On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:33:05 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
It seems you have forgotten the purpose of the laser example.
I have been reminding you of "Glare" and asking for its wavelength for
months. No, I have not forgotten, I just haven't gotten an answer is
all. Let's face it, when your xerox crutch didn't include that
detail, your dearth of experience drew a blank.

If you want, I can answer it for you - just like all the other power
questions that attended your "laser design." You see, the difference
is that I've worked with and engineered them instead of building
flip-flops (do I note a similarity in your writing style here too?).

It takes more than simply being the holy cowboy of the sacred herd.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:42:22 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The purpose of the laser example is to make it as much like a
transmission line example as possible. A Bird wattmeter indicates
that all reflections are eliminated

Never met the class of Bird wattmeter that measures laser - and
neither have you. Get your thumb off the scale and put it where it
belongs.

Richard Clark wrote:
If
you don't care to answer for why the reflections of your model are
TEN TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN, ...

Already answered. A Bird wattmeter indicates zero reflections
in the T-line example so *ZERO* reflections are assumed as a
boundary condition in the laser example. The net reflections
are NOT ten times brighter than the sun - they are flat black,
by definition.
--
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:
I have been reminding you of "Glare" and asking for its wavelength for
months.

I assume you know how to calculate the wavelength of a
single-frequency coherent source like the one assumed
in the laser example. WL=c/f

The purpose of the laser example is to make it as much like a
transmission line example as possible. A Bird wattmeter indicates
that all reflections are eliminated in the T-line example so
the laser example assumes that as a boundary condition.

Never met the class of Bird wattmeter that measures laser ...

Didn't say it did. Read it again.
--
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 Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:49:35 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
If you don't care to answer for why the reflections of your model are
TEN TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN, ...

they are flat black, by definition.
I GET IT ! A new definition of black. You are indeed the Holy Cowboy
of the blind Sacred Longhorn. ;-)

Richard Clark wrote:
You are indeed the Holy Cowboy of the blind Sacred Longhorn. ;-)

No Sacred Longhorns around here. Texas Aggies barbeque
longhorns at every (few and far between) opportunity.
--
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 =----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Richard Harrison wrote:

Regardless of reflections and re-reflections, all the energy sourced
into a transmission line ends up in the load if it isn`t lost in
transmission by radiation or conversion into heat. There`s no place else
for it to go.


Hi Richard, does that statement assume that all energy
dissipated as heat in the source was never sourced?

It seems to. Since he wrote "all the energy sourced
into a transmission line", it's doubtful that he was implying that any
heat energy was sourced into the transmission line. That would be silly
(RF transmission line is opaque in the infrared). He probably also
assumed that the energy dissipated by the front panel lights wasn't
sourced into the transmission line either. You forgot to ask about
that. ;-)

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Hi Richard, does that statement assume that all energy
dissipated as heat in the source was never sourced?

It seems to. Since he wrote "all the energy sourced
into a transmission line", it's doubtful that he was implying that any
heat energy was sourced into the transmission line.

You missed the implication which was: Does any RF energy
exit the source only to re-enter the source again later
and wind up being dissipated as heat? For instance, we
know that a capacitive load is capable of returning
energy to the source during part of the cycle.
--
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 =----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Hi Richard, does that statement assume that all energy
dissipated as heat in the source was never sourced?


It seems to. Since he wrote "all the energy sourced
into a transmission line", it's doubtful that he was implying that any
heat energy was sourced into the transmission line.


You missed the implication which was: Does any RF energy
exit the source only to re-enter the source again later
and wind up being dissipated as heat?

That implication did escape notice. Clearly Richard was talking about
something else.

But it's an interesting question. It would be nice to see some
objective data.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
"You take too great a liberty with the name Eugene Hecht. Among the
things which won`t be found in any of Dr. Hecht`s texts is a minus sign
in front of a number expressing an impedance."

Don`t know why not. It happens at radio frequencies all the time. Look
through Kraus` chapter on "Mutual Impedance of Other Configurations".

B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr. gives a practical example starting on page
427 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals". On page 429 he
writes:
"We immediately notice one disturbing fact: the resistance component of
tower 1 has come out to be a negative number. This does not mean the
computations are wrong; it simply means that this tower because of the
particular phasing and current relationships of this array, will be
absorbing more power than it will be radiating itself."

This is an old story with broadcast antenna arrays.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI