Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Since, in my example, glare has been completely
eliminated, you are asking: "What is the wavelength
of nothing?"

But in order to conserve energy, wouldn't the glare have to re-reflect
off of an interference pattern and continue - I mean - start moving in
the forward direction? ;-)

Wave cancellation causes the re-reflection but you are essentially
correct as described perfectly on the following web page. Note that
there are only two directions in an RF transmission line. If the energy
stops moving rearward, as it does at a Z0-match, then it must start
moving forward. Walter Maxwell explained all of this decades ago.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are 180-
degrees out of phase with each other meet, they are not actually
annihilated. All of the photon energy present in these waves must
somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to
the law of energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons
are redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference, so
the effect should be considered as a redistribution of light waves and
photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction
of light."

This applies to single frequency coherent glare (reflections). You see,
Jim, the field of optics has no virtual reflection coefficients for
you to hide behind. A change in the index of refraction *always* causes
a reflection in optics. The only possibility of eliminating that reflection
is through wave cancellation. A change in Z0 also always causes a reflection
in RF transmission lines. An S-parameter analysis acknowledges that
fact of physics. Too bad so many RF engineers rely on a virtual
reflection coefficient as a cause when it is merely an end effect.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:23:32 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Good luck on that one.
Luck is unnecessary when the quote is so obviously disassociated from
the context of Glare or its wavelength. Such a struggle you put on,
like an old wife wriggling into a girdle. Such exhibitionism would be
pornographic if it weren't so comic. :-)

Fred W4JLE wrote:

Glare occurs entirely internally to the eye, and there are two main types of
glare effects. The first is the corona, which forms the fuzzy glow you see
around a light at night, or the rays which seem to shoot out from the light
of the sun. The second is the lenticular halo, which is only seen when the
pupils are dilated enough and is a color banded halo which is usually
visible surrounding the corona.

Is that what I am missing? Richard Clark has cataracts?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

It has been quite obvious that this poor math was necessary to support
a faulty premise: complete cancellation. There is no such thing,

Of course, in reality there's no such thing as complete
cancellation. But we can get the cancellation so good
as to be virtually perfect.

There's no such thing as a lossless transmission line,
yet you seem to have no problem with that concept. I
would venture that an SWR of 1.01:1 is close enough to
complete cancellation to be declared as close as humans
need to come to perfection which means that you are
just blowing smoke.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Good luck on that one.

That was "good luck on disagreeing with Hecht" which is exactly
what you did and trimmed out the details in hopes nobody would
notice. I honestly don't know what is the most popular laser
wavelength. I had to rely on Hecht for that answer.

Luck is unnecessary when the quote is so obviously disassociated from
the context of Glare or its wavelength. Such a struggle you put on,
like an old wife wriggling into a girdle. Such exhibitionism would be
pornographic if it weren't so comic. :-)

I'm sure you are a glare expert and I'm just as sure that your
postings on glare are completely irrelevant, an obvious diversion
in your feeble attempt to change the subject away from what is
important. Why are you so afraid to deal with my example including
the boundary conditions? Why are you so accepting of an ideal
transmission line yet so unaccepting of an ideal thin-film?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:50:20 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It has been quite obvious that this poor math was necessary to support
a faulty premise: complete cancellation. There is no such thing,

Of course, in reality there's no such thing as complete
cancellation.

There's no such thing even in a perfect world. Adding qualifications
like "in reality" changes nothing. The poor math treatment you
offered is not justified by appeals to conceptual arguments. Being
conceptual still allows (as I have demonstrated in the actual math)
them to be far from immaculate conception. We've seen you assume the
name of Occam, Galileo, Newton, but not Madonna. ;-)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:00:06 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Why are you so afraid to deal with my example including the boundary conditions?

You've forgotten so soon? This marks twice we've been through this
complaint - not including the actual posting that responds directly to
your statement. Your Netzheimer affliction can be aided by a visit to
the archive. However, you will have another forgetting opportunity
when I soon revisit those results posted some time ago. :-)

Cecil, glare is truly in the eye of the beholder. Glare and reflections are
two different animals.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...

This applies to single frequency coherent glare (reflections). You see,

Jim Kelley wrote:
Note that
there are only two directions in an RF transmission line.

Lemme write that down. So just how fast does the RF energy move?

All EM waves move at the speed of light (taking the velocity
factor of the medium into account).
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Of course, in reality there's no such thing as complete
cancellation.

There's no such thing even in a perfect world.

Since there's no such thing as a perfect world, that's a
moot point. But complete cancellation can certainly happen
in a human mind. All it takes is equal magnitudes and
opposite phases of conceptual EM waves. That's what makes
us different as a species.

You have taken a simple conceptual example to extremes.
Even more extreme is that there's no such thing as an
exact height, width, or depth, or an exact time, or a
point, line, or plane. There is no exact voltage, current,
or power except maybe at the quantum level. There is no exact
characteristic impedance. The list is endless. Why you choose
to engage in such silly diversions away from simple truths is
interesting. Taken to your extremes, nothing, including
communication among humans, is possible.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---