Jim Kelley wrote:
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).

I say, "I agree with you". You say, "No, you don't". So exactly
who is being disagreeable?

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.

Nope, most misunderstandings are semantic. Most of our arguments
have been because you misunderstood what I was trying to say and
that unfortunate condition continues. You don't seem to possess
the normal human capacity to say, "Sorry, I misunderstood".
(I wonder if God is capable of misunderstanding?)
--
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:
A dispute over balanced energy equations? Nada.

On the contrary - a gigantic dispute over your invalid
attempts to superpose powers.
--
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, check this months QST (August 2005) Page 52 - figure 5. It
specifically shows that reflections can totally cancel creating black.


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
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 =---

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:00:51 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
Try the link. See if it reminds you of anything. :-)
http://www.montypythonpages.com/index1.htm

not nearly as funny as:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:33:17 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
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).

I say, "I agree with you". You say, "No, you don't". So exactly
who is being disagreeable?

It didn't take long for your legacy to arrive. The group can welcome
the ushering in of another 4 years of love letters in the sand.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 23:44:54 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Cecil, check this months QST (August 2005) Page 52 - figure 5. It
specifically shows that reflections can totally cancel creating black.


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Pref1 = 198.88mW - 197.51mW = 1.37mW

Hi Fred,

You've missed the point entirely, the equation above already consigns
1.37mW to total darkness. Or any other non-zero result is reduced to
zero for rhetoric's sake (I will skip the love fest of agreement that
did not blossom).

Odd how far this got with everyone presuming that these powers,
energies, or candelas per square foot per fortnight were visible in
the first place (perhaps to some breed of Ubermensch). They happen to
inhabit the deep infra-red.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 21:46:01 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
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?

Classic Katzenjammer. More succinct than the "Who's on first base?"
math.

Good lord Richard, did you check the reference? It was a friggen joke!

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 23:44:54 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Cecil, check this months QST (August 2005) Page 52 - figure 5. It
specifically shows that reflections can totally cancel creating black.


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Pref1 = 198.88mW - 197.51mW = 1.37mW

Hi Fred,

You've missed the point entirely, the equation above already consigns
1.37mW to total darkness. Or any other non-zero result is reduced to
zero for rhetoric's sake (I will skip the love fest of agreement that
did not blossom).

Odd how far this got with everyone presuming that these powers,
energies, or candelas per square foot per fortnight were visible in
the first place (perhaps to some breed of Ubermensch). They happen to
inhabit the deep infra-red.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
Pref1 = 198.88mW - 197.51mW = 1.37mW

You've missed the point entirely, the equation above already consigns
1.37mW to total darkness.

No, it doesn't. 1.37mW is the total reflection AFTER ONLY
ONE INTERNAL REFLECTION DURING THE TRANSIENT STATE. The
rest of the reflection is canceled by the subsequent
reflections. The steady-state equation is:

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

Pref1 = 111.1 + 111.1 - 2*sqrt(111.1*111.1) = ZERO

P1 = Pfor1*rho^2 = 1000mW*0.1111 = 111.1mW

P2 = Pref2*(1-rho^2) = 125*0.8889 = 111.1mW

Reflections are completely canceled during steady-state!!!
YOU missed the point entirely. I was merely pointing out
the mistake you made when you got 23.32mW after the first
reflection instead of the correct 1.37mW. The interference
during the transient state is not total. The interference
during steady-state is total.
--
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:
If you think that's what I said, you are suffering from delusions.

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

One day God and St. Peter were having an argument. Suddenly,
God realized that St. Peter was right and He was wrong. God's
subsequent logic went something like this:

I am God. I am omniscient. I am incapable of being wrong.
Since I now know the correct answer, I must have known it
all along. Since St. Peter was previously arguing with me,
St. Peter must have been wrong all along.

Now replace "God" in the above with "Jim Kelley" and you will
get a picture of what has been happening with our postings.

To the best of my knowledge, the only argument we have left
is whether there is enough time for wave cancellation to
actually take place. We agree on virtually everything else
technical.
--
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 =----

Fred W4JLE wrote:
Good lord Richard, did you check the reference? It was a friggen joke!

I got up from my computer, walked down the hall, dug
through a pile of magazines in the living room, and
found your reference. I turned to it and got a good
chuckle from it. :-)
--
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 =----