On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:45:34 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

bet it's very close to zero.
Another one of your rounding errors like where light 10 times brighter
than the sun is black.

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
bet it's very close to zero.

Another one of your rounding errors like where light 10 times brighter
than the sun is black.

I see you understand this subject just as well as you
understood that one.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:18:04 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
Another one of your rounding errors like where light 10 times brighter
than the sun is black.
I see you understand this subject just as well as you
understood that one.
Ah! you've seen the light then.

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Another one of your rounding errors like where light 10 times brighter
than the sun is black.

I see you understand this subject just as well as you
understood that one.

Ah! you've seen the light then.

Please tell me that you have figured out how the irradiance
in the 1/4WL thin-film can be greater than the incident
irradiance when reflections are completely canceled.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:26:56 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

Please tell me that you have figured out how the irradiance
in the 1/4WL thin-film can be greater than the incident
irradiance when reflections are completely canceled.
How amusing.

This dovetails with your own proof (sic) - HERE - how the Bird has
failed to sense that very lack of cancellation looking into a
quarterwave section that offers a perfect match to the Bird. As I
said, you lost your logic on the first bump in the road you took.

This is an amusing irony of where you have found power where you have
always posited there is none, and where you have rejected there is
power when it has been shown to exist. Each example exposes your lack
of experience in the scale of the error and its relation to the
equipment measuring it.

And both times it has come at the topic for which you have absolutely
no experience with at the bench. Your arguments are exhibits of the
failure of third hand-off quotes bolstered by Xeroxed citations. They
all come out of books that are suitable catechisms for puttering
students and doddering intellectuals, and they fail in the face of
obvious results demonstrated at the bench.

Of course, this is advanced topics I am speaking of when we get to the
reality of actual results, and no doubt it shakes your Sunday school
sophistication of faith in a comic book level of practice.

I will now leave you with your sputtering attempt to recover. ;-)

Richard Clark wrote:
This is an amusing irony of where you have found power where you have
always posited there is none, and where you have rejected there is
power when it has been shown to exist. Each example exposes your lack
of experience in the scale of the error and its relation to the
equipment measuring it.

In exactly the same way that forward power can exceed generated
power in a 1/4WL matching section of transmission line, so can
the forward irradiance in 1/4WL of thin film exceed the forward
irradiance in the air before incidence. That you are still so
terribly confused about such a simple fact of light physics is sad.
You obviously don't understand the information on the Melles-Groit
web page. http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm
Please study it until you understand it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Another one of your rounding errors like where light 10 times brighter
than the sun is black.

I see you understand this subject just as well as you
understood that one.

Ah! you've seen the light then.

Please tell me that you have figured out how the irradiance
in the 1/4WL thin-film can be greater than the incident
irradiance when reflections are completely canceled.
--

ah, back to something only cecil would care about... guess the v/i
discussion is over now.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:44:06 -0000, "Dave" wrote:

guess the v/i discussion is over now.

Hi Dave,

It may have been tailored in that vernacular, but it was actually
never about that at all. As the last "thin-film" comment reveals, it
has always been about how one mind can encompass two contradictory
positions (total cancellation - non total cancellation) about the same
mechanism (a quarterwave matching section).

In other words: A Troll.

The humor here is that supposedly the thin-film offers "total"
cancellation for the same reason that the quarter wave from this bench
test does not. :-)

In fact, neither exhibit "total" cancellation, but to maintain the
charade one or the other does, then that charade must fail, and these
recent arguments have just revealed that fracture.

Some time ago I offered results from the bench in just how much light
was in fact returned from a thin-film section, and this was rejected
as impossible - hence the allusion to brighter than the sun light
being rendered as black to satisfy this illusion of "totality" in
cancellation. This reflected light was buried in the digits, but
still and all, far brighter than the sun (such is the vast range of
accommodation that the eye offers as a measuring device).

On the flip side, any leakage (reflection back) from a quarterwave
section suffers identical issues. Those reflections are buried in the
digits too. This is orders of magnitude different from the speculated
4.17 watts which is a farrago. Does a Bird have the same scope of
resolution as the eye? Hardly. The inherent error of the meter at
±5% vastly overwhelms such products (the eye does not suffer such
error for other reasons - imagine what a driver's eye-check test would
be like if it did).

So, to advance this itinerant concept of Owen's demonstration not
busting the myth of the requirement for line sections, this troll has
diverged from the topic to haul out a spurious argument that is in
direct conflict with other discussions of the same topic, from the
same troll. It necessarily demands a villain to suit the melodrama
offered. That villain is the Bird and its failure is to reveal a
power. Left unsaid is that actual power is, as I said, buried in the
digits and wholly irresolvable. Further, it is NOT the claim of 4.17
watts which was rummaged up. The Bird would be incapable of resolving
the actual reflection products from a real quarterwave section. Thus
it cannot absorb the sin of this counter-proof (sic).

Let's just say that statements that arbitrarily assign ideal concepts
like "totality" suffer across the board - and when these forced
assignments are used as the link pin to "theories," then they can lead
to amusing contradictions and failures of logic like those we've been
witness to here.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:44:06 -0000, "Dave" wrote:


guess the v/i discussion is over now.


Hi Dave,

It may have been tailored in that vernacular, but it was actually
never about that at all. As the last "thin-film" comment reveals, it
has always been about how one mind can encompass two contradictory
positions (total cancellation - non total cancellation) about the same
mechanism (a quarterwave matching section).

In other words: A Troll.

The humor here is that supposedly the thin-film offers "total"
cancellation for the same reason that the quarter wave from this bench
test does not. :-)

In fact, neither exhibit "total" cancellation, but to maintain the
charade one or the other does, then that charade must fail, and these
recent arguments have just revealed that fracture.

Some time ago I offered results from the bench in just how much light
was in fact returned from a thin-film section, and this was rejected
as impossible - hence the allusion to brighter than the sun light
being rendered as black to satisfy this illusion of "totality" in
cancellation. This reflected light was buried in the digits, but
still and all, far brighter than the sun (such is the vast range of
accommodation that the eye offers as a measuring device).

On the flip side, any leakage (reflection back) from a quarterwave
section suffers identical issues. Those reflections are buried in the
digits too. This is orders of magnitude different from the speculated
4.17 watts which is a farrago. Does a Bird have the same scope of
resolution as the eye? Hardly. The inherent error of the meter at
±5% vastly overwhelms such products (the eye does not suffer such
error for other reasons - imagine what a driver's eye-check test would
be like if it did).

So, to advance this itinerant concept of Owen's demonstration not
busting the myth of the requirement for line sections, this troll has
diverged from the topic to haul out a spurious argument that is in
direct conflict with other discussions of the same topic, from the
same troll. It necessarily demands a villain to suit the melodrama
offered. That villain is the Bird and its failure is to reveal a
power. Left unsaid is that actual power is, as I said, buried in the
digits and wholly irresolvable. Further, it is NOT the claim of 4.17
watts which was rummaged up. The Bird would be incapable of resolving
the actual reflection products from a real quarterwave section. Thus
it cannot absorb the sin of this counter-proof (sic).

Let's just say that statements that arbitrarily assign ideal concepts
like "totality" suffer across the board - and when these forced
assignments are used as the link pin to "theories," then they can lead
to amusing contradictions and failures of logic like those we've been
witness to here.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I think it might also be interesting to discuss the instance in which
the Bird is interfaced with a real halfwave section.

ac6xg

Richard Clark wrote:

As the last "thin-film" comment reveals, it
has always been about how one mind can encompass two contradictory
positions (total cancellation - non total cancellation) about the same
mechanism (a quarterwave matching section).

In other words: A Troll.

If the incident irradiance is a single frequency coherent signal,
the requirement for TOTAL CANCELLATION OF REFLECTIONS is still
that the index of refraction of the 1/4WL thin-film be the square
root of the medium upon which it is deposited. QED
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp