On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:53:23 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Richard,

In the interest of fairness, Cecil said he would be taking a
motorcycle trip over the long weekend.

At 3 MHz I get 144 micro Kelvin by multiplying frequency by Planck's
constant and dividing by Boltzman's. My daughter had a similar
problem in her High School freshman Earth Science class a few weeks ago.

It might not be entirely fair to translate a lack of response to a
lack of ability.

73, Jim AC6XG

Hi Jim,

Fairness counts, to be sure. Reputation informs us all otherwise. I
am not responsible for Cecil's reputation, so impugning an opponent is
a matter of local custom.

114 micro Kelvin certainly falls within the parameters of the question
offered. I dare say Cecil would have been silent on the specific
matter, irrespective of his recreational activity.

As for the specific difference between you and your daughter's
computation, I use the Wien Displacement Law. It, too, employs the
method you describe (albeit with Boltzmann's constant divided by
Planck's constant instead as it is frequency not wavelength
descriptive), and with an additional constant of multiplication
(2.8214). By this method, your 144 micro Kelvins represents 8.466 MHz
for the peak wavelength.

There are other factors as well, among them being
lack of even the slightest amount of interest

The nature of posting to the group satisfies that quite simply: folks
move on or become part of the thread. That has been adequately
demonstrated here.

and difficulty
deciphering what the heck you are talking about from one moment to the
next. ;-)

Barring calls for specific explanation, I always treat such whining
for what it is. Clearly you are neither whining, nor
ignorant/disinterested in the topic. I take it for granted there are
a multitude of others who choose to remain silent, but not uninformed.
Most will take notice I did not open the door of this side-thread, but
having crossed the threshold, I command the topic.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC