On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:25:01 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I am not aware of any further disagreement
between us.

so short a memory....

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:46:45 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Born and Wolf has an
interesting comment in the section on total reflection. "...the
electromagnetic field in the second medium does not disappear, only
there is no longer a flow of energy across the boundary."

your source, and yet unable or unwilling to confront this single
observation.

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:25:01 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:


I am not aware of any further disagreement
between us.


so short a memory....

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:46:45 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:


Born and Wolf has an
interesting comment in the section on total reflection. "...the
electromagnetic field in the second medium does not disappear, only
there is no longer a flow of energy across the boundary."


your source, and yet unable or unwilling to confront this single
observation.

Apparently that would mean the waves aren't traveling at the speed of
light and it would violate his "waves cannot exist without energy" law
of physics, so therefore the book is wrong. Besides, as a reference,
Hecht is far more maleable. ;-)

73, ac6xg

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:15:37 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Born and Wolf has an
interesting comment in the section on total reflection. "...the
electromagnetic field in the second medium does not disappear, only
there is no longer a flow of energy across the boundary."


your source, and yet unable or unwilling to confront this single
observation.

Apparently that would mean the waves aren't traveling at the speed of
light and it would violate his "waves cannot exist without energy" law
of physics, so therefore the book is wrong. Besides, as a reference,
Hecht is far more maleable. ;-)

Hi Jim,

It is far more reminiscent of his proof of total cancellation, if you
accept that total allows for several percent of non-totality.

Such vague indifference is like building the Golden Gate and finding a
gap of 40 or 50 feet in the middle. "Who's gonna' mind a couple of
percent? It spans the total bay, and THAT'S what counts!"
We have a bridge builder that wouldn't cross that bridge if he came to
it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Born and Wolf has an
interesting comment in the section on total reflection. "...the
electromagnetic field in the second medium does not disappear, only
there is no longer a flow of energy across the boundary."

your source, and yet unable or unwilling to confront this single
observation.

Since the EM energy doesn't flow across the match point boundary
toward the source, it must be redistributed in other directions.
In a transmission line, there is only one other direction, i.e.
the reflected energy is re-reflected at the match point. Wave
cancellation in a transmission line redistributes the energy in
the opposite direction as constructive interference.
--
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 =---

Jim Kelley wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Born and Wolf has an interesting comment in the section on total
reflection. "...the electromagnetic field in the second medium does
not disappear, only there is no longer a flow of energy across the
boundary."

your source, and yet unable or unwilling to confront this single
observation.

Apparently that would mean the waves aren't traveling at the speed of
light and it would violate his "waves cannot exist without energy" law
of physics, so therefore the book is wrong.

Wrong. All it means is that reflected energy doesn't make it across
the match point. Seems I read that in _Reflections_ a quarter century
ago. Reflected energy traveling at the speed of light is re-reflected
at the speed of light in the opposite direction. Wave cancellation
accomplishes that feat. Regarding wave cancellation:

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 (canceled but) 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. (There are only two directions available in a transmission
line.) 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 (back toward the load) rather
than the spontaneous construction or destruction of light." (Words in parentheses
are mine added for clarity.)
--
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 =---

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:27:25 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

"...the electromagnetic field in the second medium does not disappear,
Wave cancellation in a transmission line redistributes the energy in
the opposite direction as constructive interference.

More imbalance in the balance equation passing as "totality." :-)

It is established there is "some" amount of energy in the "second"
medium (in other words, beyond the match point as I have
demonstrated); it then follows there is not a total reflection (same
demonstration), and certainly not as constructive (to what?)
interference.

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Wave cancellation in a transmission line redistributes the energy in
the opposite direction as constructive interference.

It is established there is "some" amount of energy in the "second"
medium (in other words, beyond the match point as I have
demonstrated); it then follows there is not a total reflection (same
demonstration), and certainly not as constructive (to what?)
interference.

What's wrong with this picture? Looking at it upside down?
With the source on the left, the second medium is to the right
(load side) of the first medium. Of course, there is energy to
the right of the match point - because of standing waves, more
energy than exists in the first medium to the left of the match point.
There's no reflected energy in the first medium to the left of the
match point. It appears to look something like my earlier example:

1w | 1/4WL |
laser-----air-----|---thin-film---|---glass---...
1st medium | 2nd medium | 3rd medium
n=1.0 n=1.2222 n=1.4938
Pfor=1w Pfor=1.0101w Pfor=1w
Pref=0w Pref=0.0101w Pref=0w

Reflected energy is eliminated at the air to thin-film interface
because of wave cancellation (total destructive interference).
According to Hecht and every other reference I've seen, the
reflected energy involved in the wave cancellation event at the
match point joins the forward wave in the 2nd medium. Of course,
that increases the amount of energy in the 2nd medium beyond what
exists in the 1st medium. The necessary (total constructive inter-
ference) energy is contained in those standing waves in the 2nd medium.

www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm

"Clearly, if the wavelength of the incident light and the thickness
of the film are such that a phase difference exists between reflections
of p, then reflected wavefronts interfere destructively, and overall
reflected intensity is a minimum. If the two reflections are of equal
amplitude, then this amplitude (and hence intensity) minimum will be
zero." [total destructive interference]

"In the absence of absorption or scatter, the principle of conservation
of energy indicates all 'lost' reflected intensity will appear as
enhanced intensity [constructive interference energy] in the transmitted
beam. The sum of the reflected and transmitted beam intensities is always
equal to the incident intensity. This important fact has been confirmed
experimentally." [my notes]

In the above example, the laser's transmitted beam intensity is 1w.
In the 2nd medium, the reflected beam intensity is 0.0101w. The incident
intensity upon the 3rd medium is 1.0101w. "This important fact has been
confirmed experimentally." The above example is equivalent to a
matched 1/4WL transmission line section having the following
lossless characteristics.

1w XMTR--50 ohm coax--+--1/4WL 61.2 ohm coax--+--75 ohm coax--75 ohm load
Pfor=1w Pfor=1.0101w Pfor=1w
Pref=0w Pref=0.0101w Pref=0w
--
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 =---

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:52:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

What's wrong with this picture?

Mewing sacred cows. You got it wrong the last time, it is the same
this time, ex post facto it is still wrong. Whoring the names of
references that you subsequently dismiss, deny or impeach hardly
constitutes proof.

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What's wrong with this picture?

Mewing sacred cows. You got it wrong the last time, it is the same
this time, ex post facto it is still wrong. Whoring the names of
references that you subsequently dismiss, deny or impeach hardly
constitutes proof.

Assertions with no proof - ad hominem attacks - physician,
heal thyself. I furnished plenty of technical content.
You furnished less than none.
--
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 =---

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:20:32 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
You furnished less than none.

Short memory in long supply. The complete treatment in math was
offered successfully rebutting your proposition and you have shown
nothing new. The negation stands.