[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Copper wire should be presented nacked so to be sure the plasic around it cant interfer with the result.

The effects of the plastic or rubber are not significant.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is not clear what "passing" mean : Perhaps effect of the the grid is the rotating of the polarisation by exactly some angle and if you rotate the receptor by the same angle you will get 100% "passing".

I addressed this concern in another video. But here, there is no rotation of polarization axis detected. Symmetric structure of the grid doesn't suggest that either.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Same with the wave length, perhaps the grid only change the wave length without changing the polarisation and the receptor is not well suited to receive these waves.

It's very unlikely, considering that there would also be change of frequency. Superposition of waves with slightly different frequency would produce beat, which is unobserved here.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The newest video is #71.

This video is also related to polarization, and how it's affected by reflection.

When editing the experiment with double reflector, I got an idea that diagonally polarized microwave can produce interesting results. I hope to share the new video with you soon. Stay tuned.

Here it is. I hope you enjoy it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But more precisely, and not sure if you noticed : The value show on the wave receptor vary slightly when you move the plastic sheet.
When the plastic sheet stay still, it act as if it would have no effect on "the transmission" (this is how we can call this part of the phenomenon regardless of the internal behavior of the elementary physical objects within the matter) of the wave.
But if you move the plastic sheet, and during the move only, you have less "transmission".
And from there you could eventualy test some type of moving, rotation, upward/downward, backward/forward with this kind of "neutral" material.

Good observation. That's why I said that it doesn't affect "significantly", compared to the effect of the conductors.
Now we know that the plastic movement does affect the transmittance of microwave. I think it's worth further exploration in the next videos. We would have to find some ways to amplify the effects to produce reliable, unambiguous, and hopefully quantitative results.

I've checked this out, and come to conclusion that the change of transmission is caused by diffraction and grazing reflection effects. When the edge of the plastic board is hit by microwave beam, some power of the beam is deflected to slightly different direction, reducing power of the beam going in straight direction.

I have uploaded new video showing diffraction in microwave frequency.

Basically, the experiment result leads us to conclude that diffraction comes from the material blocking the microwave path. When the obstruction is opaque enough, we find no diffraction. It's similar to my experiment using laser showing non-diffractive obstruction.

This result is not widely known yet.
 

[Deecart]

Ok.
I watched the videos.
Not simple to do some review for everyone of them because of the redundancy and the lack of some link between them..
So i finaly will try some other approach.

Here, what i have see is that you dont really do some experimentation everyone would agree with, but instead do some demonstration, using for your conclusion things you state they are right (because it is what you think it is what every scientist believe) This is very confusing for the viewer who dont master the physic of light.

Something that you should have done at first place :
Trying to understand how your emmiter/receiver apparatus is working, without any additional material.
This should be the basis of every further observation.

1. What is the constitution of the "wave" the emmiter produce.
Per example you are talking of "the wave" of the beam, and it is at this level of detail that all your reasoning is relying uppon.
But i am pretty sur there are many waves that constitute the beam.
So you have to start with some definition :
What is the wave.
What is the beam.
Where is the emmitter (the emmiter is not localised, it is a rod). Perhaps we could use something to have lower signal but more spacialy concentrated ?
Why do we have some rectangular plastic "tube" added to the emmiter and receiver ? (strange design..)
What is the dispersion of the beam What is the dispersion of the photon This is essential to understand all what follow.

This sort of fundamental questioning can help to avoid confusion between the wave representation everyone show (the electric and magnetic wave) advancing in space, and the real physical object.
When we see this kind of representation, we can be confused by the sinusoid representing the electrical wave ... a wave (i know what a field is but a wave ...) and where it is placed into the space (majority of fields have a infinite action within space).

So before playing with the polarity i think you should clarify what "a wave" is (using experiments of course).

Other thing.
Some error in some video (i suppose i have see) is that if you turn the receiver, the value can change with no valid reason, due to the gravity... because the needle is impacted by gravity.
So you should avoid to turn the receiver (until you have some digital receiver), and turn the emitter instead.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So you have to start with some definition :
What is the wave.
What is the beam.

This is how Google defines wave, with physics as context.

a periodic disturbance of the particles of a substance which may be propagated without net movement of the particles, such as in the passage of undulating motion, heat, or sound.

And the more specific context for electromagnetic wave.

a variation of an electromagnetic field in the propagation of light or other radiation through a medium or vacuum.

And this is how beam is defined.

a ray or shaft of light.
a directional flow of particles or radiation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Where is the emmitter (the emmiter is not localised, it is a rod). Perhaps we could use something to have lower signal but more spacialy concentrated ?

Basically this series of experiment is a sequel of previous experiments regarding diffraction of light, which leaves some unanswered questions. I hope from the next experiments we can build a workable model to explain the behavior of electromagnetic waves in general, and their interaction with matters.

video #1 : Introduction

In this video series we are going to investigate another form of electromagnetic wave, which is commonly called microwave. By doing so, hopefully we can get better understanding on the nature of electromagnetic wave.

A huge advantage of using microwave compared to visible light is its wavelength which is in the order of a few centimeters, which makes it convenient to manipulate. Variables obscured by the small scale of optical experiments can be easily observed and manipulated.

Why do we have some rectangular plastic "tube" added to the emmiter and receiver ? (strange design..)

Rectangular "tubes" are not made of plastic. They are made from metal, and act as directional antenna, which concentrate microwave beam to one narrow direction, hence the wave signal can still be measured for longer distance.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This sort of fundamental questioning can help to avoid confusion between the wave representation everyone show (the electric and magnetic wave) advancing in space, and the real physical object.
When we see this kind of representation, we can be confused by the sinusoid representing the electrical wave ... a wave  (i know what a field is but a wave ...) and where it is placed into the space (majority of fields have a infinite action within space).

So before playing with the polarity i think you should clarify what "a wave" is (using experiments of course).

I addressed more basic questions about electromagnetic wave in some other threads. This one is about demonstrations for polarization of light. I made the experiments especially for the cases where common explanations I found online don't seem to add up, thus need clarifications.

[Deecart]

So you have to start with some definition :
What is the wave.
What is the beam.

This is how Google defines wave, with physics as context.

a periodic disturbance of the particles of a substance which may be propagated without net movement of the particles, such as in the passage of undulating motion, heat, or sound.

And the more specific context for electromagnetic wave.

a variation of an electromagnetic field in the propagation of light or other radiation through a medium or vacuum.

And this is how beam is defined.

a ray or shaft of light.
a directional flow of particles or radiation.

Yes, but do you think this kind of mathematical "representation" is compatible with the experimentation you do ?
You infer in a spacialy way and you conclude using this mathematical representation (i dont say you are the only one doing this, so i suppose you already have conditioned thinking).

Perhaps to understand the problem it could be usefull to use the classical "representation" you showed at 1mn02 of this video :

Here, you show some spacialy representation of the "electric field".
Do you really think the figure show how the "field" occupy the 3D space ?
Do you really think the field stop at the value showed by the "arrow" of the field ?
Do you really think the field is limited at some plane ?
If you add the magnetic component of the wave, do you think the field is some monopole ?! (why nobody talk about the N and S of the magnetic field ?)
Do you think the field (result of the photons) cant be received at 100 km perpendicular of the moving independently of the wave length ? (This would be a nice discovery, so we could do the jedi lightsaber...)
What has the lateral espacement of the grid to do with the longitudinal wave length ?...
Etc.

Therefore, i think you should try to explain with "words" and reasoning what the wave "is", at first place (and dont just repeat wrong things you have heard already, so as to add some knowledge).

 

[Deecart]

Rectangular "tubes" are not made of plastic. They are made from metal, and act as directional antenna, which concentrate microwave beam to one narrow direction, hence the wave signal can still be measured for longer distance.

Thats bad, because this hinder logicaly some further investigation on the change of direction of the raw wave (you dont know what this initial change could have change on the raw wave)

Furthermore, to be sure to have some straight wave you should use some parabolic reflector like used with radars.
Like here : https://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/Antenne%20parabolique.fr.html

[Bored chemist]

Thats bad, because this hinder logicaly some further investigation on the change of direction of the raw wave (you dont know what this initial change could have change on the raw wave)

The behaviour of microwave horns is well understood.

[Deecart]

The behaviour of microwave horns is well understood.

But surely the principle of doing experimentation is not well understood by anyone.
You can not demonstrate reliably any further phenomenon behaviour if your experimental devices itself use the phenomenon you want to study.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Yes, but do you think this kind of mathematical "representation" is compatible with the experimentation you do ?
You infer in a spacialy way and you conclude using this mathematical representation (i dont say you are the only one doing this, so i suppose you already have conditioned thinking).

I don't think that I have to reinvent the wheel. So far, the model I used here haven't lead to contradiction. The experiments are needed to see how matters react to incoming electromagnetic radiation, by emitting reactionary wave. Those waves are then combined by superposition.

My model can be thought as an extention to the working principle of antenna, which can be shown clearly here.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Human knowledge about electromagnetic waves is pretty much accurate, at least for some commonly used spectra. Here is some examples.

[Colin2B]

You are still wrong and I think that it would be kind to the OP if a passing mod could  split my forlorn attempts to educate you into a separate thread.

the thought had occurred to me, when I get a spare moment I’ll go through this.

[Bored chemist]

You are still wrong and I think that it would be kind to the OP if a passing mod could  split my forlorn attempts to educate you into a separate thread.

the thought had occurred to me, when I get a spare moment I’ll go through this.

Thanks.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Investigation on Polarization of Light 2 : Diffuse Reflection and Fluorescence

Demonstrating the effect of diffuse reflection and fluorescence to polarized light.

In the next videos I will demonstrate that even specular reflections can produce non-trivial behaviors of light polarisation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In the next videos I will demonstrate that even specular reflections can produce non-trivial behaviors of light polarisation.

For comparison, I consider the behavior of microwave polarization in the video below as trivial, although it may not be widely known to lay persons.

The newest video is #71.

This video is also related to polarization, and how it's affected by reflection.

When editing the experiment with double reflector, I got an idea that diagonally polarized microwave can produce interesting results. I hope to share the new video with you soon. Stay tuned.

Here it is. I hope you enjoy it.

[Deecart]

I don't think that I have to reinvent the wheel. So far, the model I used here haven't lead to contradiction.

There is not even a contradiction because the representation used by the model is totaly unaccurate.
It is like everybody mimic the same representation, avoiding the understanding of the occupation of space by the field(s) (In my opinion)