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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:
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)

Given your propensity for hyperbole, if we can't agree that there are
differences between the transient and steady states, I don't think we'll
have too much luck discussing the subject further.

Hmmmmm, I doubt that Feynman would find that statement to be "ludicrous".

Do you really think you're in any postion to be able to speak for
Feynman?

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.

The photon and the electron were never really "combined" to begin with.
Therefore, the notion that they "recombine" is somewhat off the mark.
Things don't work that way. A photon could on the other hand impart
some or all of its energy to an electron. Certainly the near field can
be seen as affecting the fields within the conductor, thus having an
effect on the charges within that conductor.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Given your propensity for hyperbole, if we can't agree that there are
differences between the transient and steady states, I don't think we'll
have too much luck discussing the subject further.

Maybe you had better list those differences, one by one, so we can agree
or disagree.

Do you really think you're in any postion to be able to speak for
Feynman?

Just read one of his books. He says, "An electron emits or absorbs an
electron." "Absorbs" and "combines" sure seems like the same thing to me.

Things don't work that way. A photon could on the other hand impart
some or all of its energy to an electron.

When a photon imparts its energy to an electron, doesn't that "combine"
the two energies? What am I missing? Also, please describe how a photon
could impart half its energy to an electron. Is the result half a photon?
--
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! =-----

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

================================

What's new Cec?
It's fairly obvious stuff.
Of what use is it?
Can you describe it in numbers?

Reg Edwards wrote:
It's fairly obvious stuff.

Not to everyone, Reg.
--
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! =-----