|
Gaussian statics law
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 |
Gaussian statics law
"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. |
Gaussian statics law
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 |
Gaussian statics law
art wrote:
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? Because by the definition of "static field" nothing changes over time. snip remaining babbling nonsense -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Gaussian statics law
art wrote:
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? Art, Adding the "metric of time" is exactly what J.C. Maxwell did, in 1865. The detailed hard work surrounding Maxwell's Equations, as we know them today, was probably more attributable to Oliver Heaviside. However, Maxwell gets the credit for adding the time contribution. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Gaussian statics law
On 9 Mar, 06:45, wrote:
art wrote: On 9 Mar, 02:33, "Jimmie D" wrote: "art" wrote in message roups.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? Because by the definition of "static field" nothing changes over time. snip remaining babbling nonsense -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Jim, it is the logic applied that produces the law is what you should be concentrating on since that same logic can be applied elsewher. Think about a conservative fiels and what it represents. The static particles have vectors on them with a direction which one can use as the moment of forces IF the particles were acted upon. However in the case of static particles there can be no movement and by logic there can be no vectors. So looking at our conservative field with its vectors we can use the same logic applied for a static field by expanding the logic to include time whether it is zero time divided by two as with a conservative field that imagined the addition of that time and included a vector length of zero because after all the vectors were added as a product of time that was zero. Thus we can place true value vectors with true values using the same logic but placing a true value to time rather than a ficticious value of time in the case of a conservative field. Ofcourse since time is not now ficticious the right angled vector representing projection is part and parcel of time variance such that the vector must represent curl. Imagine the above is in a science book and the professor asks you to poke holes into it as an assignment. Your response surely would not be a jeering contest or you get a failing grade so think responsibly about the above and try to fault the use of the logic applied and not on one instance where it was known to be applied. Art |
Gaussian statics law
On 9 Mar, 06:49, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote: 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? Art, Adding the "metric of time" is exactly what J.C. Maxwell did, in 1865. The detailed hard work surrounding Maxwell's Equations, as we know them today, was probably more attributable to Oliver Heaviside. However, Maxwell gets the credit for adding the time contribution. 73, Gene W4SZ But he did not associate it with antennas period. In the previous post I applied the same logic to an antenna array and using the initial logic that Gauss used and which Maxwell enlarged upon for other reasons. And to follow the logic applied by Gauss one must focus on equilibrium such that the static particles on the enclosed antenna array MUST be in equilibrium or else all falls apart inside the enclosed border. Remember that static particles reside on the surface of a radiator when energy is not applied. It departes from the SURFACE when energy is applied and continues to do so as time passes by in a time varying form until time stops where at that time it must be in a state of equilibrium in static form Q.E.D Get back to the logistics and put all this other gottcha stuff out of your mind Art |
Gaussian statics law
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message ... art wrote: 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? Art, Adding the "metric of time" is exactly what J.C. Maxwell did, in 1865. The detailed hard work surrounding Maxwell's Equations, as we know them today, was probably more attributable to Oliver Heaviside. However, Maxwell gets the credit for adding the time contribution. unfortunately art is stuck on one of the 4 equations and is ignoring all the others. if he really understood maxwell's work he would know: Gauss' Law is for static electric charges and fields. Ampere's Law is for static magnetic fields, that is fields set up by constant (read non-time varying) currents. Faraday's Law introduced the time varying part of the relation between magnetic fields and currents. Then Maxwell tied them together with the displacement current into the 4 equations that we have been using and which have successfully been used to calculate all kinds of electromagnetic phenomena for many years. By talking about curl of electric fields art is forgetting that this is one of the representations of Faraday's law: curl(E)= -dB/dt (E and B are vectors of course) which automatically adds the time relationship that he is trying to force into Gauss's law where it has no place. personally i recommend ignoring him until he goes back to fields and waves 101 and gets the equations straight. |
Gaussian statics law
art wrote:
On 9 Mar, 06:45, wrote: snip old crap Because by the definition of "static field" nothing changes over time. snip remaining babbling nonsense -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Jim, it is the logic applied that produces the law is what you should be concentrating on since that same logic can be applied elsewher. Is this babble supposed to mean something? If something changes over time, it isn't static. If it isn't static, static laws don't apply. See Maxwell and friends for what applies when things are not static. snip rambling babble -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Gaussian statics law
art wrote:
On 9 Mar, 06:49, Gene Fuller wrote: art wrote: 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? Art, Adding the "metric of time" is exactly what J.C. Maxwell did, in 1865. The detailed hard work surrounding Maxwell's Equations, as we know them today, was probably more attributable to Oliver Heaviside. However, Maxwell gets the credit for adding the time contribution. 73, Gene W4SZ But he did not associate it with antennas period. Correct, he described EM fields in general. In the previous post I applied the same logic to an antenna array and using the initial logic that Gauss used and which Maxwell enlarged upon for other reasons. And to follow the logic applied by Gauss one must focus on equilibrium such that the static particles on the enclosed antenna array MUST be in equilibrium or else all falls apart inside the enclosed border. Remember that static particles reside on the surface of a radiator when energy is not applied. Babbling nonsense. The existance of static particles (whatever the hell they are, I presume you mean electrons) on the surface of a radiator has nothing to do with applied energy (other than maybe wind energy). It departes from the SURFACE when energy is applied and continues to do so as time passes by in a time varying form until time stops where at that time it must be in a state of equilibrium in static form Q.E.D More babbling nonsense. EM waves depart when energy is applied, not particles. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Gaussian statics law
|
Gaussian statics law
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: EM waves depart when energy is applied, not particles. Quantum Electrodynamics tells us that EM waves consist of photons which are particles. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com So, which is the real question: 1) Why do waves act like particles? --OR-- 2) Why do particles act like waves? JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
Gaussian statics law
On 9 Mar, 09:39, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: EM waves depart when energy is applied, not particles. Quantum Electrodynamics tells us that EM waves consist of photons which are particles. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Good for you Cecil, that is why I reffered earlier to alpha and beta instead of getting people involved in Quantum theory. Remember you are talking to old people who are retired or have been laid off because they haven't kept up with change. I suspect the electron aurgument will now take its place at the front inline with the education of old. Same way with regard to free particles residing on the surface of a conductor, that possibly was not understood in the dark ages either. The mode of discussion here is either they don't understand it or try to be a bit more assertive by saying it is garbage as a means of regaining their former statue of old but obviously that is not going to happen , sooner or later they will have to accept that. Art Art |
Gaussian statics law
John Smith I wrote:
So, which is the real question: How can a single photon go through two slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Gaussian statics law
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: EM waves depart when energy is applied, not particles. Quantum Electrodynamics tells us that EM waves consist of photons which are particles. Like other quanta the photon has both wave and particle properties, but has zero rest mass and is not a particle like an electron -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Gaussian statics law
art wrote:
Same way with regard to free particles residing on the surface of a conductor, Are you referring to free electrons? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Gaussian statics law
On 9 Mar, 10:28, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote: Same way with regard to free particles residing on the surface of a conductor, Are you referring to free electrons? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com No I would not presume that I know what they consist of. I have taken the aproach of descibing them in the "free" aproach for clarity Wife has just been taken to hospital so I must leave you to defend yourself for a while Cheers Art XG |
Gaussian statics law
|
Gaussian statics law
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... properties, but has zero rest mass and is not a particle like an electron 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!" You see it every day; it is called light. Photons are not particles because they have no rest mass; particles by definition do. If photons had mass, they couldn't travel at the speed of light. Or didn't you know that nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Gaussian statics law
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 it ceases to be detectable. A photon's mass derives from its speed-of-light velocity, i.e. it is 100% kinetic. Any particle with a resting mass would necessarily have infinite mass at the speed of light. Therefore, any particle with a finite mass at the speed of light must necessarily have a zero rest mass. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Gaussian statics law
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Photons are not particles because they have no rest mass; particles by definition do. Quantum ElectroDynamics tells us that nothing except particles exist. Photons are *particles* with zero rest mass. QED! (Get it? :-) Cecil, do you ever tire of playing semantic games? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Gaussian statics law
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Quantum ElectroDynamics tells us that nothing except particles exist. Photons are *particles* with zero rest mass. QED! (Get it? :-) Cecil, do you ever tire of playing semantic games? I never tire of semantic humor. A double meaning or, even better, a triple meaning, is one of the things that makes English so enjoyable. (And I really enjoy the "wench for sell" over on rec.radio.swap.) But seriously, QED indicates that everything that exists is a particle, even if it has no rest mass, even if it is only virtual. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Gaussian statics law
wrote:
... No, I am far from thinking light is actually "something." (at least not a "something" we are familiar with or have "true" examples of ...) It is unthinkable that any object/particle can exist without mass ... the discovery and absolute proof of that being possible is in our future; presently we only have theories ... I don't argue that it is impossible, rather only improbable. It is more than likely, like has happened so many times, when we know why rf waves appear to be both wave and particle, that physicists and mathematicians will go scurrying to their dens and emerge with new "laws." And, finally we will have a more complete picture of the phenomenon. We only see a puzzle, although we can "work with the puzzle", although we can "seem" to get meaningful data from this puzzle, or manipulate it to do useful things for us, although we "seem" to have laws, equations and formulas to describe this puzzle--we have been there and done that before--that is, we have rewritten those laws, equations and formulas to fit our new findings and started pretending we have reached the final conclusions and "know" the phenomenon--but then, at some future date, we do it all over again ... JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
Gaussian statics law
Cecil Moore wrote:
... the "wench for sell" over on rec.radio.swap.) ... How much is the wench? What does that wench look like, there a pic? grin JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
Gaussian statics law
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 it ceases to be detectable. A photon's mass derives from its speed-of-light velocity, i.e. it is 100% kinetic. Any particle with a resting mass would necessarily have infinite mass at the speed of light. Therefore, any particle with a finite mass at the speed of light must necessarily have a zero rest mass. Cecil: I know that is argued, and I suspect it all hogwash. If "they" have to create theories depending on disappearing particles, when you get one where you can take a look at one of them dern "particles", that is just TOO desperate. However, it does, in my personal opinion, suggest a STRONG relationship of the "particles" to the ether--the ether cannot be seen nor detected either ... (that is, IF it really exists, as I suspect it does ... ) JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
Gaussian statics law
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... No, I am far from thinking light is actually "something." (at least not a "something" we are familiar with or have "true" examples of ...) It is unthinkable that any object/particle can exist without mass ... the discovery and absolute proof of that being possible is in our future; presently we only have theories ... I don't argue that it is impossible, rather only improbable. It is more than likely, like has happened so many times, when we know why rf waves appear to be both wave and particle, that physicists and mathematicians will go scurrying to their dens and emerge with new "laws." And, finally we will have a more complete picture of the phenomenon. We only see a puzzle, although we can "work with the puzzle", although we can "seem" to get meaningful data from this puzzle, or manipulate it to do useful things for us, although we "seem" to have laws, equations and formulas to describe this puzzle--we have been there and done that before--that is, we have rewritten those laws, equations and formulas to fit our new findings and started pretending we have reached the final conclusions and "know" the phenomenon--but then, at some future date, we do it all over again ... Ignorant nonsense. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Gaussian statics law
wrote:
... Jim: I do believe much of higher academia, and the subjects which drives it, is above you, and confuses you--frankly, I think it all or most appears as BS to you ... That is too bad man. Perhaps a group centered around appliance usage would better suit you ... JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
Gaussian statics law
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? JS |
Gaussian statics law
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 |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com