Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an anti-reflection.


That's looking forward into a Z0-match from the source
side. The opposite thing happens looking back into a
Z0-match from the load side. What's the opposite of
an anti-reflection?

Actually, in my energy analysis article, I defined
the word, "re-reflection", as used in the article
and as used by Walter Maxwell in "Reflections".

Cecil,

Where you go wrong is your energy analysis. Your argument goes awry in
at least a couple of areas. 1. 'destructive interference causes energy
to reverse direction.' This is purely false. Interference is the
description we give to the result of the superposition of waves. It is
not a causal phenomenon. 2. Unless you're talking photochromic
properties, partially reflective media interfaces do not become 100%
reflective in response to illumination (or for any other reason). Any
"re-reflection" that takes place is ordinary partial reflection in the
other direction.

Jim, when I get back from my trip, I'll tell you about temporary
benign interference Vs permanent active interference. A standing
wave in a constant Z0 environment is temporary interference.
Wave cancellation is permanent active interference. When wave
cancellation occurs, the energy and momentum are redirected. In
a transmission line, there are only two directions. In the direction
of the wave cancellation and in the opposite direction. The energy
doesn't go in the direction of wave cancellation so which direction
does it go. Boy, that's a tough question, isn't it?

Have fun on the hog. Last weekend I was fortunate enough to drive 20
laps on a 1/2 mile banked track in a Busch class stock car. Holy cow.

Back when I lived in CA, in between motorcycle races, they opened
Laguna Seca to anyone with a motorcycle license, street legal bike,
$20, and willing to sign a waiver. Everyone was a certain number
of minutes apart. I got my Kawi Z1-B up to about 135 mph on the
straightaway. And that still wasn't top speed. That machine red-
lined at 60 mph in *first gear* with four more gears to go. :-0
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Differences between disciplines in the definitions of fundamental
principles can only be in your understanding of them.

Please realize that it's not the definitions of fundamental
principles that are different. It is the definitions of the
random grouping of letters called words that are different.
The same word represents different valid fundamental principles
in different disciplines. "A rose by any other name ..."

Physics simply does NOT have a monopoly on the word "power".
There are 32+ definitions of power in my dictionary.

P-O-W-E-R has a different definition in RF engineering than
it does in physics. It doesn't mean that there's anything
wrong with anyone's fundamental principles. After all, the
Russians and Japanese don't even use the word "power" for
any of their fundamental principles which are just as valid
as yours.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Come on, Cecil. You propose a scenario with a change in characteristic
impedance, and then try to pretend there isn't any matter involved?

If you are admitting that a change in Z0 at an impedance
discontinuity involves matter, then we are in agreement.
Sounded to me like you were saying there's no matter
involved at a transmission line impedance discontinuity.

My energy article covers this subject. I state in that article
that there are no reflections except at *physical* impedance
discontinuities so you already know what I said previously.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim, when I get back from my trip, I'll tell you about temporary
benign interference Vs permanent active interference.


A standing
wave in a constant Z0 environment is temporary interference.
Wave cancellation is permanent active interference. When wave
cancellation occurs, the energy and momentum are redirected. In
a transmission line, there are only two directions. In the direction
of the wave cancellation and in the opposite direction. The energy
doesn't go in the direction of wave cancellation so which direction
does it go. Boy, that's a tough question, isn't it?

As far as I know, there has never been any dispute over which
direction the energy goes. The problem has always been with your
overly imaginative explanation for how it gets there.

Have fun on the hog. Last weekend I was fortunate enough to drive 20
laps on a 1/2 mile banked track in a Busch class stock car. Holy cow.


Back when I lived in CA, in between motorcycle races, they opened
Laguna Seca to anyone with a motorcycle license, street legal bike,
$20, and willing to sign a waiver. Everyone was a certain number
of minutes apart. I got my Kawi Z1-B up to about 135 mph on the
straightaway. And that still wasn't top speed. That machine red-
lined at 60 mph in *first gear* with four more gears to go. :-0

Getting speed on the straights is the easy part. Finding out that
you've got too much when you arrive at the turn is the primary concern.

73, Jim ac6xg

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:21:28 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields

Sorry, Jim, for responding through you to these howlers courtesy of
Cecil's Xerographic talents.

Producing "all" electric "and" magnetic fields? This is just too
naive to contemplate. I suppose our compasses don't work in the dark,
do they? A light bulb would never illuminate unless it was ALREADY ON
illuminating the wire that conducted electricity.

Richard, the frequency of photons extends from DC to gamma
rays and beyond. You think because you cannot see them that
they don't exist???? RF waves are certainly made up of photons
that you cannot see. There are many more photons that you
cannot see than photons that you can see. If you are relying
solely upon your flawed human sight for the detection of
all photons, you are severely handicapped.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:54:11 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:21:28 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields

Sorry, Jim, for responding through you to these howlers courtesy of
Cecil's Xerographic talents.

Producing "all" electric "and" magnetic fields? This is just too
naive to contemplate. I suppose our compasses don't work in the dark,
do they? A light bulb would never illuminate unless it was ALREADY ON
illuminating the wire that conducted electricity.

Richard, the frequency of photons extends from DC to gamma
rays and beyond. You think because you cannot see them that
they don't exist????

Photons I do see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing all
electric and magnetic fields."

Photons I do NOT see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing
all electric and magnetic fields."

And electric and magnetic fields exist quite independently of ANY
photons (invisible or otherwise) which, of course, means that photons
were NEVER "responsible for producing" these "electric and magnetic
fields." Note that ALL is inclusive in its totality and I have thrice
demonstrated that falsity.

Like I said, your naive statements propagate a lot of foolishness and
fall far short of illuminating.

So, time for another simple computation:

What is the temperature of an 80M photon?

Looking forward to your fumble.

Cecil Moore wrote:

[snip]

Jim, when I get back from my trip, I'll tell you about temporary
benign interference Vs permanent active interference. A standing
wave in a constant Z0 environment is temporary interference.
Wave cancellation is permanent active interference. When wave
cancellation occurs, the energy and momentum are redirected. In
a transmission line, there are only two directions. In the direction
of the wave cancellation and in the opposite direction. The energy
doesn't go in the direction of wave cancellation so which direction
does it go. Boy, that's a tough question, isn't it?



Cecil,

Have a safe trip.

I want to hear more about this "temporary benign interference". I have
been doing physics and optics for over 40 years, and that concept is a
new one for me.

8-) 8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:

As I said, please let us know when you come understand the difference
between units and physical quantities.


Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines. Unfortunately
for your definitions, amateur radio is a subset of RF engineering,
not physics. You may, in time, succeed in your quest to change
the definitions previously accepted as valid in the field of RF
engineering. Then again, you may not. Time will tell.

Cecil

EVERYTHING is a subset of physics. Even biology.

tom
K0TAR

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:12:06 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

As I said, please let us know when you come understand the difference
between units and physical quantities.


Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines. Unfortunately
for your definitions, amateur radio is a subset of RF engineering,
not physics. You may, in time, succeed in your quest to change
the definitions previously accepted as valid in the field of RF
engineering. Then again, you may not. Time will tell.

Cecil

EVERYTHING is a subset of physics. Even biology.

Or, as Lord Kelvin would ammend this: The rest is stamp collecting.

Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

[snip]


Jim, when I get back from my trip, I'll tell you about temporary
benign interference Vs permanent active interference. A standing
wave in a constant Z0 environment is temporary interference.
Wave cancellation is permanent active interference. When wave
cancellation occurs, the energy and momentum are redirected. In
a transmission line, there are only two directions. In the direction
of the wave cancellation and in the opposite direction. The energy
doesn't go in the direction of wave cancellation so which direction
does it go. Boy, that's a tough question, isn't it?




Cecil,

Have a safe trip.

I want to hear more about this "temporary benign interference". I have
been doing physics and optics for over 40 years, and that concept is a
new one for me.

8-) 8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Every once in a while, when I'm reading the interesting technical
prose that Cecil writes here and elsewhere, Cliff Clavin comes to mind
for some reason.

:-)
73, Jim AC6XG