On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:33:09 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I could go look up the quantitative energy calculation
and post it. But nobody in the world would be better
off because of my effort.
Apparently it wasn't worth the effort making the original statement
either.

Rises to the occasion of standing up in front of a memorial crowd and
saying
"Four score and seven years.....
Skip it, they're pushing up daisies now and
I got a play to go to."

Really? I thought the rule was, better too many commas, than too few.

tom
K0TAR

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:22:04 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:


Damn, Clinton could have used you guys!


Hi Fred,

Your post is living proof of the failure of English. I notice you
incorrectly dolloped an extra comma into your sentence.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:10:58 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:
Really? I thought the rule was, better too many commas, than too few.

Hi Tom,

A strange rule indeed. If we examine your sentence, the commas set
off a parenthetic. A parenthetical can be withdrawn without changing
the sense of what was written:
I thought the rule was than too few.

Commas also set off constructs that might be moved to another part of
the sentence without changing the sense of it:

According to Strunk and White, in a short sentence you can discard
what would have been mandated by normal rules.

In a short sentence you can discard what would have been mandated by
normal rules, according to Strunk and White.

In a short sentence, according to Strunk and White, you can discard
what would have been mandated by normal rules.

Compa
I thought the rule was than too few, better too many commas.
(a grammatical structure which almost describes total cancellation)

Better too many commas, I thought the rule was than too few.

I am quite sure you were pulling our leg. Others express extreme
difficulty with language as though it was their first time applying
for a green card.

One of my favorite conservative writers had an amusing comment on the
nature of this language difficulty here in Seattle with taking the
Drivers exam:
The written test wasn't hard. You had a choice of English or
Spanish. If you couldn't read either language, they waived the
test and automatically gave you a taxi license. I passed in
English.

The road test was more of a problem. Seems that I had a burned-out
turn signal. Seems the evaluator, an attractive but sternly
imposing middle-aged woman, noticed. Since this was a real street
test in real traffic, procedures required that I use hand signals,
which I hadn't used since taking my initial test several decades
before. Soon I was flailing madly, bumping cars as I tried to
parallel park, running stop signs, cutting people off. The
evaluator said nothing, but with each check mark she made on her
clipboard sheet, I grew more flustered. Finally, I gave up and
said:

Look, this is the way we drive back East.

Not in my state, you don't.

I'll be good. Promise. Can I have my license? Please?

She glared, but passed me. I took my paperwork to the issuing
counter.

Would you like to register to vote while you're here? the clerk
asked.

OK. Put me down as Republican.

Registration is nonpartisan. Would you like to be an organ
donor?

Sure. Can I leave my organs to Republicans?

Wrong thing to say. But at least I wasn't from California.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:10:58 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Really? I thought the rule was, better too many commas, than too few.


Hi Tom,

A strange rule indeed. If we examine your sentence, the commas set
off a parenthetic. A parenthetical can be withdrawn without changing
the sense of what was written:

I thought the rule was than too few.


Commas also set off constructs that might be moved to another part of
the sentence without changing the sense of it:

According to Strunk and White, in a short sentence you can discard
what would have been mandated by normal rules.

In a short sentence you can discard what would have been mandated by
normal rules, according to Strunk and White.

In a short sentence, according to Strunk and White, you can discard
what would have been mandated by normal rules.

Compa

I thought the rule was than too few, better too many commas.

(a grammatical structure which almost describes total cancellation)


Better too many commas, I thought the rule was than too few.


I am quite sure you were pulling our leg. Others express extreme
difficulty with language as though it was their first time applying
for a green card.

One of my favorite conservative writers had an amusing comment on the
nature of this language difficulty here in Seattle with taking the
Drivers exam:
The written test wasn't hard. You had a choice of English or
Spanish. If you couldn't read either language, they waived the
test and automatically gave you a taxi license. I passed in
English.

The road test was more of a problem. Seems that I had a burned-out
turn signal. Seems the evaluator, an attractive but sternly
imposing middle-aged woman, noticed. Since this was a real street
test in real traffic, procedures required that I use hand signals,
which I hadn't used since taking my initial test several decades
before. Soon I was flailing madly, bumping cars as I tried to
parallel park, running stop signs, cutting people off. The
evaluator said nothing, but with each check mark she made on her
clipboard sheet, I grew more flustered. Finally, I gave up and
said:

Look, this is the way we drive back East.

Not in my state, you don't.

I'll be good. Promise. Can I have my license? Please?

She glared, but passed me. I took my paperwork to the issuing
counter.

Would you like to register to vote while you're here? the clerk
asked.

OK. Put me down as Republican.

Registration is nonpartisan. Would you like to be an organ
donor?

Sure. Can I leave my organs to Republicans?

Wrong thing to say. But at least I wasn't from California.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I s******s and larfs.

tom
K0TAR

Jim, AC6AG wrote:
"The thing you really need to consider is how much energy is actually
"in" a wave (whatever that means) that delivers no energy."

If it delivers no energy, it has none to deliver. That`s common
knowledge. Most antenna systems are highly efficient. Nearly all
delivered energy is radiated. Look at a few radiation patterns. Sum the
watts per square meter in all the equare meters surrounding the antenna,
and the power very nearky totals the power fed the antenna. The total
watts are independent of antenna pattern.

Watts per square meter suppressed in one direction, appear in other
directions. Power is not annihilated by cancellation. It is
redistributed in other directions. Power can`t be retained in the
cancelled directions because it would then be unavailable for
redistribution. We know that is not the way cancellation works. The
cancelled energy is redistributed.

Long ago, a fellow named Young demonstrated how wave interference works
in a famous experiment now named for him. You likely have seen this
experiment in a physics lab near you.

Young squeezed light from a common electric lamp through a narrow slit
to serve as a light source for two more parallel slits farther along.
The light from the latter two slits illuminated a projection screen.

The screen display is seen to consist of alternate bright and dark
bands. This is explained as caused by the difference in path length
between the two illuminating slits and the bands on the screen.

The bright bands result from constructive interference where the
difference in path length from the two sources is an even number of
1/2-wavelencths. For example, two 1/2-wavelengths makes 360-degrees.
Such phase rotation produces the same phase as no rotation whatsoever.

The dark bands result from destructive interference where the difference
in path length from the two sources is an odd number of 1/2-wavelengths.
For example, a phase rotation of 180-degrees corresponds to the odd
number (1). Two equal and opposite waves add to zero and produce
darkness in a particular band space of the display.

This interference display is an old game that is often presented in a
high school physics lab. Sometimes it is done with pinholes replacing
the slits, but slits make a brighter display.

I used to think that Joseph F. Schlitz really made the brightest
display!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:49:43 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

If it delivers no energy, it has none to deliver. That`s common
knowledge. Most antenna systems are highly efficient.

Hi Richard,

This is so totally overwhelmed by negative example:

Let us consider that you as an amateur, transmitting at 100W seeks to
deliver all the energy of your radiated signal.

Let us arbitrarily assign 100% antenna efficiency, and absolutely no
ground loss - all 100W are indeed RF and radiating outward to the
dictates of a perfect, lossless, world wide distribution.

Let us further consider that every man, woman, and child on this earth
has a radio and is listening to you at S-9 signal strength.

They consume
(6·10^9) · ((50·10^-6)² Volt²/50 Ohm)
(6·10^9) · (50·10^-12) Watt
300 mW

In other words 99.7W has never found its way to any listener and we
know full well that the entire population of earth would never hear
you on any Ham frequency. Nor would a significant number for who did,
would it be as good as S-9 for that 100W signal.

To say 99% of your energy simply evaporated away, to no purpose
whatever, would be over generous by 10,000 fold.

However, the point of this much energy is to establish the fields to
allow those who do hear you, to hear you at that S-9 level (or better,
or worse). Without this tremendous energy effort, transmitting only
the energy deemed to be for delivery would confine us to telephones
(and the losses there are hardly worth crowing efficiency).

Even talking to your buddy as you cross an open field together is
vastly inefficient (energy-wise). Unless, of course, global warming
is not perceived to be a problem (sound energy is heat, phonons; RF
energy, photons, is not always rendered into heat).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"This is so totally overbalanced ny negative example."

I omitted two words "(cancelled wave)".

If it (Cancelled wave) delivers no energy, it has none to deliver.

After all, power is limited in capability. If it still exists in its
cancellation, it can`t be acting elsewhere.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:24:18 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

If it (Cancelled wave) delivers no energy, it has none to deliver.

Hi Richard,

Hmmm, a syllogism.

If it exists as a wave, energy is the root of its existence. If it
delivers no energy, "it" still exists, but so does some other "it"
exist with an equal, counter impulse. Cancellation is not a solitary
act. A Cancelled wave is not a single entity. In fact, both energies
have been delivered to a load (waves do not act upon each other in a
vacuum), and have balanced out to create the condition of "nothing
being delivered."

Otherwise the discussion rather fancifully pivots in a void of
non-waves, not existing and we could then introduce "King Lear" and
his observation that "nothing begets nothing." Should I point out
that Lear was a pathetic loser?

After all, power is limited in capability. If it still exists in its
cancellation, it can`t be acting elsewhere.

And we return to the excess energy of the thin film reflections after
"total" cancellation. Nice to see that the topic is still being
discussed. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
(Richard Harrison) wrote:

Most antenna systems are highly efficient.

Hi Richard,

This is so totally overwhelmed by negative example:
Let us consider that you as an amateur, transmitting at 100W seeks to
deliver all the energy of your radiated signal. ... (irrelevant math) ...
In other words 99.7W has never found its way to any listener
________________

Probably you are the only reader of Richard Harrison's post who took it to
mean that a radio wave is an efficient means of transferring power from one
point to another in an uncontrolled propagation environment.

Though you chose not to include it in your response, Richard Harrison's next
sentence of that post reads, "Nearly all delivered energy is radiated." He
did NOT write that nearly all radiated energy is delivered, which apparently
is the way you understood it. A bit of dyslexia, perhaps?

As even you must know in lucid moments, most practical transmitting antennas
ARE highly efficient at converting the power applied to them into EM
radiation.

RF

Richard Harrison wrote:
If it (Cancelled wave) delivers no energy, it has none to deliver.

After all, power is limited in capability. If it still exists in its
cancellation, it can`t be acting elsewhere.

As Walter Maxwell said in "Reflections" a quarter of a century ago:

"The destructive wave interference between these two complementary
(reflected) waves ... causes a complete cancellation of energy flow
in the direction toward the generator. Conversely, the constructive
wave interference produces an energy maximum in the direction toward
the load, ..."
--
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 =----