K7ITM wrote:
Ah, so then you're saying that there is not any actual interaction,
only summation in the normal way. Thank you for that clarification.

If you want to argue technical points, please stop
the obvious mind fornicating techniques. There is
actual interaction, i.e. permanent wave cancellation.
Do you know of any way to achieve permanent wave
cancellation without any interaction between the
waves?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I am preparing a picture that hopefully will be worth
a thousands words.

There are far too few such pictures in the world in my opinion.

I'll try to have it posted to my
web page by tomorrow.

Thanks. I am interested in seeing it.

OK, the graphic is at http://www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.gif
It is the beginning of the transient state. The drawing
is offset for illustration purposes but assume the laser
beam and all the reflections are collinear.

There are times associated with events:
t0 is when the laser is turned on
t1 is when the laser beam first reaches the thinfilm
and the external reflection takes place
t3 is when the first internal reflection reaches the
thinfilm

Questions: What is the power reflected toward the source
between t3 and t5? What happened to the 0.01 watt of
external reflection? How did the reflected power decrease
unless there was partial wave cancellation? What is the
steady-state reflected power toward the source?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Nov 2, 3:58 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Do you know of any way to achieve wave
cancellation without any interaction between the
waves?

It's called "vector addition," not "interaction." But you already
clarified that, so I don't know why you are going on about it.

If individual photons interefere with one another, why is the antenna
pattern independent of power?
More specifically, one gets the same pattern if photons are emitted one at a
time.

In fact, when photons are coherent (MASER, LASER), the appropriate term is
hologram.

I would love to have coherent photons at HF.
Infinite F/B and a beamwidth of zero.

73
H.
NQ5H


PS
Roy
Love your product.

K7ITM wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:58 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Do you know of any way to achieve wave
cancellation without any interaction between the
waves?

It's called "vector addition," not "interaction." But you already
clarified that, so I don't know why you are going on about it.

Vector (phasor) addition is necessary but *not sufficient*
for wave cancellation to occur. For wave cancellation to
occur, the two waves must be coherent, equal in magnitude,
opposite in phase, and *collinear* in the same direction.
Vector (or phasor) addition can occur with or without
"interaction". Wave cancellation cannot occur without
"interaction" between the two waves.

If the two interfering coherent waves survive the interference,
they did not "interact" probably because they were not collinear.
If the two interfering waves do not survive the interference,
they interacted, were canceled, and their energy was "redistributed
to regions that permit constructive interference" as described on
the FSU web page.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

H. Adam Stevens wrote:
I would love to have coherent photons at HF.

The feedpoint impedance of a standing-wave antenna (like a
dipole) is (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref). Since the Z0 of a dipole
wire is in the ballpark of 600 ohms, the interference that
results in a feedpoint impedance of 72 ohms proves the
photons are coherent.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil flunked E&M in kindergarten.




"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
K7ITM wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:58 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Do you know of any way to achieve wave
cancellation without any interaction between the
waves?

It's called "vector addition," not "interaction." But you already
clarified that, so I don't know why you are going on about it.

Vector (phasor) addition is necessary but *not sufficient*
for wave cancellation to occur. For wave cancellation to
occur, the two waves must be coherent, equal in magnitude,
opposite in phase, and *collinear* in the same direction.
Vector (or phasor) addition can occur with or without
"interaction". Wave cancellation cannot occur without
"interaction" between the two waves.

If the two interfering coherent waves survive the interference,
they did not "interact" probably because they were not collinear.
If the two interfering waves do not survive the interference,
they interacted, were canceled, and their energy was "redistributed
to regions that permit constructive interference" as described on
the FSU web page.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 3 Nov, 05:41, Cecil Moore wrote:
H. Adam Stevens wrote:
I would love to have coherent photons at HF.

The feedpoint impedance of a standing-wave antenna (like a
dipole) is (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref). Since the Z0 of a dipole
wire is in the ballpark of 600 ohms, the interference that
results in a feedpoint impedance of 72 ohms proves the
photons are coherent.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
Gentlemen
You guys are really screwed up with respect to radiation
A radiator has three components, capacitance, inductance and
resistance
where Maxwell states thatthe RC ratio is a constant for the material
and frequency.
All of these three components store energy in diffent forms. Now the
capacitor
stores static energy via static electrons and there is no getting away
from that.
Maxwells laws state that the LC ratio must be kept for the model used
and we
know that the expellation of energy with velocity is only by the
capacitor
and the inductance acting asd a tank circuit. We also know that a
diagmagnet
material is a radiator that has bound electrons in orbit around the
atom but it is also
one of the few materials that allow free static electons to rest upon
its surface.
Now you take it from there. A wavelength radiator with free electons
resting on its surface
and subject to two high velocity energy release explosions per one
cycle.
Now where in the heck do "protons"come into play when we are forcing
static
electrons off of the surface of a radiator by overcoming its inertia?

Another point Using Gauss's law of statics we use only static
particles in a field.
There is no reason why we cannot add to the field a resonant length of
a radiator
as long as it doesn't upset the equilibrium inside the field.
(This arbitary border system is used widely in many areas of
matematics)
You can then add to the model a time varying factor which duplicates
Maxwell's equations and solve by a Maxwell derived computor program
which
allows one to deduce that a radiator can be any shape or size or
configuration
as long as it is in equilibrium inside
the Gaussian field.
Again we see a instance of radiation where the static particle or
electron
is the main subject of radiation. Again no reference to protons!
Look up google regarding atomic explosions where it is stated that
electrons
impinged on the Hawii electrical system and crashed it. Electrons
were
ejected thru the atmosphere, again with no mention of protons.
Why O why do hams try to make things difficult? I defy anybody
to finding things to the contrary with respect to mathematics
other than just hand waving so what is ham radios problem?
Art Unwin.....KB9MZ...XG

On Nov 2, 9:54 pm, K7ITM wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:58 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Do you know of any way to achieve wave
cancellation without any interaction between the
waves?

It's called "vector addition," not "interaction." But you already
clarified that, so I don't know why you are going on about it.

A bit more on the lack of "interaction" between two waves...

Consider two electromagnetic (EM) waves, originating from two distinct
sources, that share some common volume of space*. If you wish,
consider only a very narrow portion of each wave, so they might be
called "beams" much as you'd get from a laser pointer. Consider where
these beams cross each other at right angles. There is no
"interaction." The beams do not bump into each other and scatter off
in different directions as billiard balls or as streams of water would
do. The net instantaneous field strength at each point in space, for
both the electric and the magnetic field, is simply the sum of the
components from each wave. It's a vector sum, because each component
has a magnitude and a direction in space. Beyond the point of
crossing, each beam is present exactly as it would be had the other
beam not been there. At least, that is what I observe; perhaps I'm
not observing closely enough. Perhaps there is some interaction that
affects the beams in a way that I could measure if only I were
measuring with enough resolution; but sensibly there is no effect on
one beam from the presence of the other. The beams may be identically
the same frequency in any relative phase, or may be different
frequencies, or may be a complex assortment of frequencies. One could
be visible light and the other a 20kHz radio wave. It wouldn't
matter; there is still no observable effect on one beam from the
presence or absence of the other.

If I then consider beams which cross at other angles, I observe the
same (lack of) effect, one on the other. My representation of the net
field as a simple vector sum of the instantaneous fields from each
beam, for each point over all space, for each instant in time, still
accurately describes the situation.

In fact, if the beams are identical frequencies and exactly aligned in
the direction of propagation, what I observe still conforms exactly to
the description where the beams crossed; the net field at every point
in space for every instant in time is the vector sum of the fields of
the component waves. I didn't have to invent any new math to describe
the situation. To the extent that there was no interaction in the
first case considered, with crossing beams, there is also no
interaction in the case of beams exactly aligned. Nothing magical
happens, and no new concept needs to be introduced for this case.

We may indeed need to introduce new concepts if we discover that, at
high enough amplitudes or with careful enough observation, there
really is an interaction and our model of simply adding vector fields
is not sufficient. But I fail to see the need to do that in the
situation described here.

It is no "mind game"--it is an IMPORTANT concept that the fields do
not "interact;" they simply sum. There is NOTHING NEW required to
consider the case where the beams HAPPEN TO BE identical amplitudes
and exactly out of phase at every point in time and space in some
particular region.

*In all of the above, I have considered that the waves are travelling
through space containing nothing but electromagnetic waves; there are
no free electrons or ionizable molecules in this region. My
observations lead me to believe that such space is a linear medium.

H. Adam Stevens wrote:
Cecil flunked E&M in kindergarten.

How about a technical rebuttal instead of an
ad hominem attack? Take a look at the graphic
on my web page and tell me what happens when
the first internal reflection encounters the
external reflection at t3.

http://www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.gif
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com