On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:05:08 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I wish I could share my email with you.
There is only agreement and encouragement.
Oh, how touching. Wallflower testimonials. Must be a couple of
thousand by now. Try sending them to your editor, at least it would
prove you have circulation capacity.
I stick with a thread longer than I probably should.
You must find that mail pretty shallow then.

You are my hero Cecil!

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Fred W4JLE wrote:
I have only found infallibility in Terman, Kraus, Maxwell, The Pope,
and
now Cecil!

I apologize profusely, Fred, and will strive for infallibility.
--
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:

Why do you refuse to answer the question: Given reflected energy
rejected by a mismatched load, what causes the reversal of direction
of the energy flow and momentum at the match point?

The only thing which can cause energy to change direction is reflection.
I have answered that question every time you asked it. Perhaps you
were just unable to grasp the meaning of the answer. It means that for
an electromagnetic wave to reverse direction, it must encounter a change
in the nature of the conducting medium.

Interference results when two or more waves superpose. The pattern is
the amplitude resultant plotted as a function of position. It may be
generated as a result of a reflection, but is not an entity which itself
reflects waves. Impedance discontinuities or changes in the index of
refraction - those things cause reflection. An interference pattern
created by waves is still just waves arranged differently. Waves don't
cause other waves to change direction. If you think they do, then you
need to try to find some proof. Adding your misguided editorials to
desriptions of interference doesn't qualify.

ac6xg

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"What phenomenon of physics causes the energy and momentum in that wave
to reverse direction?"

It must keep moving and if it can`t go somewhere it goes elsewhere.

Shorts and opens are a way to control current which in its magnitude,
phase, and path produces fields.

In a transmission line or wave guide, waves are guided. In free-space,
waves move away from the source.

In a small single-turn loop, the current everywhere within the loop is
very nearly the same. A complete null is achieved on the axis of the
loop (see 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" page 204, Fig. 7-7).

The loop`s null results from equidistance along the axis srom corrent
and fields which are in opposite directions. The fields are moving in
the same directions but because of their opposite polarities add to zero
along the axis.

So, to opens and shorts, equal and opposite radiation fields can be
added to the list of things which cancel energy traveling in a certain
direction. When a fixed rate of energy flow must be maintained,
cancelled energy must emerge in the noncancelled directions. It`s energy
conservation.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:42:36 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Why do you refuse to answer the question
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:25:53 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
I have answered that question every time you asked it.

Hmmm, an infinite reflection problem.

This certainly must be the single place precision proof for having
enough energy not to cancel anything.

C'mon guys, dress it up with some style or humor, otherwise it is like
watching C-SPAN with two politicians spitting at each other in an
empty chamber of congress. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
The only thing which can cause energy to change direction is reflection.
I have answered that question every time you asked it.

But that is a non-answer and you don't offer any idea as to the cause
of the reflection. What causes 100% re-reflection of reflected waves
in a matched system? You are still avoiding a valid answer.

It means that for
an electromagnetic wave to reverse direction, it must encounter a change
in the nature of the conducting medium.

Assume it encounters a power reflection coefficient of 0.5 in a
matched system. What causes the reflection of the other half of
the reflected energy?

Impedance discontinuities or changes in the index of
refraction - those things cause reflection.

Yes, and wave cancellation in a transmission line only happens at
an impedance discontinuity so your assertion has no point.

An interference pattern
created by waves is still just waves arranged differently.

On the contrary, wave cancellation at a match point is permanent.
The waves cease to existence in the direction of the source. They
are not arranged differently. Your assertion is obviously false
for interference patterns at match points in transmission lines.
Before you go into a tirade, what you say is usually true, just
not for match points in transmission lines which is a special case.

Waves don't cause other waves to change direction.

Normally, that's true. But when the two coherent waves disappear
from existence in the direction of the source, the conservation
of energy principle takes over. If the energy is not flowing
toward the source then it must necessarily flow toward the load.
That is such a simple concept it's hard to believe that you
cannot comprehend it. It's explained in the web page quote below.

If you think they do, then you need to try to find some proof.

Isn't the following proof enough? They are talking about wave
cancellation such as happens at a non-reflective surface or a
match point in a transmission line.

"... 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 ..."

"Redistributed in a new direction" in a transmission line means
changing direction. What is it about that simple concept that
you fail to comprehend?
--
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 Harrison wrote:

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"What phenomenon of physics causes the energy and momentum in that wave
to reverse direction?"

So, to opens and shorts, equal and opposite radiation fields can be
added to the list of things which cancel energy traveling in a certain
direction.

Thanks Richard, that's what I have been trying to say. And the
"equal and opposite radiation fields" can occur inside a
transmission line at an impedance discontinuity. After all, an
RF transmission line signal is just EM wave-fields contained
by a boundary.

Walter Maxwell said such in "Reflections II", page 23-9:
"With equal magnitudes and opposite phase at the same point
(Point A, the matching point), the sum of the two waves is
zero."

When two waves sum to zero, their energy components must be
redistributed. In a transmission line, if energy ceases flowing
in one direction, it must change directions. That's a reflection.

So here's a list of things that can cause 100% re-reflection of
reflected energy in a transmission line. 1. short-circuit,
2. open-circuit, 3. pure reactance, 4. permanent wave cancellation
at an impedance discontinuity.
--
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 =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

The only thing which can cause energy to change direction is
reflection. I have answered that question every time you asked it.


But that is a non-answer and you don't offer any idea as to the cause
of the reflection.

I have also explained the cause of reflection to you many times. (Hint:
it's the change in media thing. See below for one example.)

What causes 100% re-reflection of reflected waves
in a matched system? You are still avoiding a valid answer.

I wrote you an email with a reference that I recomended you read.
It's the best explanation I've seen. I'll bet you haven't read it. I
don't know why you keep saying I avoid these things when my efforts to
explain it to you is my entire purpose for corresponding on the subject.

It means that for an electromagnetic wave to reverse direction, it
must encounter a change in the nature of the conducting medium.


Assume it encounters a power reflection coefficient of 0.5 in a
matched system. What causes the reflection of the other half of
the reflected energy?

The thing that causes reflection is a change in media. Impedance, index
of refraction - something like that. See below.

Impedance discontinuities or changes in the index of refraction -
those things cause reflection.


Yes, and wave cancellation in a transmission line only happens at
an impedance discontinuity so your assertion has no point.

Then it must be that your question, which I answered, had no point.

An interference pattern created by waves is still just waves arranged
differently.


On the contrary, wave cancellation at a match point is permanent.

The statement is less contrary than your disposition.

Waves don't cause other waves to change direction.


Normally, that's true.

As if you would know. It's of course always true.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I wrote you an email with a reference that I recomended you read.
It's the best explanation I've seen. I'll bet you haven't read it.

You simply cannot hurl nasty, obscene, ad hominem insults and still
expect someone to read your emails. You cannot say you weren't warned.

Waves don't cause other waves to change direction.

Normally, that's true.

As if you would know. It's of course always true.

It is, of course, not always true as proven by the quote from the
following web page. What is it about WAVE INTERFERENCE causing energy
to be "redistributed in a new direction" that you don't understand?

It clearly contradicts what you are asserting. It plainly asserts that
TWO INTERFERING WAVES can cause the energy in the two waves to change
direction. And it can only happen at an impedance discontinuity
which should be enough to satisfy your requirements.

"... 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."

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. But I do
believe that my references outweigh yours by a long shot.
--
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 =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I wrote you an email with a reference that I recomended you read.
It's the best explanation I've seen. I'll bet you haven't read it.


You simply cannot hurl nasty, obscene, ad hominem insults and still
expect someone to read your emails. You cannot say you weren't warned.

For those reading along, here are the remarks Cecil is characterizing as
nasty and obscene:

"I understand your point perfectly. You still fail to address a single
point. You're a very odd cat, Cecil. The hostility is totally weird."

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
For those reading along, here are the remarks Cecil is characterizing as
nasty and obscene:

Please don't be ridiculous. No, the remarks I am characterizing
as nasty and obscene are commonly know as "mind f__king".
--
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 =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

For those reading along, here are the remarks Cecil is characterizing
as nasty and obscene:


Please don't be ridiculous. No, the remarks I am characterizing
as nasty and obscene are commonly know as "mind f__king".

That's obscene alright.

Maybe it was when I said that you're describing the match point as if it
were a 100% reflective one-way mirror. A one way mirror is actually not
a bad analogy. Problem is you keep insisting that it must be 100%
reflective - which obviously can't work. I tried to explain that each
reflection is only partial, but each wavefront subsequently experiences
multiple reflections - each time reduced in amplitude by a factor of
rho1*rho2 per round trip. And, that the total amplitude equals the sum
of all previous undamped reflections, which happens to equal the 100%
number. That's what is in the textbooks I referred to you. It's also
what Walt explains in his 1/4 wave transformer diagrams.

If the truth is a vulgar obscenity to you, then I guess I might rightly
be accused of "hurling" that at you.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
I tried to explain that each
reflection is only partial, but each wavefront subsequently experiences
multiple reflections - each time reduced in amplitude by a factor of
rho1*rho2 per round trip. And, that the total amplitude equals the sum
of all previous undamped reflections, which happens to equal the 100%
number. That's what is in the textbooks I referred to you. It's also
what Walt explains in his 1/4 wave transformer diagrams.

That is also what I have been saying and nothing I have said disagrees
with anything above. I have not introduced anything new. I have merely
tied a couple of loose ends together by bringing some well understood
concepts over from optics to RF engineering. Wave interference indeed
can cause a redistribution in the direction of energy flow. Wave
cancellation doesn't just happen one time and it's over. Wave
cancellation is a continuous steady-state process and continues
until the source is shut down. It appears to me that is what you may
be missing.

If the truth is a vulgar obscenity to you, then I guess I might rightly
be accused of "hurling" that at you.

There's a mild example of your mind-f__king ways, Jim. I knew it
would only be a matter of time until you pulled that crap again.
You don't seem to be able to help yourself. So have you stopped
beating your wife yet?
--
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:

Wave interference indeed
can cause a redistribution in the direction of energy flow.

Not correct. What you don't seem to grasp here is that's exactly the
same as saying 'a standing wave pattern causes energy to be
redistributed'. Wave interference is simply the visible manifestation
of a redistribution of energy. It is a result. It is not the cause of
the redistribution.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Wave interference indeed
can cause a redistribution in the direction of energy flow.

Not correct.

There you go again, playing semantic games, and trying to force
your pet definition of "cause" on the rest of the world. You
have obviously tried to redefined cause to mean "first cause",
a concept that has so many holes in it that you can use it for
a sieve.

By saying the above, you are disagreeing with the following web page:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

What you don't seem to grasp here is that's exactly the
same as saying 'a standing wave pattern causes energy to be
redistributed'.

The existence of standing wave indeed does cause energy to be
redistributed. Where the standing wave voltage is zero, the net
energy is redistributed into the H-field. Where the standing wave
current is zero, the net energy is redistributed into the E-field.
It is all because of the standing wave. If the standing wave didn't
exist, that wouldn't happen. Therefore, standing waves cause
energy to be redistributed. A causes B. B causes C. C causes D.
Of course, the standing waves are only one item in a cause and effect
chain. The standing waves are an effect caused by interference between
forward-traveling waves and rearward-traveling waves. The forward-traveling
wave is an effect caused by a source. The rearward-traveling wave is an
effect caused by a mismatched load. The source and the load are caused by
human beings. The load is caused by human choice. Humans beings are caused
by ... See where your "first cause" concept leads? i.e. nowhere!

Following your above logic, I assume you would say the Big Bang
is the cause of everything and nothing since then has been the
cause of anything.

Wave interference is simply the visible manifestation
of a redistribution of energy. It is a result. It is not the cause of
the redistribution.

Wave cancellation is permanent and is first an effect and then a
cause in a long line of cause and effect events. I see now why
your argument cannot tolerate the concept of a before and after.

The two signals coming from two different directions incident upon
an impedance discontinuity cause reflections. Wave cancellation is
caused by permanent destructive interference between two of those
reflected waves. The Wave cancellation in turn causes the energy to
be redistributed. Let's parse the following so even you can understand it:

"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 ..."

Wave cancellation causes an energy redistribution. This is obvious
to anyone except someone who believes the Big Bang was the only
cause ever. You remind me of the bully who beats up his wife and
then says, "She caused me give her that black eye."

Here's your logic once again. Lightning hits my ICOM and fries it.
Was lightning the cause? No. Was a low pressure depression the
cause? No. Was whatever caused the low pressure depression the
cause? No. There must have been something before that. Maybe the
proverbial butterfly flapping its wings in China? See how
silly your argument is?
--
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:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Wave interference indeed
can cause a redistribution in the direction of energy flow.

Not correct.

Note I said "can cause", not "will cause".

Jim, you caused me to hit the books on cause and effect and
the effect was a refresher course on what I already knew.

From "Introduction to Logic", by Copi: "The word 'cause' is
sometimes used in the sense of necessary condition and
sometimes in the sense of sufficient condition."

Is permanent wave cancellation a sufficient condition
for a redistribution of energy to happen. The answer is "yes"
according to my web page references. Therefore, permanent wave
cancellation *will* indeed cause a redistribution of energy.

Please note above that I said wave interference indeed *can*
cause a redistribution of energy. I chose "can" instead of
"will" because wave interference is not sufficient to cause
the redistribution of energy. Wave cancellation is a special
case of wave interference in which the waves *cease to exist*
in their original direction of travel. The conservation of
energy principle dictates that the energy contained in those
waves before they are canceled, must necessarily be redistributed
along a different path. Note: Any different path in a transmission
line is necessarily the opposite direction, i.e. a reflection.
--
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, 09 Aug 2005 12:53:40 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Wave interference indeed
can cause a redistribution in the direction of energy flow.

Not correct.

There you go again, playing semantic games, and trying to force
your pet definition of "cause" on the rest of the world. You
have obviously tried to redefined cause to mean "first cause",
a concept that has so many holes in it that you can use it for
a sieve.

By saying the above, you are disagreeing with the following web page:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

What you don't seem to grasp here is that's exactly the
same as saying 'a standing wave pattern causes energy to be
redistributed'.

The existence of standing wave indeed does cause energy to be
redistributed. Where the standing wave voltage is zero, the net
energy is redistributed into the H-field. Where the standing wave
current is zero, the net energy is redistributed into the E-field.
It is all because of the standing wave. If the standing wave didn't
exist, that wouldn't happen. Therefore, standing waves cause
energy to be redistributed. A causes B. B causes C. C causes D.
Of course, the standing waves are only one item in a cause and effect
chain. The standing waves are an effect caused by interference between
forward-traveling waves and rearward-traveling waves. The forward-traveling
wave is an effect caused by a source. The rearward-traveling wave is an
effect caused by a mismatched load. The source and the load are caused by
human beings. The load is caused by human choice. Humans beings are caused
by ... See where your "first cause" concept leads? i.e. nowhere!
Snip
Here's your logic once again. Lightning hits my ICOM and fries it.
Was lightning the cause? No. Was a low pressure depression the
cause? No. Was whatever caused the low pressure depression the
cause? No. There must have been something before that. Maybe the
proverbial butterfly flapping its wings in China? See how
silly your argument is?

Jim, try the following on for size:

Let us now determine why open or short circuits are developed by
wave interference. From King,37 we know that voltage and current
traveling along the line can be represented by individual generators
placed at any point along the line. Those generators are called "point
generators." For the purpose of analysis, a point generator is an
impedance-less EMF that can represent or replace the voltage and
current on the line equal to the voltage and current actually
appearing at that point on the line, without disturbing the wave
action on the line.
To simulate and analyze interference between two waves of equal
magnitude and opposite phase traveling in the same direction, such as
the two sets of reflected waves generated by the load mismatch and the
stub mismatch, we can connect two point generators together in either
of two different configurations. Each generator replaces the voltage
and current of each individual wave at the point of interference, the
match point. In the first configuration, the two generators are
connected in phase. Because their voltages are equal and in phase, the
differential voltage is zero, resulting in no current flow. This
connection is equivalent to an open circuit between the generators. In
the second configuration, the generators are connected with their
terminals reversed. Their voltages are now in opposite phase at the
interference point and the resulting voltage is the sum of the
voltages delivered by each generator; i.e., twice the voltage of each
generator. This connection results in a short circuit between the two
generators.
Identical wave-interference phenomena establishing a short
circuit also occur in free space in the same manner as in guided-wave
propagation along transmission lines. For example, when the fields
emanating from two radiators in an array of antennas are of equal
magnitude and 180° out of phase at a point in space, a virtual short
circuit is established by destructive wave interference, resulting in
a null in the radiation pattern at that point. Following Poynting's
Theorem, the energy in the combined fields propagating is reversed in
direction at that point; and with the constructive interference that
follows, that energy adds to that in the fields propagating in the
opposite direction, thus achieving gain in the that direction.

Walt, W2DU
..

Cecil Moore wrote:

Please note above that I said wave interference indeed *can*
cause a redistribution of energy. I chose "can" instead of
"will" because wave interference is not sufficient to cause
the redistribution of energy. Wave cancellation is a special
case of wave interference in which the waves *cease to exist*
in their original direction of travel. The conservation of
energy principle dictates that the energy contained in those
waves before they are canceled, must necessarily be redistributed
along a different path. Note: Any different path in a transmission
line is necessarily the opposite direction, i.e. a reflection.

All correct - neither proving your point or disputing mine.

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

ac6xg

Walter Maxwell wrote:

Jim, try the following on for size:

Let us now determine why open or short circuits are developed by
wave interference. From King,37 we know that voltage and current
traveling along the line can be represented by individual generators
placed at any point along the line. Those generators are called "point
generators." For the purpose of analysis, a point generator is an
impedance-less EMF that can represent or replace the voltage and
current on the line equal to the voltage and current actually
appearing at that point on the line, without disturbing the wave
action on the line.
To simulate and analyze interference between two waves of equal
magnitude and opposite phase traveling in the same direction, such as
the two sets of reflected waves generated by the load mismatch and the
stub mismatch, we can connect two point generators together in either
of two different configurations. Each generator replaces the voltage
and current of each individual wave at the point of interference, the
match point. In the first configuration, the two generators are
connected in phase. Because their voltages are equal and in phase, the
differential voltage is zero, resulting in no current flow. This
connection is equivalent to an open circuit between the generators. In
the second configuration, the generators are connected with their
terminals reversed. Their voltages are now in opposite phase at the
interference point and the resulting voltage is the sum of the
voltages delivered by each generator; i.e., twice the voltage of each
generator. This connection results in a short circuit between the two
generators.
Identical wave-interference phenomena establishing a short
circuit also occur in free space in the same manner as in guided-wave
propagation along transmission lines. For example, when the fields
emanating from two radiators in an array of antennas are of equal
magnitude and 180° out of phase at a point in space, a virtual short
circuit is established by destructive wave interference, resulting in
a null in the radiation pattern at that point. Following Poynting's
Theorem, the energy in the combined fields propagating is reversed in
direction at that point; and with the constructive interference that
follows, that energy adds to that in the fields propagating in the
opposite direction, thus achieving gain in the that direction.

Walt, W2DU

Hi Walt,

I think that is all well and good, Walt - except for your statement
regarding the Poynting theorem. I can find no support in the literature
for a claim that interference changes the direction of the Poynting
vector - or for that matter, is a cause for any other phenomenon to
occur. I once asked you for a reference, but your books weren't handy
at the time. Let me know if it turns up. I am very interested to take
a look at it.

Thanks,

Jim Kelley

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:15:18 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:


Identical wave-interference phenomena establishing a short
circuit also occur in free space in the same manner as in guided-wave
propagation along transmission lines. For example, when the fields
emanating from two radiators in an array of antennas are of equal
magnitude and 180° out of phase at a point in space, a virtual short
circuit is established by destructive wave interference, resulting in
a null in the radiation pattern at that point. Following Poynting's
Theorem, the energy in the combined fields propagating is reversed in
direction at that point; and with the constructive interference that
follows, that energy adds to that in the fields propagating in the
opposite direction, thus achieving gain in the that direction.

Walt, W2DU

Hi Walt,

I think that is all well and good, Walt - except for your statement
regarding the Poynting theorem. I can find no support in the literature
for a claim that interference changes the direction of the Poynting
vector - or for that matter, is a cause for any other phenomenon to
occur. I once asked you for a reference, but your books weren't handy
at the time. Let me know if it turns up. I am very interested to take
a look at it.

Thanks,

Jim Kelley

Well, Jim, did you really grasp the paragraph above? How do you
suppose that had it not been for wave interferencethe energy would
have continued on in a particular radial direction, but due to the
interference the result was a null in that direction and an increased
amount of energy in the opposite, or forward direction, achieving gain
in that direction? The energy certainly changed direction to achieve
this condition. And you don't need references to understand this
phenomenon either. There are some concepts that are understandable
intuitively.

Please Jim, don't tell us that the energy isn't changing direction in
the rearrangement of the power distribution in the antenna pattern
that is wholly caused by wave interference and nothing else.

Walt

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:37:38 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

How do you
suppose that had it not been for wave interferencethe energy would
have continued on in a particular radial direction,

Hi Walt,

What stopped it if not a physical barrier?

but due to the
interference the result was a null

A null is not the absence of energy, but is the combination of equal
and opposing forces. If you were the Ref at a title bout, and stepped
between two punches of equal magnitude; then you wouldn't move very
far, the motions would cancel, but most would doubt you'd be up again
before the "count."

Nulls are evidenced quite clearly in bridges of many designs. They
may balance between huge potentials (energy), but evidence absolutely
no current (or power from energy times current). If you unplugged the
equipment from a bridge, the absence of current would not be an
indication of a null. Nulls within the context of engineering
necessarily carries the implication of energy present.

in that direction and an increased
amount of energy in the opposite, or forward direction, achieving gain
in that direction?

Linear systems do not exhibit "gain." The combination of forces are
due to the total field in comparison to the region of interest.

It is by similar simplifications that we have contributors here who
offer that the radials of elevated ground planes do not radiate
energy. Their contribution to producing a power at a remote load may
cancel such that no power is evident, but this does not negate the
radiation nor the energy present.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Please note above that I said wave interference indeed *can*
cause a redistribution of energy. I chose "can" instead of
"will" because wave interference is not sufficient to cause
the redistribution of energy. Wave cancellation is a special
case of wave interference in which the waves *cease to exist*
in their original direction of travel. The conservation of
energy principle dictates that the energy contained in those
waves before they are canceled, must necessarily be redistributed
along a different path. Note: Any different path in a transmission
line is necessarily the opposite direction, i.e. a reflection.

All correct - neither proving your point or disputing mine.

I keep telling you that our only technical disagreements are over
extremely minor points. You keep posting stuff as if we disagree
when we don't and it is mostly just a ruse. You keep trying to
forcefully shove your strawmen into my head so you can shoot them
down, but that is just another ruse.

It appears to me that you think wave cancellation is a one time event,
like shooting a deer. The deer dies and that's that. But wave cancellation
is not a one time event. Wave cancellation is a continuous steady-state
infinite series of infinitessimal events. Wave cancellation is not possible
without steady-state standing waves. If the forward power anywhere in the
system is greater than the source power, then wave cancellation and
constructive interference are continuously occuring during steady-state.

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

"In" in this context means "associated with" (and two letters is
seven times as efficient as 14 letters). Energy is always associated
with any wave, else the wave would never exist. For you to talk
about canceled waves containing no energy is a contradiction. Dr.
Best talked about canceled waves that keep flowing toward the source,
canceling each other all the way, but containing zero energy. They
exist only in his mind.

All waves deliver energy somewhere even if it takes forever as in the
case of the detected background radiation. In a lossless transmission
line, all waves deliver energy to the load (and possibly to the source
after power to the source is removed). Rearward-traveling canceled waves
deliver their energy components in the direction of the load to later
become incident upon the load. Anything else would violate the
conservation of energy principle. The path the canceled waves take can
be deduced by observing ghosts on a TV screen.

There is no such thing in reality as a wave that delivers no energy.
Waves cannot even exist without energy. Canceled waves have associated
energy components before they were canceled. The Melles-Griot web page
calls that energy the "lost" energy and says it is not lost at all.
Those energy components must be redistributed in different directions
after the waves are canceled. Redistribution of energy in a transmission
line means changing direction, since there are only two directions.
--
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:
I can find no support in the literature
for a claim that interference changes the direction of the Poynting
vector - or for that matter, is a cause for any other phenomenon to
occur.

The Melles-Groit web page certainly supports wave cancellation
being the cause of the "lost" reflected energy joining the
forward wave. The Molecular Expressions web page certainly
supports that same energy redistribution resulting from wave
cancellation.

And given the following example from "Fields & Waves ..." by
Ramo & Whinnery, what do you think changes the direction of
the Pz2- Poynting Vector such that it vectorally adds to the
Pz1+ Poynting Vector resulting in the Pz2+ Poynting Vector?

100W XMTR---50 ohm line---+---291.4 ohm line---1698.5 ohm load
Pz1+ = 100W-- Pz2+ = 200W--
--Pz1- = 0W --Pz2- = 100W

If you can answer that simple question to the satisfaction of
everyone, the discussion will be over.
--
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:
Linear systems do not exhibit "gain."

From the IEEE Dictionary: "gain - The ratio of radiation
intensity, in a given direction, to the radiation intensity
that would be obtained if the power accepted by the antenna
were radiated isotropically."

That is the gain that Walt is talking about. That is the
gain that EZNEC reports.
--
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 =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

And given the following example from "Fields & Waves ..." by
Ramo & Whinnery, what do you think changes the direction of
the Pz2- Poynting Vector such that it vectorally adds to the
Pz1+ Poynting Vector resulting in the Pz2+ Poynting Vector?

100W XMTR---50 ohm line---+---291.4 ohm line---1698.5 ohm load
Pz1+ = 100W-- Pz2+ = 200W--
--Pz1- = 0W --Pz2- = 100W

If you can answer that simple question to the satisfaction of
everyone, the discussion will be over.

Any reflections (and Poynting vector reversals) would be caused by the
presence of impedance discontinuities - not by anything else. In the
absence of impedance discontinuities, the transmission line would appear
to be infinitely long and would not produce reflections.

ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:


It appears to me that you think wave cancellation is a one time event,
like shooting a deer.

That would only be a naive perception on your part. Perhaps it is part
of your misunderstanding?


All waves deliver energy somewhere even if it takes forever as in the
case of the detected background radiation. In a lossless transmission
line, all waves deliver energy to the load (and possibly to the source
after power to the source is removed).

So your claim is that energy is delivered by two waves that are equal in
amplitude and opposite in phase?

There is no such thing in reality as a wave that delivers no energy.

See Born and Wolf for examples.

Waves cannot even exist without energy.

Correction. Waves cannot be created without energy. Electromagnetic
fields can indeed exist without necessarily conveying energy from one
place to another.

ac6xg

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:11:41 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
There is no such thing in reality as a wave that delivers no energy.
See Born and Wolf for examples.

Hi Jim,

This is intriguing for a wave (I presume you were adhering to the
singular). For those who lack these references, do you have any
concrete examples?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
And given the following example from "Fields & Waves ..." by
Ramo & Whinnery, what do you think changes the direction of
the Pz2- Poynting Vector such that it vectorally adds to the
Pz1+ Poynting Vector resulting in the Pz2+ Poynting Vector?

100W XMTR---50 ohm line---+---291.4 ohm line---1698.5 ohm load
Pz1+ = 100W-- Pz2+ = 200W--
--Pz1- = 0W --Pz2- = 100W

If you can answer that simple question to the satisfaction of
everyone, the discussion will be over.

Any reflections (and Poynting vector reversals) would be caused by the
presence of impedance discontinuities - not by anything else.

The impedance discontinuity is certainly in the cause and effect *chain*
as is the Poynting vector reversal. But simply asserting that the
impedance discontinuity causes the Poynting vector reversal is
a sophmoric begging of the question and leaves out some important
details. A causes B. B causes C. C causes D. You are certainly logically
correct in saying that A causes D, but your statement leaves out some
important intermediate details, namely B and C. (see below)

For instance, the impedance discontinuity causes nothing unless the
source energy exists and is taken into account as a cause. The
question is what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an
impedance discontinuity to result in a complete reversal of the
(Pz2-) Poynting vector? Since a source is necessary, the source can
be considered as a cause. (The creator of our species can even be
considered as a necessary cause as can the Big Bang.)

Looking at it from a scientific standpoint, the impedance discontinuity
can only directly reverse half the magnitude of the Poynting Vector because
the physical power reflection coefficient is 0.5. So how does the other half
of the magnitude of the Poynting Vector get reversed? It's all been covered
by the Melles-Griot web page and the Molecular Expressions FSU web page.

In the presence of EM source energy, the impedance discontinuity causes
reflections. One of those reflections reverses half the magnitude of the
(Pz2-) Pointing Vector. That magnitude is (Pz2-)(rho^2).

Two of those reflections engage in wave cancellation. One is (Pz1+)(rho^2).
The other is (Pz2-)(1-rho^2), the other half of the (Pz2-) Poynting Vector.
These two reflections have equal magnitudes and opposite phases and therefore
cancel. Their energy components reverse direction and head back toward the load
as explained on the Melles-Groit and Molecular Expressions web pages.

And that's how the (Pz2-) Poynting Vector gets reversed. It's a two-step
process, each step involving half of Pz2- in the above example.

In the
absence of impedance discontinuities, the transmission line would appear
to be infinitely long and would not produce reflections.

That's true. The impedance discontinuity causes the reflections that engage
in wave cancellation. In steps, it goes like this.

A. Impedance discontinuity driven by a source of EM energy

B. Reflections (implied mismatch)

C. Wave Cancellation (permanent destructive interference)

D. Energy direction and momentum reversal (constructive interference)

A causes B. B causes C. C causes D. This is in any freshman logic book.
You are certainly logically correct in saying that A causes D, but
your statement leaves out some important intermediate details. Those
intermediate details are what this discussion is all about.
--
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:
So your claim is that energy is delivered by two waves that are equal in
amplitude and opposite in phase?

Naturally, zero energy is delivered in the direction of the complete
wave cancellation. The energy in the two canceled waves is delivered
in the opposite direction from their power-flow vectors. Anything else
would violate the conservation of energy principle.

It's not really my claim. That is what is claimed by the Melles-Groit
and Molecular Expressions web pages. That is what is claimed by Hecht,
in "Optics". That is what is claimed by Walter Maxwell in "Reflections".
Walt calls it a "virtual short". I had forgotten that he had described
it so well until I re-read it. Walt's QST articles in the 70's were where
I encountered these principles for the first time.

Maxwell, Walter, Reflections II, © 2001 Worldradio Books

Page 4-3, "The destructive wave interference between these two complementary
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, ..."

(I had forgotten about that being in "Reflections". "Optics" was only
a refresher of the "Reflections" material.)

Page 23-9, "Consequently, all corresponding voltage and current phasors are 180
deg out of phase at the matching point. ... With equal magnitudes and opposite
phase at the same point (point A, the matching point), the sum of the two
(reflected) waves is zero."

Waves cannot even exist without energy.

Correction. Waves cannot be created without energy. Electromagnetic
fields can indeed exist without necessarily conveying energy from one
place to another.

Correction. DC electromagnetic fields can exist without conveying energy
but the context is RF EM waves. EM wave-fields cannot exist without energy.
They can only exist at the speed of light, i.e. with ExM joules/sec
passing a point. The use of your tricky-dicky definition for "convey"
doesn't change those facts of physics.
--
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:

Jim Kelley wrote:

There is no such thing in reality as a wave that delivers no energy.

See Born and Wolf for examples.

This is intriguing for a wave (I presume you were adhering to the
singular). For those who lack these references, do you have any
concrete examples?

Beware when Jim uses the words, "power", "deliver", "convey",
"transfer", etc. They don't mean to him what you, I, Webster,
and the IEEE Dictionary say they mean. :-)
--
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 =---

Cecil Moore wrote:
The impedance discontinuity is certainly in the cause and effect *chain*
as is the Poynting vector reversal. But simply asserting that the
impedance discontinuity causes the Poynting vector reversal is
a sophmoric begging of the question and leaves out some important
details. A causes B. B causes C. C causes D. You are certainly logically
correct in saying that A causes D, but your statement leaves out some
important intermediate details, namely B and C. (see below)

For instance, the impedance discontinuity causes nothing unless the
source energy exists and is taken into account as a cause. The
question is what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an
impedance discontinuity to result in a complete reversal of the
(Pz2-) Poynting vector? Since a source is necessary, the source can
be considered as a cause. (The creator of our species can even be
considered as a necessary cause as can the Big Bang.)

Looking at it from a scientific standpoint, the impedance discontinuity
can only directly reverse half the magnitude of the Poynting Vector because
the physical power reflection coefficient is 0.5. So how does the other
half
of the magnitude of the Poynting Vector get reversed? It's all been covered
by the Melles-Griot web page and the Molecular Expressions FSU web page.

In the presence of EM source energy, the impedance discontinuity causes
reflections. One of those reflections reverses half the magnitude of the
(Pz2-) Pointing Vector. That magnitude is (Pz2-)(rho^2).

Two of those reflections engage in wave cancellation. One is (Pz1+)(rho^2).
The other is (Pz2-)(1-rho^2), the other half of the (Pz2-) Poynting Vector.
These two reflections have equal magnitudes and opposite phases and
therefore
cancel. Their energy components reverse direction and head back toward
the load
as explained on the Melles-Groit and Molecular Expressions web pages.

And that's how the (Pz2-) Poynting Vector gets reversed. It's a two-step
process, each step involving half of Pz2- in the above example.

And that folks, is the sound of one hand waving. :-)

In the absence of impedance discontinuities, the transmission line
would appear to be infinitely long and would not produce reflections.


That's true. The impedance discontinuity causes the reflections that engage
in wave cancellation. In steps, it goes like this.

A. Impedance discontinuity driven by a source of EM energy

B. Reflections (implied mismatch)

C. Wave Cancellation (permanent destructive interference)

D. Energy direction and momentum reversal (constructive interference)

A causes B. B causes C. C causes D. This is in any freshman logic book.
You are certainly logically correct in saying that A causes D, but
your statement leaves out some important intermediate details. Those
intermediate details are what this discussion is all about.

Except that D is not caused by, and cannot be caused by C. Only
reflection can cause reflection. The claim that momentum reverses
direction without encountering a physical reflector is a violation of
conservation of momentum.

ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:


Waves cannot even exist without energy.


Correction. Waves cannot be created without energy. Electromagnetic
fields can indeed exist without necessarily conveying energy from one
place to another.


Correction. DC electromagnetic fields can exist without conveying energy
but the context is RF EM waves.

Tell us more about DC electromagnetic fields, Mr. Science! :-)

EM wave-fields cannot exist without energy.

Like I said, they cannot be created without energy. They can however
exist without conveying energy from one place to another.

ac6xg

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:56:40 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:
Hi Walt,

What stopped it if not a physical barrier?

Richard, there is no physical barrier in an antenna array that changes
the shape of the radiated pattern. The barrier is caused only by
destructive wave interference.

but due to the
interference the result was a null

A null is not the absence of energy, but is the combination of equal
and opposing forces. If you were the Ref at a title bout, and stepped
between two punches of equal magnitude; then you wouldn't move very
far, the motions would cancel, but most would doubt you'd be up again
before the "count."

In a title bout two punches of equal magniude are coming from opposite
directions. The energies in the two punches is dissipated in the
noggins of the morons who got into the bout;. The resulting null is in
reducing the already worped brains to zero.

Nulls are evidenced quite clearly in bridges of many designs. They
may balance between huge potentials (energy), but evidence absolutely
no current (or power from energy times current). If you unplugged the
equipment from a bridge, the absence of current would not be an
indication of a null. Nulls within the context of engineering
necessarily carries the implication of energy present.

We're not talking about nulls in bridges, we're talking about energy
controlled in desired directions, reduced in some directions, with the
energy lost in one direction adding to that in another; but you know
this.
in that direction and an increased
amount of energy in the opposite, or forward direction, achieving gain
in that direction?

Linear systems do not exhibit "gain." The combination of forces are
due to the total field in comparison to the region of interest.

Well, Richard, there is no non-linearity in the formation of antenna
radiation patterns. Are you saying there is no 'gain' when energy is
taken from one direction and pushed into another? With respect to
radiation patterns, 'gain' is relative, and not consideredas an
increase in power. But you know that too.

It is by similar simplifications that we have contributors here who
offer that the radials of elevated ground planes do not radiate
energy. Their contribution to producing a power at a remote load may
cancel such that no power is evident, but this does not negate the
radiation nor the energy present.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

My comments are totally unrelated to elevated ground planes. I'm only
trying to prove to Jim that wave interference DOES cause energy to
shift direction without any aid of a physical entity. The only cause
of the change in direction of energy radiated from an array of dipoles
is wave interference, the interference between the waves emanting from
the different dipoles.

Walt, W2DU

Richard Clark wrote:

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:11:41 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

There is no such thing in reality as a wave that delivers no energy.

See Born and Wolf for examples.


Hi Jim,

This is intriguing for a wave (I presume you were adhering to the
singular). For those who lack these references, do you have any
concrete examples?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

You may recall this came up before. The example I noted was in the
instance of total internal reflection. Page 47, "Principles of Optics"
Born and Wolf. When the angle of incidence with respect to the normal
exceeds the critical angle "no light enters the second medium. All the
incident light is reflected back into the first medium and we speak of
total reflection. Nevertheless the electromagnetic field in the second
medium does not disappear, only there is no longer a flow of energy
across the boundary." They footnote that an elegant experimental
demonstration is described by W. Culshaw and D. S. Jones Proc. Phys.
Soc. B 1954.

It's also arguable whether any energy is transferred from a source to a
lossless, open circuited, 1/2 wave transmission line after the transient
period. Though there's no uncertainty about the presence of
electromagnetic waves on such a line in the steady state.

73, Jim AC6XG

Walter Maxwell wrote:


My comments are totally unrelated to elevated ground planes. I'm only
trying to prove to Jim that wave interference DOES cause energy to
shift direction without any aid of a physical entity. The only cause
of the change in direction of energy radiated from an array of dipoles
is wave interference, the interference between the waves emanting from
the different dipoles.

Walt, W2DU

The radiation pattern of an antenna is the result of the superposition
of fields either radiated or reflected from REAL surfaces. Energy from
the radiating and reflecting elements travels only in directions where
the resulting superposed fields are not zero. The resulting
interference pattern is simply the plot in 3 dimensional space of where
energy is being directed.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Except that D is not caused by, and cannot be caused by C. Only
reflection can cause reflection. The claim that momentum reverses
direction without encountering a physical reflector is a violation of
conservation of momentum.

You missed the point, Jim. The wave indeed does encounter a
physical reflector and indeed cannot happen without the physical
impedance discontinuity. It meets all of your requirements.
--
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:
Like I said, they cannot be created without energy. They can however
exist without conveying energy from one place to another.

Please give us your tricky-dicky definition of "convey", Jim.
--
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:
It's also arguable whether any energy is transferred from a source to a
lossless, open circuited, 1/2 wave transmission line after the transient
period.

Use a signal generator with a circulator load as the source. Cause a
noise glitch on the source signal. When will you see the glitch
across the circulator resistor? One cycle later. Reckon where that
glitch went during that one cycle? Man, that's a tough question. :-)
--
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 Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:14:48 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

We're not talking about nulls in bridges, we're talking about energy
controlled in desired directions, reduced in some directions, with the
energy lost in one direction adding to that in another; but you know
this.

Hi Walt,

What is being discussed is energy. Energy is wholly transparent to
application. The laws for its conservation don't care if you are
shooting marbles or colliding stars. Physics eventually devolves to
very few units of measure and the books balance on both sides of the
event.

in that direction and an increased
amount of energy in the opposite, or forward direction, achieving gain
in that direction?

Linear systems do not exhibit "gain." The combination of forces are
due to the total field in comparison to the region of interest.

Well, Richard, there is no non-linearity in the formation of antenna
radiation patterns. Are you saying there is no 'gain' when energy is
taken from one direction and pushed into another? With respect to
radiation patterns, 'gain' is relative, and not consideredas an
increase in power. But you know that too.

And we both know no energy is created or lost without an atom being
ripped apart. The appeal to antenna "gain" is simply the choice of
where your attention is focused. Energy is neither lost nor created,
nor increased, nor decreased, the concomitant power that results of a
load being exposed to several sources of energy has a resultant. That
resultant expressed in the gain charts presumes there is a continuum
of loads throughout the circle/sphere of the lobes being described.

It is by similar simplifications that we have contributors here who
offer that the radials of elevated ground planes do not radiate
energy. Their contribution to producing a power at a remote load may
cancel such that no power is evident, but this does not negate the
radiation nor the energy present.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

My comments are totally unrelated to elevated ground planes. I'm only
trying to prove to Jim that wave interference DOES cause energy to
shift direction without any aid of a physical entity. The only cause
of the change in direction of energy radiated from an array of dipoles
is wave interference, the interference between the waves emanting from
the different dipoles.

Elevated ground planes, if they do not fit into the discussion, reveal
that discussion cannot support their characteristics. This is
expressly a failure of that discussion.

Elevated ground planes radiate from the entire structure. What they
radiate is energy. The net sum of those energies, at a distance,
combined into a load, reveal that the contribution of the radials
nullifies in horizontal polarity, and because the relative height
(thickness) of the radials is so small in proportion to the main
vertical element, make very little contribution to the vertical
polarity. Yet and all, every radial element is blasting away in
proportion to its current and radiation resistance. The radials are
pouring energy into the Æther with every effort as the main vertical
element. Reduce this to the barest minimum of two radials and the
results are identical, however, lop off to one radial element, and the
energy balance upsets the apple cart and a horizontal component,
formerly offset by equal opposing energies, appears. That last radial
element had always been radiating energy, it is still radiating
energy.

Optics has been maligned through very poor examples here, but if two
beams of light intersect we have wave interference ONLY if a load is
present at that intersection. A load is a necessarily physical
correlative. Otherwise, these energies have absolutely no
interaction, barring a non-linear medium.

It then follows that waves do not mix freely in and of themselves and
hence they are not causative agents. This has been illustrated by The
Extreme Failure of Poor Concepts in Discussing Thin Layer Reflections.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:36:51 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

There is no such thing in reality as a wave that delivers no energy.
You may recall this came up before. The example I noted was in the
instance of total internal reflection. Page 47, "Principles of Optics"
Born and Wolf. When the angle of incidence with respect to the normal
exceeds the critical angle "no light enters the second medium.

Hi Jim,

OK, and in relation to:

It's also arguable whether any energy is transferred from a source to a
lossless, open circuited, 1/2 wave transmission line after the transient
period.

But:

Though there's no uncertainty about the presence of
electromagnetic waves on such a line in the steady state.

is becoming strained language where so many struggle with English. Is
this to imply there's uncertainty about the presence of light that is
captured by total internal reflection? At the last census of total
cancellation, if it didn't meet a certain percentage it became
invisible. Something like an undocumented worker....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC