On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 00:06:05 -0800, "Dana" wrote:

I see that guy has not answered yet about the temp

Hi Dana,

It was a sucker punch anyway. Cecil doesn't have the experience in
optics to answer it with any particular immediacy or accuracy, nor do
99% of those in this group (lurkers excluded). I've got an extensive
career in the field that includes 5 patents in photonic applications.
I've also designed a number of proprietary photonic devices that
measure blood-gas chemistry, O2 saturation, pH, and the Stroud Moment
(as it relates to mental acuity through visual testing).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 00:06:05 -0800, "Dana" wrote:


I see that guy has not answered yet about the temp


Hi Dana,

It was a sucker punch anyway. Cecil doesn't have the experience in
optics to answer it with any particular immediacy or accuracy, nor do
99% of those in this group (lurkers excluded). I've got an extensive
career in the field that includes 5 patents in photonic applications.
I've also designed a number of proprietary photonic devices that
measure blood-gas chemistry, O2 saturation, pH, and the Stroud Moment
(as it relates to mental acuity through visual testing).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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. There are other factors as well, among them being
lack of even the slightest amount of interest, and difficulty
deciphering what the heck you are talking about from one moment to the
next. ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

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

Richard Clark wrote:


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.

Richard,

To be a bit fussy, the temperature of a photon is not defined. Only a
distribution of photon energies can be defined with a temperature
(sometimes). Assuming a standard blackbody model, your answer is correct
of course.

Perhaps Cecil was trying to recall the formula for the temperature of a
single photon. He might be looking for a while.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:21:58 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

To be a bit fussy, the temperature of a photon is not defined. Only a
distribution of photon energies can be defined with a temperature
(sometimes). Assuming a standard blackbody model, your answer is correct
of course.

Hi Gene,

Fussy is the name of the game here in this forum; and fussy will
ultimately dominate; hence I defer to your amplification. I suggested
a black body model late in the game certainly, and only through
allusion to the frequency of the peak wavelength.

Perhaps Cecil was trying to recall the formula for the temperature of a
single photon. He might be looking for a while.

Ah! Fussiness has been replaced with abundant generosity. Myself, I
consider it misplaced. I would think he could summon up the dominant
wavelength of a Xerox lamp and correlate it to toner responsivity.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:21:58 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:


To be a bit fussy, the temperature of a photon is not defined. Only a
distribution of photon energies can be defined with a temperature
(sometimes). Assuming a standard blackbody model, your answer is correct
of course.


Hi Gene,

Fussy is the name of the game here in this forum; and fussy will
ultimately dominate; hence I defer to your amplification. I suggested
a black body model late in the game certainly, and only through
allusion to the frequency of the peak wavelength.

And I assumed we were talking the energy of the photon.

By the way Richard, Wein's Law? We've long since learned that energy
is quantized. E=hv That's how much energy is in a single photon at
frequency v. (At least, that's what Einstein thought.) No fudging
needed!

73, Jim AC6XG

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:36:22 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

By the way Richard, Wein's Law?

Hi Jim,

And yet he won the 1911 Nobel Prize for the law. He also discovered
what was to be called the Proton. How quickly fame fades....

We've long since learned that energy
is quantized. E=hv That's how much energy is in a single photon at
frequency v.

Yes, Wien's law was inappropriate for low frequency application
(meaning your daughter's computation is closer, by the factor I
offered, if not exact). His law was based on observational data for
very much shorter wavelengths. My studies generally confine
themselves well above 0°K, probably 2 or 3 degrees to a few hundred.
That is why I was initially satisfied with order of magnitude
accuracy.

(At least, that's what Einstein thought.) No fudging
needed!

Actually, Planck's explanation anticipated Einstein's photons by five
years. Further, he also corrected the massive errors of frequency vs.
power in what is called the Ultraviolet catastrophe. This was the
presumption that a Black body radiator emits energy with a
proportionality to frequency - a classical solution that yields
astronomic photonic power output at short wavelengths. I thought I
had dodged that bullet with my Wien's Displacement law spread sheet.
My focus is more oriented towards Phonon interactions.

To return to Gene's comment about the underlying presumption of Black
body radiation (perfectly correct), Planck's solution to the
Ultraviolet catastrophe was to describe Black body radiation as a
composite emission of many resonating cavities (which returns us to
single source Photons).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tom Ring wrote:
EVERYTHING is a subset of physics. Even biology.

If politics is a subset of physics and only Jim
Kelley's definitions are allowed, then President
Bush doesn't have any power.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Every once in a while, when I'm reading the interesting technical prose
that Cecil writes here and elsewhere, Cliff Clavin comes to mind for
some reason.

Was he like some people who post ad hominem attacks devoid
of any technical content? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
It might not be entirely fair to translate a lack of response to a lack
of ability. There are other factors as well, among them being lack of
even the slightest amount of interest, and difficulty deciphering what
the heck you are talking about from one moment to the next. ;-)

True, and I also ignore postings that are an obvious
diversion away from the topic. Certain people think
they can win arguments by taking people on A Wild Goose
Chase Down A Primrose Path. All it does is waste time.
From now on, I will label such attempts as AWGCDAPP so
the perp will know that I am not ignoring him.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com