Gaussian statics law
 

John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Really? I am going to have to see that one to believe it (not
saying it is incorrect though), a "something" with no mass--kinda
like a "ghost particle!"
It's old hat knowledge, John, and one of the reasons
why standing wave energy doesn't just stand there or
just "slosh around" as one guru asserted. If a photon
is slowed to zero velocity, its mass vanishes and
...

Cecil:

One more thing ... On those those frisky, frolicking photons.

What would you attribute the fact the "photons" in HF behave much
differently then then the photons of VHF/UHF/SHF/LIGHT to?

That isn't quite true. The big gap is between anything we'd normally
call "light", and anything we'd normally call "RF".

Long explanation coming up... Executive Summary: at normal radio
frequencies, quantum theory is totally irrelevant.

Quantum theory describes electromagnetic energy as being divided into a
series of packets called photons, so (total energy in a stream of
photons) = (number of photons/second) x (energy of individual photons).

This also means that EM energy doesn't exist in pure sine-waves - the
waveform is actually built up in steps, very much like digitized audio.
The step size is the energy content of one quantum.

The question is: are those steps noticeable enough to be important?

For light and shorter wavelengths, the answer is often Yes. Quantum
theory was developed to explain observations like some kinds of light
being emitted in a series of sharp spectral lines, which cannot be
explained by a wave-only theory. Instead, it has to be thought of as
being built up of individual photons/quanta which can only have certain
"allowed" energy levels.

It turned out that the energy content of a single photon is uniquely
related to the wavelength of the radiation. Any given wavelength has
only one quantum energy. More energy can only be made up from larger
numbers of the same identical quanta. That unique quantum energy is
inversely proportional to the wavelength, and directly proportional to
the frequency:

E = hf

where
E is the energy content of a single quantum/photon (joules),
f is in Hz
h is Planck's constant which has a value of 6.6 x 10^-34 joule seconds.

This applies to all forms of EM energy, so let's calculate the 'step
size' in an RF waveform at 10MHz. That will be the energy content of a
single quantum, which turns out to be 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
0066 joules - which is unimaginably small.

It means that an RF waveform must be quantized into unimaginably large
numbers of tiny steps. Those steps will NEVER be observable, and there
will NEVER be any noticeable quantum effects at RF.

That holds true for all frequencies up to at least 100 gigahertz
(millimetre wavelengths), where quantum effects just begin to be
noticeable in precision measurements of very low noise levels - but even
way up there, quantum effects are still only a small correction.

So after all that, we come back to the plain fact that normal RF
radiation behaves purely as waves, just like we always thought it did.
The only new information from quantum theory is to *confirm* that
classical EM theory is all you'll ever need.




--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Gaussian statics law
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 9 Mar, 02:33, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

Gentlemen from outside of America. Gauss's law with respect to statics
is quite specific and easy to understand. What is so wrong in
mathematical terms by adding the metric of time to the law so that
curl can be accomodated? i.e. change from a conservative field where
all vectors have zero length,
to a electro magnetic equation by adding the words " the addition of
time" which by providing a three dimensional field has the true
inclusion of curl i.e. all vectors have value in length and direction.
America denies the feasability of such an addition to an existing law
which in essence is regarded as a new law without basis on this side
of the pond.Are all countries of this mentallity?
Art

Because a static field does not produce an EM field(curl) only if that
static charge is in motion. Motion would even include taking a charged
body,
say a pith ball and waving it back and forth. Electrons have a static
charge
but when they are in motion in a conductor they produce fields(curl).
Electrons moving about an atom also produces fields but the net result of
all the aoms moving about is zero. PLEASE REFERENCE THE GUASSIAN LAW ON
STATICS. I still think you are confusing static with statistics.

But Jimmie my friend, now you have an understanding of Gaussian law
what is preventing you adding the metric of time or a length of time
to the statics law? What is it that frightens you and other Americans
about that
little step? Start off my looking at it in pure mathematical terms and
determine if the intent of the law is still not violated. Don't go
beyond that at this time just consider the mathematics and get
comfortable with it
Art


Because it is meaningless

Gaussian statics law
 

"John E. Davis" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:45:31 GMT, Dave
wrote:
Gauss' Law is for static electric charges and fields.

It is usually used for problems in electrostatics, but it is not
confined to such problems. The differential form of it is just one of
the Maxwell equations:

div E(x,t) = 4\pi\rho(x,t)

Integrate it over a fixed surface and you get the integral form, which
is Gauss's law. It is valid with time-dependent charge densities and
time-dependent electric fields.

no, i'm afraid you can't just put a 't' on each side and have it make sense
in the general case. time varying charge implies a current, a current
implies a magnetic field, then you have to include Ampere's law and add
curl(E)=-dB/dt to the mix. while you may be able to constrain the changes
in rho(t) to some short time or constant current and eliminate the dB/dt
part of the problem, that would only apply in specific conditions, not to
the general case.

Gaussian statics law
 

John Smith I wrote:
What would you attribute the fact the "photons" in HF behave much
differently then then the photons of VHF/UHF/SHF/LIGHT to?

In a free space vacuum, they all behave
essentially the same way. Their different
quantum energy levels causes them to interact
differently with the atomic structure of matter.

At 1 MHz, a photon has an energy level of
4x10^-9 eV while a gamma ray photon might have
an energy level of 4x10^+9 eV or higher.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gaussian statics law
 

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
This applies to all forms of EM energy, so let's calculate the 'step
size' in an RF waveform at 10MHz. That will be the energy content of a
single quantum, which turns out to be 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
0066 joules - which is unimaginably small.

Maybe 40 nano-eV is more imaginable? :-)
For me, it is a lot easier to visualize a cloud
of photons leaving an antenna than it is to visualize
the field lines closing upon themselves (like a soap
bubble) and breaking free of the antenna.

Incidentally, your above number is off by 0.3% :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gaussian statics law
 

On 9 Mar, 22:13, (John E. Davis) wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:45:31 GMT, Dave
wrote:

Gauss' Law is for static electric charges and fields.

It is usually used for problems in electrostatics, but it is not
confined to such problems. The differential form of it is just one of
the Maxwell equations:

div E(x,t) = 4\pi\rho(x,t)

Integrate it over a fixed surface and you get the integral form, which
is Gauss's law. It is valid with time-dependent charge densities and
time-dependent electric fields.

--John

John, you have hit it on the nose. It is the logic that is important
and that logic applies for a resonant array in situ
inside a closed border whether time is variant or otherwise.
The importantant point of the underlying logic that all inside the
arbitary border must be in equilibrium at the cessation of time
because the issue is not the static particles but of the flux. Period
Thus the very reason for a conservative field in that
it is able to project static particles in terms of time if time was
added. For static particles time is not involved therefore
ALL vectors are of ZERO length and direction is an asumption based on
the action if and when time is added.
John, you included time but did not mention time variant, was this for
a reason? I have specifically use time variance since that enclosed
within the border is an array in equilibrium
from which the conservative field is drawn from.
I am so pleased that some one came along that concentrated on the
logic and not the retoric and abuse.
Art

Gaussian statics law
 

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 9 Mar, 22:13, (John E. Davis) wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:45:31 GMT, Dave
wrote:

Gauss' Law is for static electric charges and fields.

It is usually used for problems in electrostatics, but it is not
confined to such problems. The differential form of it is just one of
the Maxwell equations:

div E(x,t) = 4\pi\rho(x,t)

Integrate it over a fixed surface and you get the integral form, which
is Gauss's law. It is valid with time-dependent charge densities and
time-dependent electric fields.

--John

John, you have hit it on the nose. It is the logic that is important
and that logic applies for a resonant array in situ
inside a closed border whether time is variant or otherwise.
The importantant point of the underlying logic that all inside the
arbitary border must be in equilibrium at the cessation of time
because the issue is not the static particles but of the flux. Period
Thus the very reason for a conservative field in that
it is able to project static particles in terms of time if time was
added. For static particles time is not involved therefore
ALL vectors are of ZERO length and direction is an asumption based on
the action if and when time is added.
John, you included time but did not mention time variant, was this for
a reason? I have specifically use time variance since that enclosed
within the border is an array in equilibrium
from which the conservative field is drawn from.
I am so pleased that some one came along that concentrated on the
logic and not the retoric and abuse.
Art

he may have hit what you believe correctly.. but unfortunately it is not a
valid generalization. as i stated in my other message:

no, i'm afraid you can't just put a 't' on each side and have it make sense
in the general case. time varying charge implies a current, a current
implies a magnetic field, then you have to include Ampere's law and add
curl(E)=-dB/dt to the mix. while you may be able to constrain the changes
in rho(t) to some short time or constant current and eliminate the dB/dt
part of the problem, that would only apply in specific conditions, not to
the general case.

Gaussian statics law
 

On 10 Mar, 06:41, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...



On 9 Mar, 22:13, (John E. Davis) wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:45:31 GMT, Dave
wrote:

Gauss' Law is for static electric charges and fields.

It is usually used for problems in electrostatics, but it is not
confined to such problems. The differential form of it is just one of
the Maxwell equations:

div E(x,t) = 4\pi\rho(x,t)

Integrate it over a fixed surface and you get the integral form, which
is Gauss's law. It is valid with time-dependent charge densities and
time-dependent electric fields.

--John

John, you have hit it on the nose. It is the logic that is important
and that logic applies for a resonant array in situ
inside a closed border whether time is variant or otherwise.
The importantant point of the underlying logic that all inside the
arbitary border must be in equilibrium at the cessation of time
because the issue is not the static particles but of the flux. Period
Thus the very reason for a conservative field in that
it is able to project static particles in terms of time if time was
added. For static particles time is not involved therefore
ALL vectors are of ZERO length and direction is an asumption based on
the action if and when time is added.
John, you included time but did not mention time variant, was this for
a reason? I have specifically use time variance since that enclosed
within the border is an array in equilibrium
from which the conservative field is drawn from.
I am so pleased that some one came along that concentrated on the
logic and not the retoric and abuse.
Art

he may have hit what you believe correctly.. but unfortunately it is not a
valid generalization. as i stated in my other message:

no, i'm afraid you can't just put a 't' on each side and have it make sense
in the general case. time varying charge implies a current, a current
implies a magnetic field, then you have to include Ampere's law and add
curl(E)=-dB/dt to the mix. while you may be able to constrain the changes
in rho(t) to some short time or constant current and eliminate the dB/dt
part of the problem, that would only apply in specific conditions, not to
the general case.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thats O.K. David,
The appeal made for this thread was for people outside of America
since eamericans were more interested in other things and I am
assuming the Gentleman is from outside America. This discussion in the
past has been bedeviled with arraogance and abuse to the neglect of
logic, this has been the mode of this group for a very long time. If
there was not such derision you could have looked up Gaussian law on
the web where you would have found the mathematics behind the logic.
If you had done this you would have found that curl is a part of the
mathematical underpinning that in the event of time that part of the
equation is zero. If time was part o0f the logic then you insert the
value of curl in the equation, look up curl for your self and place it
in the original equation which you are not changing i.e. concentrate
on the mathematics and the underlying logic and the result becomes
apparent.( and I have stated as such in past threads)
This has been there for more than a hundred years so don't be
disappointed that you and others did not realise the significance.
It was my mathematical interest in antennas and circumstances that led
me to this discovery but now the door is open we can all have the
enjoyment of the paths that it reveals.
John, what is your call and where are you from? You are to be
congratulated for delving into logic without being sidetracked by
others. I was just at the point of giving up and to wait for my patent
application to be printed some time.
Regards
Art XG

Gaussian statics law
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
At 1 MHz, a photon has an energy level of
4x10^-9 eV while a gamma ray photon might have
an energy level of 4x10^+9 eV or higher.

So, do I get you right here?

Like a high power hunting rifle, the energy that the photon is "shot"
from the antenna at guarantees a far and straight course of projection
(at vhf+ freqs)--as opposed to the lowly bb gun where the bb with low
energy is forced to fall to the forces of gravity (on in the photons
case, the earths magnetosphere) and come to earth much sooner?

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

Gaussian statics law
 

John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

...
At 1 MHz, a photon has an energy level of
4x10^-9 eV while a gamma ray photon might have
an energy level of 4x10^+9 eV or higher.

So, do I get you right here?

Like a high power hunting rifle, the energy that the photon is "shot"
from the antenna at guarantees a far and straight course of projection
(at vhf+ freqs)--as opposed to the lowly bb gun where the bb with low
energy is forced to fall to the forces of gravity (on in the photons
case, the earths magnetosphere) and come to earth much sooner?

JS

The above is meant to be a bit "humorous", but you are stating HF is
much more prone to obey magnetic forces in the magnetosphere as opposed
to high freqs where photons are endowed with much more "kinetic energy"
in the form of the voltage(E) charge they have?

Since the law of conservation of energy exists, I am assuming you
consider some relationship of E/I to have changed in the VHF photon as
opposed to the HF photon--since there is no way for the 5 watts HF to
have different power levels than 5 watts VHF?

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com