On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 16:13:44 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
ExH traveling in one direction is positive.
Radiation
ExH traveling in the opposite direction is negative.
Rearadiation

You got transmitters in Texas that suck?

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
ExH traveling in one direction is positive.

Radiation

ExH traveling in the opposite direction is negative.

Rearadiation

You got transmitters in Texas that suck?

Suggest that you take time to understand the difference between an
unterminated Rhombic and a terminated Rhombic and get back to us.

Hint: The forward wave radiates in the forward direction. The reflected
wave radiates in the reverse direction. The termination eliminates the
reflected wave thus eliminating the reverse radiation. I'm surprised
that you don't know that.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark wrote:
If that is too hard, how many candela total intensity did we begin
with?

You first, Richard. What is the difference between a duck?

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 16:13:44 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

ExH traveling in one direction is positive.

Radiation

ExH traveling in the opposite direction is negative.

Rearadiation

You got transmitters in Texas that suck?

Maybe so. Texas certainly does seem to have its own unique set of
physical laws. ;-)

"Physicists say no work is done if the starting line and the finish
line are the same for a marathon."

:-)
No physicist I know would ever say something like that. Only a gross
misapplication of Newtonian mechanics and/or thermodynamics could lead
someone to such a belief. For example, such a person might think that a
ball thrown up into the air has had zero work performed on it after it
returns to the hand which threw it. The fact is, it requires as much
work to return it to the earth as it does to throw it into the air.
(There are some interesting physics demonstrations on how this doubling
of work can be used to interesting advantage.) But since in mechanics
there is no such thing as negative work, total work is accumulative.
Potential and kinetic energies are of course restored to initial
conditions, but the conversion from one to the other does not ordinarily
occur without some form of external 'help'. The misunderstanding is at
least consistent with some similar misunderstandings that have been
expressed with regard to the physics of power and energy.

ac6xg

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:57:32 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
You got transmitters in Texas that suck?
Suggest that you take time to understand
That's whining liberal talk - Up or Down, is it yes boy?

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:00:59 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
If that is too hard, how many candela total intensity did we begin
with?
You first, Richard. What is the difference between a duck?
Your question, put in optical terms, and you can't answer it, that is
the difference, duck. :-)

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 16:13:44 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
[snip]

|I await with abated breath.

If only it was true [g]

"Cecil Moore" wrote
Reg Edwards wrote:
Instead of messing about calculating the additional loss due to SWR and
then
adding it to the matched loss, I've just had a wonderful idea.

Why not calculate the actual line loss directly and solve all your
problems
at one fell swoop.

What is the formula for the total dB loss?
--
=================================

I wonder why I ever bothered to introduce Chipman to this newsgroup.

Try him.

----
Reg.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:54:33 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

I can if the light source is a sodium discharge lamp. :-) What sort of
light source are you assuming?

Hi Jim,

I bet you can!

Edison/Mazda style tungsten filament light bulb. Available at K-Mart
or Walton's or any of a million retail outlets, even in Texas. If not
in Texas, then heat a brandin' arn to incandescence (bet he can't tell
us what temperature for 555nM tho').

Please, folks, Optics is for the professionals. Don't try this at
home! ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote
Reg Edwards wrote:
SNIP
I wonder why I ever bothered to introduce Chipman to this newsgroup.

Try him.

----
Reg.


Reg,
This thread is purely a platform for snide remarks or for the pursuit of
appearing clever
to readers. It is not for technical education but instead it is a duking out
of smarmy comments
so as to produce a suedo pecking order for onlookers to assuage who has the
most accumen
with respect antenna education. It also helps in ascertaining the personal
ethics of one
compared to others. Thus the introduction of Chipman would serve no real
purpose other than to
deflect the daggers or missiles thrown between individuals. I am amazed that
Cecil is willing to
stand there whether he is right or wrong when many (not all ) contributors
have no interest in
keeping to the subject other than to provide utterances that cannot be
understood apparently
or to throw a stone and then hide.
Cecil, you just have nothing to gain by conversing with those
whose only intent is to taunt you and not to provide true closure of posting
discussion.
Respond to those who have something to offer and let the others drown in
their own saliva
when left alone.
Cheers and beers
Art