Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"That`s where you are wrong."

This argument has evoked plain statements, i.e., "When waves cease to
exist, they are forced to give up their intrinsic energy." And, "Waves
don`t cease to exist."

The statements need qualifications. Perhaps waves "cancel" without
ceasing to exist.

My speculation is that two radiated fields which cancel don`t eliminate
each other at all. They simply coincide out-of-phase, and their
resultant is zero along an azimuth where cancellation of their effect
continues. If we had a way to identify the vectors composing the zero
resultant, we could prove them there. Separate modulation might be
contrived to perform identification. The modulation idea comes from what
happens as a null azimuth in a MW BC radiation pattern is approached.
Carrier and sideband frequencies don`t cancel exactly together and it
sounds weird.

On wires, it`s different. Connect same-frequency energy exactly
out-of-phase, and you have a short circuit. In space, you don`t have an
electric current. You may have zero electrons. You have only fields
until you encounter a conductor.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
The statements need qualifications. Perhaps waves "cancel" without
ceasing to exist.

Some waves cancel without ceasing to exist. But if the cancellation
is permanent, the waves simply cease to exist.

My speculation is that two radiated fields which cancel don`t eliminate
each other at all.

That is true, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing
permanent wave cancellation within the confines of a transmission line.

On wires, it`s different. Connect same-frequency energy exactly
out-of-phase, and you have a short circuit.

No you don't, Richard. Maximum current occurs at a short circuit.
The net current from two canceled waves is zero. The net voltage
from two canceled waves is zero. It is neither a short circuit
nor an open circuit to the canceled waves. It is simply wave
cancellation. To the canceled waves, it looks like both a short
circuit to the two voltages and an open circuit to the two currents.

It is the same thing that happens at the air to thin-film interface
in perfect non-glare glass when the incident beam is coherent.
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Thought I'd change the thread name to more accurately reflect its
content. This seems to be the fate of nearly all threads in this newsgroup.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:38:13 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Thought I'd change the thread name to more accurately reflect its
content. This seems to be the fate of nearly all threads in this newsgroup.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Danny, K6MHE

Roy, you've been getting blamed for everything lately.

Now we can blame you for the new thread ... you started it! grin

DD, W1MCE

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Thought I'd change the thread name to more accurately reflect its
content. This seems to be the fate of nearly all threads in this newsgroup.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Dave Shrader wrote:
Roy, you've been getting blamed for everything lately.
Now we can blame you for the new thread ... you started it! grin

Roy doesn't seem to appreciate me making hamburger out of ham radio's
sacred cows. :-) I actually enjoy the T-Bones best of all.
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Yeah, you've got me pegged, all right -- tireless defender of ham
radio's sacred cows. Perceptive of you. But we can all be thankful we've
got you to keep reminding us hams just how ignorant we, worshipping our
superstitious lore, are, compared to true professionals like you.

If only we could just come up an impedor for this.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

W5DXP wrote:
Dave Shrader wrote:

Roy, you've been getting blamed for everything lately.
Now we can blame you for the new thread ... you started it! grin


Roy doesn't seem to appreciate me making hamburger out of ham radio's
sacred cows. :-) I actually enjoy the T-Bones best of all.

Richard Harrison wrote:

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"That`s where you are wrong."

This argument has evoked plain statements, i.e., "When waves cease to
exist, they are forced to give up their intrinsic energy." And, "Waves
don`t cease to exist."

The statements need qualifications. Perhaps waves "cancel" without
ceasing to exist.

In the case we've been discussing the waves in fact never exist, except
on paper. This is because, for example, V3 and V4 cancel at the very
point at which they would begin to propagate. Cancellation precludes
their existance because they cancel for any time element (after the
transient period) and for every spacial element one can enter into the
equation. Contrary to what has been suggested, they do not first appear
and then subsequently disappear. Waves cannot just "cease to exist" for
the very same reason that energy cannot cease to exist.

It may be somewhat easier to see this when we consider that each
boundary can be viewed as a radiator, or re-radiator. When a wave
impinges upon it, the boundary conditions and the nature of the incident
wave determine how waves will be re-radiated from it. With a wave
impinging upon the boundary from one direction only, we would have one
outcome. With two or more waves impinging upon the boundary, we may
have a different outcome.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Waves cannot just "cease to exist" for
the very same reason that energy cannot cease to exist.

More bafflegab. An RF wave ceases to exist when it is dissipated
in a dummy load. The energy cannot cease to exist and turns to
heat but the RF wave, in a perfect dummy load, ceases to exist.
Heat is not RF. A light wave incident upon a perfect flat black
plane ceases to exist. The light waves that haven't exited the
room you are in when you turn off the light cease to exist. Some
light waves falling upon plants cease to exist in the process of
photosynthesis.

From _Optics_, by Hecht: "Unlike ordinary objects, photons cannot
be seen directly; what is known of them comes from observing the
results of their being either created or annihilated."

When photons are created, their wave function starts. When photons
are annihilated, their wave function ceases to exist. There is no
such thing as preservation of photons. You really need to get
yourself a better physics book.

EM waves cease to exist all the time but the energy in those waves
cannot be destroyed.
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----