Richard:

Well, you are a bit serious... sorry for my warped humor... frown

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:46:17 -0700, "John Smith"
| wrote:
| I am confused
| This was not unexpected.

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Please cite your reference for this 'conjugate mirror'.


In "Reflections", Walt has a chapter entitled "Into the
Conjugate Mirror" or something like that.

I'm hoping to buy the third edition. The reason I asked is because the
only thing I can find is something called a phase conjugate mirror,
which has some really interesting behavior. And not exactly the
behavior being discussed in this thread. Time reversal for example.
For starters, check out:

http://www.optics.kth.se/fysik2/staf...sis/node7.html

I doubt Richard had considered all the possibilities when he said to
elaborate would be redundant.

73, ac6xg

Yes, I am quite in agreement, and these things are "real" without doubt (or
the apparent affects/effects are.)

And, that is the crux of the matter, how to control and "orchestrate" these
"things" for ones benefit (such as the difficulty faced when getting light
coherent--or arranging iron/nickel/"rare earth" atoms in logical
arrangements to achive great magnetism forces)--when all are not even aware
or accepting--just getting a start can range from difficult to impossible...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Marbles can be used in models with excellent results! However, if forced
to keep using all of mine up... I may end up at a disadvantage... I
already have seemed to have misplaced some!!!


"Asimov" wrote in message
...
| "John Smith" bravely wrote to "All" (12 May 05 18:16:40)
| --- on the heady topic of " Reflector Vs Director"
|
| JS Reply-To: "John Smith"
| JS Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:30219
|
| JS Asimov:
|
| JS Then:
|
| JS If I were shrunk to the size were an atom is the size of an orange
| JS and, I am holding it in my hand--and I look over at the next closest
| JS atom, in the block of lead I am standing in, and it appears to be
| JS about a football field length away... and if we agree on the
| JS preceeding... I have a LOT of this "free energy" and "virtual
photons"
| JS in my body--correct?
| JS Indeed, my antenna has a LOT of it, in its' metal, does it not? And,
| JS it is swimming in it, is it not? And, if so, kinda strange no
formula
| JS takes that into account, right?
|
|
| Yes there is but the average net result of this energy is always zero.
| However, it can be detected as the Casimir Effect, Lamb Shift, and Van
| de Waals Forces which arise from the random motions of electrons. Some
| people have even described this effect as responsible for Dark Energy
| or Zero Point Energy, Fermi Sea, Quantum Ocean, or whatever
| descriptive term you like best. Some have speculated it is also
| responsible for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.
|
| Some explanations--
|
| Lamb Shift:
|
| " The effect of virtual particles can be measured, and in fact won a
| nobel prize for the physicist who did. the lamb shift is the shift
| in the spectrum of an electron around a nucleus caused by virtual
| particles swarming around it.
| "
|
| Casimir Effect:
|
| "
| The following comes from the Usenet Physics FAQ
| (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/faq.html) and includes some
| references:
|
| Original by Philip Gibbs 24-January-1997
|
| What is the Casimir Effect?
|
| The Casimir effect is a small attractive force which acts between
| two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum
| vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field.
|
| The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in
| 1948. According to the quantum theory, the vacuum contains virtual
| particles which are in a continuous state of fluctuation (see
| physics FAQ article on virtual particles). Casimir realized that
| between two plates, only those virtual photons whose wavelengths fit
| a whole number of times into the gap should be counted when
| calculating the vacuum energy. The energy density decreases as the
| plates are moved closer which implies there is a small force drawing
| them together.
|
| The attractive Casimir force between two plates of area A separated
| by a distance a can be calculated to be,
|
| pi2 h-bar c
| F = ----------- A
| 240 a4
|
| where h-bar is Planck's constant over two pi and c is the speed of
| light.
|
| The tiny force was measured in 1996 by Steven Lamoreaux. His results
| were in agreement with the theory to within the experimental
| uncertainty of 5%.
|
| Particles other than the photon also contribute a small effect but
| only the photon force is measurable. All Bosons such as photons
| produce an attractive Casimir force while Fermions make a repulsive
| contribution. If electromagnetism was supersymmetric there would be
| fermionic photinos whose contribution would exactly cancel that of
| the photons and there would be no Casimir effect. The fact that the
| Casimir effect exists shows that if supersymmetry exists in nature
| it must be a broken symmetry.
|
| According to the theory the total zero point energy in the vacuum is
| infinite when summed over all the possible photon modes. The Casimir
| effect comes from a difference of energies in which the infinities
| cancel. The energy of the vacuum is a puzzle in theories of quantum
| gravity since it should act gravitationally and produce a large
| cosmological constant which would cause space-time to curl up. The
| solution to the inconsistency is expected to be found in a theory of
| quantum gravity.
|
| References
| H.B.G. Casimir, Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch. B51, 793 (1948)
| S. Lamoreaux, Phys Rev Lett, 78, p5 (1996)
|
| "
|
|
| A*s*i*m*o*v
|
| ... Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.
|

Yes, I see this as "proof" (at the very least--it causes me to suspect) that
we are missing and ignoring some variable(s) which makes this all
overly-difficult... sounds to me you are noticing we need a "unified
antenna theory."

If so, I agree... and I certainly don't offer myself as anything more than
one who notices this--no answers--just questions....

Warmest regards,
John
--
Marbles can be used in models with excellent results! However, if forced
to keep using all of mine up... I may end up at a disadvantage... I seem
to have misplaced some!!!


"Asimov" wrote in message
...
| "John Smith" bravely wrote to "All" (11 May 05 22:25:13)
| --- on the heady topic of " Reflector Vs Director"
|
| The only thing I know is that an antenna is a tricky compromise
| between a myriad of physical constants that make it up. Simply
| changing the dimensions of an element will affect the optimum spacing
| for maximum gain. But then so too having maximum gain as a goal will
| often reduce bandwidth. So some compromise to gain/bandwidth must be
| made to have a real antenna at the end of the process. Many such
| mutually defeating compromises must be juggled with to achieve this.
| Then, as if this wasn't enough, one must add the interaction with the
| environment, thinks like weather, proximity to objects, noise, etc.
|
| A*s*i*m*o*v
|
|
| JS Reply-To: "John Smith"
| JS Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:30174
|
| JS Oh yes, the important spacing--we agree on that alright (the rest
| JS too--I see that physical/electrical length as important to--but
| JS "electrical length" and "magnetic field shape" are related on an
| JS almost linear scale), but what is "in" that "spacing"--now there is
| JS the nut of this... that "magnetic field" is not a "proton
projection"
| JS and my antenna does not "glow"--and that "space" ain't no wire--or is
| JS it?
|
| ... Children come from God. He can't stand the noise either.
|

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:04:12 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Effluvium for the sake of effluence, and vice versa.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:47:02 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

I doubt Richard had considered all the possibilities when he said to
elaborate would be redundant.

Hi Jim,

In the 18th century politics, someone who straddled the fence was
called a Mugwump - their mug on one side and their wump on the other.

The reason I asked is because the
only thing I can find is something called a phase conjugate mirror,

It was suitable enough, but rather slim.

which has some really interesting behavior. And not exactly the
behavior being discussed in this thread. Time reversal for example.

This issue of what "is" and "is not" behavior being discussed is
strictly a matter of interpretation. Insofar as discussion continues,
it is quite evidently what "is" being discussed (a tautology). After
all, how many could mistake a director from a reflector and after
discussion still emerge confused?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:00:58 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:
You would see nothing.

Hi Fred,

'xactly.

The apparently more complex question is the shorter one:
Why?

To that, there's been expansionist constructions of irrelevant
elaboration trying to equate the experience to a transmission line
(given the problems of understanding on that topic, it is amazing
anyone could claim to be sighted).

Hint: Appeals to math are inversely proportional to the sense of the
answer. The answer runs counter to the thoughts of the medievalists
(as some arguments tend to run in that vein, those adherents are thus
confounded) - which I will perhaps expand upon (to the consternation
of those who stand in horror of things Shakespearian) later.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:59:03 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:
which I will perhaps expand upon (to the consternation
of those who stand in horror of things Shakespearian) later.

Sigh, what an illiterate group.

From John Donne (OK, after Shakespeare):
"Our eye-beams twisted, and did thread
Our eyes upon one double string."
suitable for the twin lead metaphor.

(howzaboutthat, another association between poesy and RF) The
appearance of the hand sign of the forefinger and little finger held
up with a closed fist is associated with this couplet that further
hints to the solution of "Why?"

The explicit hint is: evil eye (Friday the 13th?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:59:03 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:
which I will perhaps expand upon (to the consternation
of those who stand in horror of things Shakespearian) later.

Sigh, what an illiterate group.

From John Donne (OK, after Shakespeare):
"Our eye-beams twisted, and did thread
Our eyes upon one double string."
suitable for the twin lead metaphor.


My lords, ladies and gentlemen, the 2005 "Interflora" Award for Flowery
Phrasing on the Internet goes to... well, who else?

Richard, you may step up and collect - but PLEASE don't make a speech
:-)


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

On Sat, 14 May 2005 08:27:57 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote:

My lords, ladies and gentlemen, the 2005 "Interflora" Award for Flowery
Phrasing on the Internet goes to... well, who else?

Richard, you may step up and collect - but PLEASE don't make a speech

Hi Ian,

But the credit goes to the attributed author, John Donne (Ask not for
whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee).

OK. The allusion provided by Donne in his poem "The Ecstasy" of eye
beams illustrates a concept held back then that light emanated from
the eye to illuminate what was seen. Or perhaps more abstractly
(given the same light did not appear during night), what we see was a
function of our eye projecting its ability to see. Hence,
Elizabethans (because art celebrates what was; not what is) and
earlier society proposed this characteristic of the eye-beam.

This is NOT currently a commonly accepted notion of how vision works;
however, if we were to proceed as if it were, then the conjugate
mirror would return that beam to its source (this is the
characteristic of the mirror, from Jim Kelley's link which provided
this coverage). This is a conjugation of the conjugate mirror.
Hence, the mirror would illuminate the eye with the eye's own beam.
In a clinical sense, you would see the interior of your eye
(Optometrists have a device that does this).

Returning to how vision does work, one is not going to perceive any
illumination simply because the eye offers none in the first place.
Further, the eye is not going to perceive any other illumination
either because the conjugate mirror returns all illumination to its
source. The eye is excluded of ANY illumination (as I offered in the
"effluvium") and the appearance of the mirror is absolute black.
There is nothing to see. Several provided this answer, but not the
why (blind luck).

Now, to continue on to the reference of the "evil eye." It was also
predicated on the concept of eye beams. It was thought that people
could harmonize their spirits by their eye beams joining. This also
introduced the jeopardy of joining your eye beams with some one
sinister. This would have the effect of your possibly being mastered
by "the other." So, as protection against the evil eye, you would
repulse "the other" with the sign of your forefinger and little finger
held up from your fist and your fist held between you and "the other."
The function of this sign was that the fork of the two fingers would
entwine "the other's" eye beam before it got to your eyes. It would
entwine it in a lemniscate (figure 8) winding forever between these
fingers, and thus your protection against the evil eye.

We might propose that the modern solution would have been a conjugate
mirror.

To cap the simplicity of the solution, the conjugate is found in the
angle of reflection always being the same as the angle of coincidence
(or the inverse - conjugate - of the natural angle of reflection).

For those who actually visit Jim's link, I would add that this
citation further stipulates that conjugate mirrors that scientists
offer for experimental verification presume that the depth of the
mirror surface is greater (in wavelength dimension) than the pulse of
light that will be conjugately reflected. This purpose is to perform
the other properties of phase conjugation (hence the name) and leads
to discussion of "reversing time" which is not meant in the sense of
the classic TV program of the 60s "The Time Tunnel" (which was a
pretty crummy classic - I use the term ironically).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
My lords, ladies and gentlemen, the 2005 "Interflora" Award for Flowery
Phrasing on the Internet goes to... well, who else?

Richard, you may step up and collect - but PLEASE don't make a speech

But the credit goes to the attributed author, John Donne (Ask not for
whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee).

I can still see John Donne's face from the portrait on the panelled
walls of my old college hall. Unfortunately that memory is indelibly
associated with cold toast.

He and others may have created the flowery English... but the credit for
the flower arrangement is all yours, Richard.


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK