On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:30:47 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Hi Richard.

The example you provided earlier is not any result of exhaustive
research. It is not even an accurate thumbnail sketch of the phenomenon
at the level of "rudimentary physics books".

Hi Jim,

This is what I mean by no argument being put forth to dispute what has
been offered. In fact every computation offered flows from the math
offered by ANY academic text. I even name the math used, and then use
it. In fact, I have lead the way by offering every cogent formula
needed to discuss this matter.

I see no dispute in the assignment of indices of reflection. I see no
dispute in the computation of reflections. I see no dispute in the
balance of energy at each interface. And I am speaking of
quantitative results, not presumptions. The chain of causality is not
very long, it exhibits very obvious contradictions to the notion of
"totality," and the practical example is hardly from the sphere of the
wildly imaginative. The example is further exhibited as a practical
problem of current research.

So I disagree with your assessment.

OK, so you disagree, but that is not an argument, it is simply a
statement of prejudice.

(Perhaps you should consider having a look at the text
you're characterizing first before you presume to characterize it.)

and this is a characterization of its own.

But if by all that you mean to say that it's not possible to make a
perfect anything, then I think that ordinarily goes without saying.

What I mean has been clearly stated. Adding qualifiers on my behalf
goes outside of the discussion.

So yes, you're right.

I state nowhere that "perfect" is expected, nor do I impose that as a
condition. Can we leave these speculations outside of the discussion?

There is no such thing as a lossless medium.

This is a non-sequitur injected for no apparent reason. Why so?

But it is a rather simple matter to get a reasonably good match using
this technique.

You've gone to great lengths to extrapolate and postulate what I've
said, and yet fail to commend me for having said just this any number
of times. Why so?

I think you can assume that's about the degree of
accuracy we're using for most of our discussions.

For "Total cancellation?" If you accept that, you've spent four
years arguing for... what have you been arguing about? Have you
allowed this slack you accept in our behalf for your own positions?
However, I am used to the "debate" that proceeds along these lines
where "Totality" has been proven, accepted and it leads to nonsensical
theories like waves reflecting waves.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:
"I have a D Cell battery whose capacity is 3 W-HR, and I roll it along
the floor. Has power flowed?"

Reminds me of a point made by Tom Whitaker, a two-handed blackboard
scribe and celebrated E.E. Prof I had over 1/2 century ago. Tom wrote
with one hand and erased with the other so he would have a clear space
to write more.To drive home his definition of current, Tom spat on a
piece of chalk and chunked it with vigor the length of the auditorium
where it bounced harmlessly from the rear wall. What an arm! Some ball
club sgould have signed him.

Tom said: "That spit was charged and you`ve just seen an electric
current!

Your D-cell holds much charge and rolling the cell puts charge in
motion, So, yes, power has flowed because you transferred the ability to
do work from one site to another.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Jim,

This is what I mean by no argument being put forth to dispute what has
been offered. In fact every computation offered flows from the math
offered by ANY academic text. I even name the math used, and then use
it. In fact, I have lead the way by offering every cogent formula
needed to discuss this matter.

Well, to be blunt I believe you may perhaps be overestimating the
significance of your contributions on this subject, Richard.

I see no dispute in the assignment of indices of reflection. I see no
dispute in the computation of reflections. I see no dispute in the
balance of energy at each interface. And I am speaking of
quantitative results, not presumptions.

I've seen dispute of your numbers. Cecil had them right. Cecil is very
good at getting the numbers right. I even agree with the solutions to
his irradiance equations. He and I disagree only on certain details of
the physical mechanism (though he seems to want to disagree with just
about anything I have to say).

But if by all that you mean to say that it's not possible to make a
perfect anything, then I think that ordinarily goes without saying.
There is no such thing as a lossless medium.


This is a non-sequitur injected for no apparent reason. Why so?

Start with a presumption that it is not a non sequitur and see where
that leads. I've reassembled my original statement above for your review.

I think you can assume that's about the degree of
accuracy we're using for most of our discussions.


For "Total cancellation?" If you accept that, you've spent four
years arguing for... what have you been arguing about? Have you
allowed this slack you accept in our behalf for your own positions?

The relevance of the "non sequitur" stated above thereby makes itself
apparent. There are several reasons why it is difficult to achieve
total cancellation of reflected light at an optical surface. First -
the obvious one. A quarter wave layer is only a quarter wavelength
thick at one wavelength. Second - dielectric films can be lossy. Third
- anti-reflection is only 100% effective at normal incidence. Fourth -
it's next to impossible to make a film that has a refractive index which
is the perfect geometric mean of the indices of the media at its
boundaries.

A thorough treatment of all the reflections at both boundaries, whereby
all in-phase reflections in a given direction are summed, provides that
absent the imperfections described above, total cancellation is indeed a
fact. Another fact is that it's much easier to accomplish in a
transmission line with monochromatic RF at HF.

However, I am used to the "debate" that proceeds along these lines
where "Totality" has been proven, accepted and it leads to nonsensical
theories like waves reflecting waves.

If I were to characterize most of the discussion I've had here, I would
say most of it has been spent addressing misunderstandings related to
the fundamental behavior of nature.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
But some folks have argued descriptions of physical phenomena derived
from an assumption that the number displayed on the calculator
physically propagates through a transmission line, physically reflects
off the ends of the transmission line or other discontinuities, and
physically interferes with itself or other numbers like it.

If you think that's what I said, you are suffering from delusions.
*All* of my power components exist at a stationary point or plane.
The two components associated with wave cancellation exist at the match
*point*. "Reflected power" is the reflected energy flow per unit time
measured at a point by a stationary directional wattmeter. "Forward
power" is the forward energy flow per unit time measured at a point
by a stationary directional wattmeter.

Power components do not interfere. It is the E-fields and H-fields
that do the interferring. However, given the interference of two
coherent waves traveling in the same direction, the following
power equation is valid.

Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(phi)

where phi is the phase angle between the two E-fields. The last
term in that equation is well known as the "interference term".
If cos(phi) is negative, the interference is destructive. If
cos(phi) is positive, the interference is constructive. If an
additional source of energy is not present at the interference
point, the destructive interference must equal the constructive
interference to satisfy the conservation of energy principle.

Like I said before, the only disagreement that we have left is
whether dt is zero or infinitessimally small. Your straw men
are just straw men designed to mislead the uninitiated.

Note that Richard Clark is NOT using the above power equation
and is instead trying to superpose powers which is an invalid
practice. That's why he's calculating the wrong values.
--
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:

But some folks have argued descriptions of physical phenomena derived
from an assumption that the number displayed on the calculator
physically propagates through a transmission line, physically reflects
off the ends of the transmission line or other discontinuities, and
physically interferes with itself or other numbers like it.


If you think that's what I said, you are suffering from delusions.

Perhaps I was deluded by all your arguing about it. :-)

Power components do not interfere.

Glad you finally agree.

It is the E-fields and H-fields
that do the interferring.

Is there an echo in here?

However, given the interference of two
coherent waves traveling in the same direction, the following
power equation is valid.

Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(phi)
where phi is the phase angle between the two E-fields.

Right. That's simply because P is proportional to E^2.

The last
term in that equation is well known as the "interference term".

Basically, yes. Two times the product of the two fields is the
interference term. The product of two things which don't interfere is
probably inappropriately referred to as an interference term.

If cos(phi) is negative, the interference is destructive. If
cos(phi) is positive, the interference is constructive. If an
additional source of energy is not present at the interference
point, the destructive interference must equal the constructive
interference to satisfy the conservation of energy principle.

.....and by virtue of the fact that 2*sqrt(P1*P2) = 2*sqrt(P1*P2). ;-)

Like I said before, the only disagreement that we have left is
whether dt is zero or infinitessimally small.

As I recall, my disagreement with you was about your claim that
"interference causes energy to reverse direction and go the other way".
That's what it's always been about, Cecil.

Do you still insist that's what happens? If not, then we're in
agreement - unless you disagree, of course.

Your straw men
are just straw men designed to mislead the uninitiated.

Actually the "straw men" seem to have brought you around substantially
to the correct point of view. And I really don't think anyone who's
been paying attention is misled about you, Cecil. :-)

73, ac6xg

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:51:03 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

This is what I mean by no argument being put forth to dispute what has
been offered. In fact every computation offered flows from the math
offered by ANY academic text. I even name the math used, and then use
it. In fact, I have lead the way by offering every cogent formula
needed to discuss this matter.

Well, to be blunt I believe you may perhaps be overestimating the
significance of your contributions on this subject, Richard.

Hi Jim,

Well, being blunt offers no more argument than previous statements of
prejudice. And the point of the matter is I've observed no one here
offer any math in advance of my presentation. If this is
overestimating any significance, it certainly puts everything else in
the shade.

I see no dispute in the assignment of indices of reflection. I see no
dispute in the computation of reflections. I see no dispute in the
balance of energy at each interface. And I am speaking of
quantitative results, not presumptions.

I've seen dispute of your numbers. Cecil had them right.

And yet and all, you have nothing at your fingertips:

A dispute over indices of refraction? Nada.

A dispute over reflection? Nada.

A dispute over balanced energy equations? Nada.

All rather first principles and central to the discussion. It takes
very little effort to unscramble a half page of text if I've so messed
it up; but I am content to see you are aligned with Cecil's argument
and to watch where that leads. :-)

It could lead to another fruitful 4 years of

debate?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,

Try the link. See if it reminds you of anything. :-)

jk

http://www.montypythonpages.com/index1.htm

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:51:03 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:


This is what I mean by no argument being put forth to dispute what has
been offered. In fact every computation offered flows from the math
offered by ANY academic text. I even name the math used, and then use
it. In fact, I have lead the way by offering every cogent formula
needed to discuss this matter.

Well, to be blunt I believe you may perhaps be overestimating the
significance of your contributions on this subject, Richard.


Hi Jim,

Well, being blunt offers no more argument than previous statements of
prejudice. And the point of the matter is I've observed no one here
offer any math in advance of my presentation. If this is
overestimating any significance, it certainly puts everything else in
the shade.


I see no dispute in the assignment of indices of reflection. I see no
dispute in the computation of reflections. I see no dispute in the
balance of energy at each interface. And I am speaking of
quantitative results, not presumptions.

I've seen dispute of your numbers. Cecil had them right.


And yet and all, you have nothing at your fingertips:

A dispute over indices of refraction? Nada.

A dispute over reflection? Nada.

A dispute over balanced energy equations? Nada.

All rather first principles and central to the discussion. It takes
very little effort to unscramble a half page of text if I've so messed
it up; but I am content to see you are aligned with Cecil's argument
and to watch where that leads. :-)

It could lead to another fruitful 4 years of

debate?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
Perhaps I was deluded by all your arguing about it. :-)

I'm saying, "I agree" and you are saying, "No, you don't"
so who's doing the arguing? Here's an example from a posting
way back in 2004:

************************************************** ***********************
Jim Kelley wrote:
The crux of
the phenomenological problem is that power does not flow or move, nor is
it something that is reflected.

But energy does flow and move and is something that can be reflected.
************************************************** ************************

In that posting, I am agreeing with you but your delusions make
you assert to this very day that I was arguing with you.

Power components do not interfere.

Glad you finally agree.

I have never said otherwise. I often identify the wave component
by the power figure, but it is *only a name* used to identify
an EM wave. When I say, "The 50 watt wave interferes with the
25 watt wave", I'm not saying that 50 watts interferes with
25 watts. It's the *waves* that interfere, not the watts!
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(phi)
where phi is the phase angle between the two E-fields.

Right. That's simply because P is proportional to E^2.

I'm glad you finally agree after arguing against it for years.
(See, two can play your junevile game.)

The last
term in that equation is well known as the "interference term".

Basically, yes. Two times the product of the two fields is the
interference term.

The interference is in the units of power, e.g. joules/sec.
It is two times the square root of the product of the two powers
associated with the two interferring waves. It is the result
of superposition of two coherent EM waves. As I said before,
it is the waves that interfere, NOT the powers.

The product of two things which don't interfere is
probably inappropriately referred to as an interference term.

Your argument is with Hecht and other scientists, physicists,
and engineers who use that convention, not just with me. You
would have made a good lawyer since you seem to object to
virtually everything. :-)

Like I said before, the only disagreement that we have left is
whether dt is zero or infinitessimally small.

As I recall, my disagreement with you was about your claim that
"interference causes energy to reverse direction and go the other way".
That's what it's always been about, Cecil.

Destructive interference in one direction in a transmission line
results in constructive interference in the opposite direction.
Anything else would violate the conservation of energy principle.
Our argument is whether destructive interference has time to happen,
i.e. how many calculus dt's can dance on the head of a pin. :-)

Whether interference can cause energy to reverse direction or not
depends upon whether dt equals zero as you imply, or whether dt equals
an infinitessimally small amount of time as I say. That's what it's
always been about, Jim.

Do you still insist that's what happens? If not, then we're in
agreement - unless you disagree, of course.

If dt is an infinitessimally small amount of time, then that is
exactly what happens. If dt equals zero, then it doesn't have
time to happen. Your argument is that it doesn't have time to
happen because "there is no before and after". (a quote from your
email). I say there is a before, now, and after divided into
infinitessimally small dt's of time and when added together,
actually perform the function of representing the flow of time.
So are you going to assert that time also doesn't flow?
--
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:
When the energy available in the first medium, at the second
interface, cannot possibly reflect enough of it to the first
interface; then no amount of superposition of ALL reflections (and
this presumes that the second interface is fully reflecting for these
succeeding multiples, an absurd notion in its own right) can exceed
that available energy.

Yes, this has all been said before, you've found it interesting but
not compelling; and yet no one here has offered any way to boost the
energy to completely cancel the reflection from the first interface.

I have multiple times, Richard. When a 111.1mW wave interferes with
an 87.78mW wave, the result is *NOT* a 23.32mW wave. It's the waves
that interfere, not the power.

111.1mW - 87.78mW = 23.32mW is superposition of powers and is invalid!

Instead of superposing powers, the equation you need to use is the
power interference equation:

Pref1 = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(180)

Pref1 = 111.1mW + 87.78mW + 2*sqrt(111.1*87.78)(-1)

Pref1 = 198.88mW - 197.51mW = 1.37mW

Thus after only one internal reflection cycle, the reflected power,
Pref1, is reduced to 1.37mW, not to 23.32mW as you have asserted.

If you will use a transmission line example and deal with voltages, you
will be able to diagnose your mistake. Voltages interfere, watts don't.
Most RF engineers simply do not understand how to deal with powers
associated with component wave interference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Richard Clark wrote:
I see no dispute in the balance of energy at each interface.

Conclusion: You have to be blind.
--
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 =---