|
"Richard Clark" wrote
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, ________________ Psst... the definition of "polarity" is not same as that of polarization. Probably you meant to write "polarization," did you not? RF |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:54:45 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote: "Richard Clark" wrote 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, ________________ Psst... the definition of "polarity" is not same as that of polarization. Probably you meant to write "polarization," did you not? RF Hi OM, True. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Jim Kelley wrote:
Like I said, they cannot be created without energy. They can however exist without conveying energy from one place to another. ^^^^^^^^^ It's not really fair to the readers to use a word in an obscure way and refuse to define it. Since you haven't presented your esoteric definition for "convey", and it is not in the IEEE Dictionary, would this be a true statement based on your definition of "convey"? The EM light wave energy from the North Star that is absorbed by a human eye conveyed energy from the North Star to that human eye. The EM light wave energy from the North Star that misses earth and continues on through space did not convey any energy from the North Star. Those are pretty smart light waves, Jim. How did the ones that entered the human eye now know many years ago to convey (bring) some energy from the North Star? How did the ones that miss earth now know many years ago to avoid conveying (bringing) any energy from the North Star. :-) I would guess that a statement like, "These EM waves are in the process of conveying energy from the source to the load.", sounds ridiculous to you? -- 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 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:20:31 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Like I said, they cannot be created without energy. They can however exist without conveying energy from one place to another. ^^^^^^^^^ It's not really fair to the readers to use a word in an obscure way and refuse to define it. What's sauce for goose must be **** for the gander. Since you haven't presented your esoteric definition for "convey", and it is not in the IEEE Dictionary Truly English is a dead language here. There is more effort expended in trying to find the Rosetta stone for its interpretation than the performance of bench work or simple computation. |
Cecil Moore wrote: 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. :-) I notice you opted to use the word 'glitch' rather than 'transient'. :-) ac6xg |
Cecil Moore wrote: 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. Well then, there it is. My requirements have been met. As long you say so, Cecil. :-) 73 de ac6xg |
Cecil Moore wrote: It's not really fair to the readers to use a word in an obscure way and refuse to define it. Since you haven't presented your esoteric definition for "convey", and it is not in the IEEE Dictionary, would this be a true statement based on your definition of "convey"? The EM light wave energy from the North Star that is absorbed by a human eye conveyed energy from the North Star to that human eye. The EM light wave energy from the North Star that misses earth and continues on through space did not convey any energy from the North Star. Those are pretty smart light waves, Jim. How did the ones that entered the human eye now know many years ago to convey (bring) some energy from the North Star? How did the ones that miss earth now know many years ago to avoid conveying (bringing) any energy from the North Star. :-) I have no idea what you are talking about, Cecil. And so, apparently, that makes two of us. I would guess that a statement like, "These EM waves are in the process of conveying energy from the source to the load.", sounds ridiculous to you? Not unlike many of the other things you have said in this discourse. But, take heart. You have brought your evil adversary to his knees. Your relentless browbeating has finally taken its toll and achieved its intended purpose. The blaring onslaught of abuse of logic, men made of straw, mathematical sleight of hand, and alternative science has proven too much for one person to endure. Personal intergrity has succombed to vested interest, and I must withdraw. The internet may once again be put to a good use. ;-) ac6xg |
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: 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. :-) I notice you opted to use the word 'glitch' rather than 'transient'. :-) Yep, in order to avoid your inevitable copout: "But that's not steady-state." There are natural noise glitches existing in every real-world steady-state system. Those natural noise glitches can be used to track the flow of energy in the EM waves. In the real-world, a system never achieves true steady-state conditions because those natural noise glitches are always present and, unfortunately for your argument, can be easily tracked. -- 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 =---- |
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: 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. Well then, there it is. My requirements have been met. I keep telling you that the only technical disagreement we have left concerns only the minutest of details after semantic adjustments have been made to account for our differing definitions of words. According to your definition of "convey", the energy associated with EM waves isn't necessarily conveyed. According to my definition of "convey", the energy associated with EM waves is necessarily in the process of being conveyed. -- 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 =---- |
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: I have no idea what you are talking about, Cecil. I'm obviously talking about the different definitions of "convey" that you and I use. By your definition, the pack mule is never in the process of conveying a person down the path into the Grand Canyon. Conveyance of the person cannot be verified until the person dismounts. If the person never dismounts, the pack mule never was conveying the person. IMO, that's a silly definition. I would guess that a statement like, "These EM waves are in the process of conveying energy from the source to the load.", sounds ridiculous to you? Not unlike many of the other things you have said in this discourse. Yet, barring unexpected removal of the load from the system, most hams are intelligent enough to predict conveyance of energy from the source to the load. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of getting on the air? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: It's not really fair to the readers to use a word in an obscure way and refuse to define it. What's sauce for goose must be **** for the gander. I try to stick to common usage of words. Sometimes I'm wrong, as I was about "non-glare glass". When I discover a mistake, I am quick to admit it, correct it, and move on. Others, incapable of admitting mistakes, would simply have pleaded an esoteric definition of "glare" in an obvious CYA move. Some posters delight in uncommon usage of words at the expense of the majority of readers. I won't name any names. :-) Truly English is a dead language here. There is more effort expended in trying to find the Rosetta stone for its interpretation than the performance of bench work or simple computation. Actually, there is a lot of effort expended in trying to under- stand the words describing the previous bench work. Doing so is simply an efficient use of time and effort. For instance, I could expend a lot of time and effort duplicating on the bench what has been reported on those two optics web pages. But I am satisfied that they said what they meant and meant what they said, i.e. wave cancellation (destructive interference) in one direction causes a redistribution of the associated energy (constructive interference) in another direction. Remembering that Walter Maxwell said the same thing in "Reflections" a quarter of a century ago is icing on the cake. -- 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 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:08:42 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: I won't name any names. What an Herculean effort of restraint. |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:20:31 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: The EM light wave energy from the North Star that is absorbed by a human eye conveyed energy from the North Star to that human eye. How much energy: "conveyed?" "converted?" Quantified answers only as English seems to be so wholly unsuited to this purpose. |
Damn, Clinton could have used you guys!
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:20:31 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: The EM light wave energy from the North Star that is absorbed by a human eye conveyed energy from the North Star to that human eye. How much energy: "conveyed?" "converted?" Quantified answers only as English seems to be so wholly unsuited to this purpose. |
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 |
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: The EM light wave energy from the North Star that is absorbed by a human eye conveyed energy from the North Star to that human eye. How much energy: "conveyed?" "converted?" Quantified answers only as English seems to be so wholly unsuited to this purpose. I see the North Star on a clear night through detection of photons. What does it matter how many photons I am detecting? There's more than enough to detect. And every one contains energy "conveyed" from Polaris and "converted" by my retina. -- 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 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:45:14 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: How much energy: "conveyed?" "converted?" Quantified answers only as English seems to be so wholly unsuited to this purpose. I see the North Star on a clear night through detection of photons. What does it matter how many photons I am detecting? There's more than enough to detect. And every one contains energy "conveyed" from Polaris and "converted" by my retina. Clearly the understanding of the English words "How much energy" sets the bar too high for this technical forum. That, or the experience with the subject matter is so limited as to render the poster's response in xeroxed cut-and-paste platitudes. An undocumented worker could easily provide material of equal quality. |
Richard Clark wrote:
Clearly the understanding of the English words "How much energy" sets the bar too high for this technical forum. That, or the experience with the subject matter is so limited as to render the poster's response in xeroxed cut-and-paste platitudes. An undocumented worker could easily provide material of equal quality. 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. Therefore, I would rather spend my time doing something more enjoyable like swigging Merlot. -- 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 =---- |
Well, here, are, a, few, more, for, your, reading, pleasure.
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... 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 17:12:34 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote: Well, here, are, a, few, more, for, your, reading, pleasure. Printing did not always include punctuation and in fact it is a relatively recent invention where some authors who tried to publish complained publisher wanted them to add inverted commas to denote a speaker's words. Before then, another recalcitrant author submitted his manuscript with the last page: ............................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,"""""""""""""""""""""""""";;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;; ............................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,"""""""""""""""""""""""""";;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;; ............................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,"""""""""""""""""""""""""";;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;; ............................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,"""""""""""""""""""""""""";;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;; salt and pepper the text to taste with these marks 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
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 |
|
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 |
|
"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 =---- |
Richard Clark wrote:
"If it delivers no energy, "it" still exists, but so does some other "it" exist with an equal counter impulse." We can have an incident and reflected wave or an incident and reflected impulse. The reflection is not contemporaneous with the incident in their generation. The reflection was generated earlier and is on its way back. Power generation remains constant regardless of wave interference, at least until the reflection arrives at a point where it interferes with generation. Complete cancellation leaves zero energy on the path of the cancelled wave. "It" isn`t "two opposite somethimgs". "It" is zero. Energy cancellation on one path redistributes the energy on other paths or directions. Power is energy generated at some rate. A fixed rate means that after total cancellation, redistrubited energy is the total, and cancelled energy is zero. You can`t have your cake and eat it too (to coin an expression). Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Richard Harrison wrote:
You can`t have your cake and eat it too (to coin an expression). That must be the conservation of cake principle. :-) -- 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 Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:51:24 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: As Walter Maxwell said Walt is perfectly capable of carrying his own water. |
Richard Clark wrote:
Two energies pass without interaction unless there is a load. The exception to that statement is two coherent waves traveling an identical path in the same direction. If the two waves are of equal magnitudes and opposite phases, they cancel completely in their original direction of travel. In a transmission line, their combined energy components reverse direction in order to satisfy the conservation of energy principle. In the absence of any additional sources or loads, destructive interference energy must exactly equal constructive interference energy. The above can occur at a lossless impedance discontinuity in a transmission line - no load required. Power is the summation of all energies into a load. Often power is simply the joules/sec existing at a unit- area plane or passing a point on a transmission line. The power-flow (Poynting) vector doesn't require a load. All it requires is an EM wave. -- 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 Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:50:41 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: energy components name them |
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: As Walter Maxwell said Walt is perfectly capable of carrying his own water. If he does, you will probably accuse him of beating his own drum. :-) Walt, in the past few days, pointed out to me that what I thought was my slightly original thought, was actually published in "Reflections", based on an Oct. '73 QST article and on earlier references from 1942 and 1947. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: energy components name them Well, it would be easier if you didn't delete the context. I assume you are talking about the energy components associated with the canceled waves, traveling rearward before the cancellation and traveling forward after the cancellation where the cancellation is a continuous process (until source power is turned off). In s-parameter terms, the two joules/sec components are (s11*a1)^2 and (s12*a2)^2 when b1^2=0 as explained in the HP Ap Note. In ham terms, they are Pfor1(rho^2) and Pref2(1-rho^2) where Pfor1 is the forward-traveling source power incident upon the impedance discontinuity and Pref2 is the rearward- traveling reflected power incident upon the impedance discontinuity from the other direction. Note that I am using common usage terms for "forward power" and "reflected power" since their units are watts. I would normally talk about "forward energy" and "reflected energy" to avoid the wrath of the purists. :-) In terms of my article, they are P3 and P4 whe P3 = Pfor1(rho^2) and P4 = Pref2(1-rho^2) Pref1 = P3 + P4 - 2*Sqrt(P3*P4) = 0 -- 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:
"There is no such thing as cancelled energy short of a Nuclear folding of the universe." Most would agree to energy conservation. Young`s experiment produces alternating bright and dark nands. The bright bands are brighter because they contain redirected power that would have appeared in the dark bands as well as the power idirectly lluminating the bright bands. In the bright band spaces, power is in-phase from both source slits. In the dark spaces, power is 180-degrees put of phase between the illuminations from the two slits. This is caused by the distances from the two sources. At the risk of diverting attention from the topic, I`ll indulge in analogy. An impedance bridge has a null meter to indicate balance. Superposition says a circuit with two (or more) sources may be analyzed (with proper restrictions) as if there were only one source in the system. That is, respones to the various sources may be analyzed separately to determine the overall circuit response. A balanced bridge may be considered as two voltage dividers set for the same ratio and providing identical voltages to each terminal of the null meter. Each divider taken alone provides the same fractiom of the bridge generator`s voltage. Alone, each divider can supply current through the null meter. Equal and opposite ciurrents don`t flow through the null meter. No current flows through the null meter because with equal and opposite voltages on each side of the null meter there is no difference of potential to evoke a current flow. Given a perfect transmission line with a complete reflrction, a length can be found which produces a reflection with with the same phase and magnitude as that of the generator. With equal and same phase volts on either side of the generator/line junction, current does not flow. No potential exists to evoke a current flow. This is the same as a very high impedance indeed. Best Regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:37:51 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: energy components name them Well, it would be easier if you didn't delete the context. their combined energy components reverse direction The deletion was deliberate because energy does not move and is an irrelevant embroidery of the discussion. Of course, if this is about rolling batteries across the floor, I've yet to see how much "power has been delivered" revealed in these threads. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com