On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:53:26 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Sounds like a lame answer from you given you cannot perform ANY of the
math.

Richard, you really need to disguise your snipe
hunts a little better.

Still can't provide any numbers, hmm? Paint the snipe orange and hang
a sign around his neck, and you couldn't nail him at 10 feet with a
shotgun. :-0

QED my friend, QED...

denny

Richard Clark wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 11:11:40 -0700, "Denny" wrote:

Assume that we put a 1 second squirt at the rate of 100 Joules per
second, into the input end of the line, it is an open line at the far
end, and yank the input end of the line out of the transmitter at
exactly 1 second... Now we have a lossless line with a wave going
forward and a reflected wave coming back... Do you still claim 200
joules?

Hi Denny,

A question of my own:
Did you really expect your question above wouldn't be dodged?

I suppose not. Anyway, your observations revealed Cecil's usual lack
of rigor. You certainly know how to step back while he juggles
un-pinned hand grenades.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Denny wrote:
QED my friend, QED...

I read that book by Feynman. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Denny wrote:
QED my friend, QED...

Translation:
************************************************** **********
* It is OK for our models, methods, and concepts to *
* violate the conservation of energy principle because *
* the conservation of energy principle cannot be violated. *
************************************************** **********
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:48:38 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Denny wrote:
QED my friend, QED...

Translation:
************************************************* ***********
* It is OK for our models, methods, and concepts to *
* violate the conservation of energy principle because *
* the conservation of energy principle cannot be violated. *
************************************************* ***********

Life Imitating Art (or at least Dilbert):

Well, I'll tell you,
little cowpoke.
When the snake falls
in love with the
spaghetti, it's time
To buy a new hat.

thanx and a tip of the hat to Scott Adams
others may wish the graphics at (for today):
http://dilbert.com/

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Actually I agree, but it's all from ordinary reflections, rather than
from backscattered interference or anything else from the 'square root
of negative one' axis.


Jim, the reflected energy and momentum changes direction.
Walter Maxwell calls it a virtual short or open with a
virtual reflection coefficient of 1.0. I agree with "Optics",
by Hecht, that it is total destructive interference in the
source direction accompanied by total constructive interference
in the load direction. What do you call it? What reflection
coefficient does your reflected wave see? Please give it a
name.

I agree with Optics by Hecht too, Cecil. I just don't always agree
with what you think the words in Optics by Hecht mean.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim, the reflected energy and momentum changes direction.
Walter Maxwell calls it a virtual short or open with a
virtual reflection coefficient of 1.0. I agree with "Optics",
by Hecht, that it is total destructive interference in the
source direction accompanied by total constructive interference
in the load direction. What do you call it? What reflection
coefficient does your reflected wave see? Please give it a
name.

I agree with Optics by Hecht too, Cecil. I just don't always agree with
what you think the words in Optics by Hecht mean.

That the reflected wave(s) have reversed momentum is a fact
since at one point they are measured as photonic energy
traveling toward the source and at another point they are
measured as having disappeared. Remember, these are photonic
EM waves. They necessarily must travel at the speed of light
or not exist. The photonic component waves in non-reflective
glass all travel at the speed of light. In like manner, so
do the photonic component RF waves in a transmission line.
Photonic EM waves don't change their basic nature with frequency.

You still didn't give me a word for that change in momentum.
Walter Maxwell calls it "re-reflected". I would be satisfied
with "re-directed' or "momentum-reversed". What would you
like to name it?

While you are at it, you never did give me a word for watts
that are not power.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Remember, these are photonic
EM waves.

I'm gonna write that down.

You still didn't give me a word for that change in momentum.

In my opinion, when you have a change in momentum, you should rightly
refer to it as a change in momentum.

So, should momentum change? Or should we expect it to be conserved?

Walter Maxwell calls it "re-reflected". I would be satisfied
with "re-directed' or "momentum-reversed". What would you
like to name it?

I still like "Cecil's 4th Mechanism of Reflection" best.

While you are at it, you never did give me a word for watts
that are not power.

Ask again after you've come to understand the difference between a
unit of measurement and a defined physical quantity.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Remember, these are photonic EM waves.

I'm gonna write that down.

Write this down while you are at it.

In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle
responsible for electromagnetic phenomena. It mediates
electromagnetic interactions and is the fundamental
constituent of all forms of electromagnetic radiation,
that is, light. The photon has zero rest mass and, in
empty space, travels at a constant speed c;

According to the Standard Model of particle physics,
photons are responsible for producing all electric and
magnetic fields, and are themselves the product of
requiring that physical laws have a certain symmetry
at every point in spacetime.

Nevertheless, all semiclassical theories were refuted
definitively in the 1970's and 1980's by elegant photon-
correlation experiments.

So, should momentum change? Or should we expect it to be conserved?

Momentum is conserved. A change in momentum is a change in
the direction of momentum, not a change in the magnitude.
Hams call that a reflection. What do you call it?

I still like "Cecil's 4th Mechanism of Reflection" best.

If you don't like the word "reflection" for what happens at
a non-reflective thin-film coating, please give me another
word for it. I could easily call the physical happening by
another name. "A rose by any other name ..."

Ask again after you've come to understand the difference between a unit
of measurement and a defined physical quantity.

Jim, in engineering, all watts are power. That's an engineering
convention. I'm sorry that your physicist conventions are different
but amateur radio is part of RF engineering. Sorry about that.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible
for electromagnetic phenomena. It mediates electromagnetic
interactions and is the fundamental constituent of all forms of
electromagnetic radiation, that is, light. The photon has zero rest
mass and, in empty space, travels at a constant speed c;
According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields, and are
themselves the product of requiring that physical laws have a certain
symmetry at every point in spacetime.

Nevertheless, all semiclassical theories were refuted definitively in
the 1970's and 1980's by elegant photon-
correlation experiments.

Sounds impressive. Are you running for office by any chance?


So, should momentum change? Or should we expect it to be conserved?


Momentum is conserved. A change in momentum is a change in
the direction of momentum, not a change in the magnitude.
Hams call that a reflection. What do you call it?

So is your claim that, to "hams", a change in the magnitude of
momentum is not called a change in momentum?

I still like "Cecil's 4th Mechanism of Reflection" best.


If you don't like the word "reflection" for what happens at
a non-reflective thin-film coating, please give me another
word for it. I could easily call the physical happening by
another name. "A rose by any other name ..."

Actually an antireflective coating does not reflect energy. Hence the
name. If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an
anti-reflection. Howz that?


Ask again after you've come to understand the difference between a
unit of measurement and a defined physical quantity.


Jim, in engineering, all watts are power. That's an engineering
convention. I'm sorry that your physicist conventions are different
but amateur radio is part of RF engineering. Sorry about that.

I get it that you're sorry. That wouldn't be rhetorical sorrow by any
chance, would it? As I said, please let us know when you come
understand the difference between units and physical quantities. I
don't need to give you the energy in 25 candy bars divided by the
number of minutes in a regulation NBA game example again, do I?

73, Jim AC6XG