Re: The Extreme Failure of Poor Concepts in Discussing Thin Layer Reflections
- From: "Dave" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:25:26 -0000
but of course ground isn't ground. there is no such thing as ground, or a
ground potential, or a perfect ground, or anything like that. and yes,
currents flowing in the ground can be a bad thing, but only if you don't
understand them and design to handle them.
"Zombie Wolf" <zmbwf@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bIydnSy7DZrN43vfRVn-sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ah but you must avoid upsetting GOD (oops I mean Richard.). A simple
> answer about grounding given to a guy a while back put him into apoplectic
> fits, necessitating the doubling of his meds. You see, "ground" ISN'T
> "ground". That isn't "clever" enough for Richard. He promptly claimed that
> rf currents flowing in a ground system were a "bad thing' and proceeded to
> "explain" it all to us. I wish my elmer 30 years ago had been as "clever"
> as Richard. All these books on the shelves simply are irrelevant, because
> nothing can be simple, you see... It must be complicated, even if it IS
> wrong........
>
> "W5DXP" <w5dxp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1122384260.192220.309430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Richard Clark wrote:
>>> Needless to say, that same first interface is going to conserve energy
>>> by the total of refraction and reflection being equal to the energy
>>> incident upon it. I will skip that to allow ALL of this second
>>> reflection to "try" to totally cancel the first reflection:
>>> 110mW - 92mW
>>> or
>>> 18mW
>>
>> Richard, if you follow the leads of other gurus on this newsgroup,
>> you will 'ploink' me, never admit a mistake, and dupe yourself
>> into believing that you were right all along. Your "Extreme Failures
>> of Poor Concepts" could have been avoided if you guys had just read and
>>
>> understood the following two quotes that I have posted multiple times.
>> What is it about, "... all 'lost' reflected intensity will appear as
>> enhanced intensity in the transmitted beam.", that you guys don't
>> understand?
>>
>> www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm
>>
>> "Clearly, if the wavelength of the incident light and the thickness
>> of the film are such that a phase difference exists between reflections
>>
>> of p, then reflected wavefronts interfere destructively, and overall
>> reflected intensity is a minimum. If the two reflections are of equal
>> amplitude, then this amplitude (and hence intensity) minimum will be
>> zero."
>>
>> "In the absence of absorption or scatter, the principle of conservation
>>
>> of energy indicates all 'lost' reflected intensity will appear as
>> enhanced intensity in the transmitted beam. The sum of the reflected
>> and
>> transmitted beam intensities is always equal to the incident intensity.
>>
>> This important fact has been confirmed experimentally."
>>
>> http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html
>>
>> "... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are 180-
>> degrees out of phase with each other meet, they are not actually
>> annihilated. All of the photon energy present in these waves must
>> somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to
>> the law of energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons
>> are redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference, so
>> the effect should be considered as a redistribution of light waves and
>> photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction
>> of light."
>> --
>> 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Warning - N9NLU (Dave Schmidt)
- Next by Date: Re: The Extreme Failure of Poor Concepts in Discussing Thin Layer Reflections
- Previous by thread: Re: The Extreme Failure of Poor Concepts in Discussing Thin Layer Reflections
- Next by thread: Re: The Extreme Failure of Poor Concepts in Discussing Thin Layer Reflections
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
