Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() K7ITM wrote: Hi Jim, Some people may use only c-sub-zero for the speed of light in a vacuum, but most commonly I see it simply as c, a fundamental physical constant. To avoid confusion, I would HIGHLY recommend that either you be very explicit that you're using co as the constant, and c as the speed of light in whatever medium you're dealing with -- OR that you're using c as the constant and whatever other notation for the speed elsewhere. NIST lists the constant both ways: c, c-sub-zero. SEVERAL other places I just looked (reference books from my bookshelf; a web survey including US, UK and European sites--mostly physics sites; several university sites) only used c as the constant, except the NIST site and one other, which both listed it as c or c-sub-zero with equal weight. It's clearly a matter only of notation, but I'll elect to stay with the most commonly used notation, and from what I've seen just now, most think c is a constant. Cheers, Tom Hi Tom - This is becoming circuitous. What you're saying is exactly what led the original correspondent to be confused in the first place. Since the relavant equation doesn't read c = f*w/n, the only way to explain the phenomenon is by using a value of c that varies with medium. That was the entire point. 73. Jim AC6XG |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Newbie ?: I've Built A Simple 1/4 Wave Dipole for 2 Mtrs. Could IMake a1/2 Wave? | Antenna | |||
Newbie ?: I've Built A Simple 1/4 Wave Dipole for 2 Mtrs. Could IMake a1/2 Wave? | Homebrew |