Jim Kelley wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote:
The RF example was out of my head, not out of the reference.

But how does that relate to the topic of multiple reflections?

How does the transient state relate to the topic of multiple
reflections????? Maybe I don't understand your question.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote:
The RF example was out of my head, not out of the reference.

But how does that relate to the topic of multiple reflections?

How does the transient state relate to the topic of multiple
reflections????? Maybe I don't understand your question.

Is your assertion that multiple reflections occur only during the
transient period?

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
How does the transient state relate to the topic of multiple
reflections????? Maybe I don't understand your question.

Is your assertion that multiple reflections occur only during the
transient period?

No, but during the transient period, they are visible and measurable.
Sans modulation and noise, they are invisible and unmeasurable during
steady-state. Some people say because they are invisible and unmeasurable
during steady-state, they cease to exist. But that's not me.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
How does the transient state relate to the topic of multiple
reflections????? Maybe I don't understand your question.

Is your assertion that multiple reflections occur only during the
transient period?

No, but during the transient period, they are visible and measurable.
Sans modulation and noise, they are invisible and unmeasurable during
steady-state. Some people say because they are invisible and unmeasurable
during steady-state, they cease to exist. But that's not me.

Would you assert that what happens during the transient period and what
happens during the steady state are even necessarily the same thing?

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Would you assert that what happens during the transient period and what
happens during the steady state are even necessarily the same thing?

Does some new particle of physics manifest itself during steady-state?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Would you assert that what happens during the transient period and what
happens during the steady state are even necessarily the same thing?

Does some new particle of physics manifest itself during steady-state?

The two questions are not equivalent. Yours is ludicrous. Sorta like
this:
"Measured near field photons may simply recombine with the antenna's
free electrons and not contribute to far field radiation."

Onward through the fog.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Would you assert that what happens during the transient period and what
happens during the steady state are even necessarily the same thing?

Does some new particle of physics manifest itself during steady-state?

The two questions are not equivalent. Yours is ludicrous.

Well, if no new particles manifest during steady-state, why wouldn't
the transient state and the steady-state follow exactly the same laws
of physics? Does something supernatural happen at the transient-state
to steady-state threshold? Or not? (Hint: rhetorical question)

Sorta like this:
"Measured near field photons may simply recombine with the antenna's
free electrons and not contribute to far field radiation."

Hmmmmm, I doubt that Feynman would find that statement to be "ludicrous".
I wonder if "ludicrous" is the term the priests used when they condemned
Galileo to house arrest for agreeing with Copernicus? :-) Photons re-
combining with electrons in the near field is a really simple concept.

On second thought, maybe you are inferring that the measured photons cannot
recombine? I would agree with that but the measured photons are negligible
compared to the total number of photons involved in the near field.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
Onward through the fog.

I've added some information concerning this subject to my web page.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----