your "concepts" about ghosting.

Jim, you remind me of my 94 year old aunt. She forgets
what she said yesterday but I love her anyway.
--
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, my "concepts" about ghosting predict exactly the same thing as
your "concepts" about ghosting.

Jim, you remind me of my 94 year old aunt. She forgets
what she said yesterday but I love her anyway.

Dunno. I did try to forget what _you_ said the other day though. Call
it a fault if you like.

73, Jim AC6XG

Steve Nosko wrote:

"Jim Kelley" wrote:
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.

Yikes!. Do I read this as being equivalent to saying that there is no
vibration in the air when a tree falls as long as no person is there to have
these vibrations intercept the ear drum??

Jim is the only person in his own personal universe who is capable of
observing the collapse of a probability wave. :-) He doesn't realize
that probably waves collapse into exactly what one is trying to
measure. Got a hammer? - Would you believe? - Here comes a nail!
--
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! =-----

Steve Nosko wrote:

"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
[snip]
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

Yikes!. Do I read this as being equivalent to saying that there is no
vibration in the air when a tree falls as long as no person is there to have
these vibrations intercept the ear drum??

No. But I'd be glad to explain what I did write if you'd like to ask a
question about it.

73, Jim AC6XG

On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:57:15 -0700, 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. ;-)


Cecil's prior response does nothing to prove your overused,
childish hammer/nail aphorism. In any case it would only be true for
those sufficiently dim-witted as to see only a single use for a
hammer.

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:18:25 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

wrote:

Cecil's prior response does nothing to prove your overused,
childish hammer/nail aphorism. In any case it would only be true for
those sufficiently dim-witted as to see only a single use for a
hammer.

Among whom you can count yourself.

I see plenty of uses for a hammer. What's your point.

Congratulations on another finely crafted flame. I guess everybody
needs to be good at something.

What are you good at? I'm good at a lot of things. Come back
when you have a better response then the "You, too" that you learned
on the playground.

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
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.

I had to look it up:

Cagada: Mistake or disloyalty. Vulgar expression, as all words
belonging to this "family"

Cagadera: Diarrhea. Vulgar expression

Cagar: Besides meaning "to ****", it means bother, annoy, betray,
cheat. Vulgar expression

Cagar a pedos: Criticize violently. Vulgar expression