On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:13:54 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Coherent light is not the half of it!

We are both more and less advanced than we might think.

Hi Mike,

Coherence has become a shallow rhyming proof rendered as
"SoThereIt's!" (a mumbled qed). It is a convenience of a special
solution which requires artificial constraints that over the course of
"debate" have become necessary correlatives to a general "law" of
optics. In fact, few have examined what "coherence" actually means,
but instead it has been Xeroxed by Cecil into the argument.

Both Mike and Tom have been able to disconnect this term as one of
necessity for monochromaticity (not required) and instantaneity (also
not required). This lack of requirement (that requirement having been
artificially injected into the discussion) is historically exhibited
in work going beyond 100 years old. The first work was with
sun/starlight that is neither pulsed nor monochromatic, and yet and
all, interference was clearly found which led us to this discussion.

Even though the classic hologram, developed 60 years ago, or so, was
originally monochromatic; it didn't take much more effort to
accomplish the same photography with white light (1968). Wide band
sources can demonstrate interference as readily there as with the
original Michelson-Morely interferometer. In fact, most here need
only open their wallet to examine a credit card or driver's license to
prove this to themselves under a common table lamp.

Coherence (cross-correlating) is a statistical term for comparing
(0.00 to 1.00) complex waves. You can have temporal coherence,
spacial coherence, spectral coherence and on and on; none of which are
actually named here, but whose various definitions have been
notoriously cross-connected into a hodge-podge argument of no
particular merit.

If we delve into the merits of sun/starlight, we eventually narrow on
into the distinction of these terms of spatial and temporal coherence
and the coherent area/length/volume (where incoherent sunlight is
found to be coherent within 0.02mm) and then into what has already
been identified by Gene with partial coherence (a topic that Wolf
pursued, and at which Born hesitated).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Coherence (cross-correlating) is a statistical term for comparing
(0.00 to 1.00) complex waves. You can have temporal coherence,
spacial coherence, spectral coherence and on and on; none of which are
actually named here, but whose various definitions have been
notoriously cross-connected into a hodge-podge argument of no
particular merit.

Fortunately, we amateur radio operators are not concerned
with anything that complex. We are concerned with
essentially single frequency, phase-locked signals in a
single-source, single transmission line, single-load
configuration. Many levels and dimensions of complexity
simply are negligible concerns within the amateur radio
environment. Introducing irrelevant issues is just a
diversion away from ideal examples which are relatively
easy to understand. Isn't it better to clear the waters
rather than muddy them?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:19:02 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Isn't it better to clear the waters rather than muddy them?

I agree, you don't know the difference well enough to differentiate
silt from mud from glacial flour - and yet you offer your fortified
kool-ade. Your food coloring, sugar, and added special ingredients
doesn't bring clarity (and as any nutritionist would say: sugar is
empty calories).

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Isn't it better to clear the waters rather than muddy them?

I agree, you don't know the difference well enough to differentiate
silt from mud from glacial flour - and yet you offer your fortified
kool-ade.

Actually, I am using ohm's law instead of string theory.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Actually, I am using ohm's law instead of string theory.

To respond to the topic of Coherence.... Neither shocking nor a
surprise as it's as though I were reading the last pages of "Flowers
for Algernon."

If Mr. Ohm introduced his law today, he would be belittled
because it is not a theory of everything.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 10, 2:07 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Actually, I am using ohm's law instead of string theory.

To respond to the topic of Coherence.... Neither shocking nor a
surprise as it's as though I were reading the last pages of "Flowers
for Algernon."

If Mr. Ohm introduced his law today, he would be belittled
because it is not a theory of everything.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

To belittle is to inform others of one's own characteristics.
Those who belittle do others a service by showing what they are.

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:35:01 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Actually, I am using ohm's law instead of string theory.

To respond to the topic of Coherence.... Neither shocking nor a
surprise as it's as though I were reading the last pages of "Flowers
for Algernon."

May as well leave it as that.

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:07:56 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Actually, I am using ohm's law instead of string theory.

To respond to the topic of Coherence.... Neither shocking nor a
surprise as it's as though I were reading the last pages of "Flowers
for Algernon."

If Mr. Ohm introduced his law today, he would be belittled
because it is not a theory of everything.

Your response is worthy of Charly.

Ohm's Law doesn't work at all scales anyway - but Ohm would have been
resilient enough to have taken it where it needs to go in this day and
age.

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:53:35 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Hi Arthur,

Let's see if you can follow the inference of what you claimed to have
sought in a reference for the signal strength of an antenna correlated
to radiator length. It is a very, very simple example, two wires, no
loads, very small:

It takes Laport only 3 pages to name three references for the math
(Stratton, Skilling, and Kraus); provide the equation; and directly
state at the bottom of page 3:
"directly proportional to the current and to the
continuing on top of page 4:
"length of the doublet..."

No requirement for resonance, no mention of Q, the only resistance is
that of free space, nothing about equilibrium, just a straight answer.
The math has been confirmed by experiment, and it is duplicated in
models that are fully consistent with all scientific enquiry for the
past three centuries which exhibit every quality of the math and the
quotation above. The text has been made FREELY available here. No
need to purchase.

There are no pages with pictures to color, so reading that far can be
tough to master for one finding it difficult to search this out:
I have searched quite a bit for evidence that states that performance
of antennas can be rated by it's size.
"Quite a bit" sets the standard for the whimpering of whipped dog
denial. If just a teensy-weensy bit more effort were made, it is
obvious the complete investment in antennas the size of a
cracker-jacks box would collapse like the home-loan industry.

The question carried with this is:
if an amateur were given the choice between your design, and this
simple two wires. then how much would he radiate or perceive any
greater signal with your design?

No doubt a very difficult question that will fail to obtain any
metrics, and probably not even the grace of a direct answer. It is
suitable for troll bait however, and the volume of response will weigh
that accordingly. If providing the grist of measurement is so
difficult to respond to, why are you here?

Those who belittle do others a service by showing what they are.
which may already answer my question with your burning bridges at
every post.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC