|
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
In ancient Sanskrit writings, written on palm leaves, in India, long-long-ago, they described EVERYTHING only consisting of vibrations (matter/energy) ... vibrational planes (dimensions), etc. The ancient Summerians made a drawing of our solar system including Uranus and Pluto which are invisible to the naked eye. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Denny wrote:
... WHAT DO I WIN? denny / k8do BTW, while this is done in the spirit of fun all answers are accurate as best I can make them based on my understanding of physics For that, you get the golden quantum badge of know-it-all-ism. However, it has been misplaced; and, everyone is claiming they never touched it--only looked at it! Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Denny wrote:
So Cecil , what should I call incoherent photons? I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure you cannot call them a single wave (function). Speaking of which, I now feel the urge to put Beethoven's Fifth on the turntable... I prefer Glenlivet's fifth on my table. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Cecil Moore wrote:
... The ancient Summerians made a drawing of our solar system including Uranus and Pluto which are invisible to the naked eye. Well, I make fun of "them", "it" and "their writings", however--I probably shouldn't ... Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Owen Duffy wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in news:13dcljlrausna18 @corp.supernews.com: I know the answer to that one! And I also know who would be making the majority of the postings. .... but, more importantly the last posting. Owen And describing those who did not agree with him as idiots and fools! Dean -- W4IHK |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Dean Craft wrote:
... And describing those who did not agree with him as idiots and fools! Dean -- W4IHK Well, that is certainly one way to look at it. Another might be: Fools simply stop asking questions, accept mysteries, have a religious devotion to the idea, "All is already known!", shout at all who keep looking in cupboards for clues, etc., etc. ... time has a way of working some of this out. Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
Dean Craft wrote: ... And describing those who did not agree with him as idiots and fools! Dean -- W4IHK Well, that is certainly one way to look at it. Another might be: Fools simply stop asking questions, accept mysteries, have a religious devotion to the idea, "All is already known!", shout at all who keep looking in cupboards for clues, etc., etc. ... time has a way of working some of this out. I don't know anyone here that is that way. I do know people who have the temerity to question wild claims, and not accept them as fact until good and compelling proof is offered, or if it at least "works" to a close approximation. It is a mark of wisdom to understand that is prudent, not foolish. Has a person stopped asking questions if they ask a question about some new and unproven concept? The idea is to answer or discuss the question, not deride the questioner. Otherwise we sound like: Person 1: Boy the US healthcare system has some big problems Person 2: LIBERAL! Person 1: It's hot out today. Person 2: LIBERAL! - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Ohhh boy, another can of worms.
1) One mans poison is anothers' medicine. 2) People learn, a fool today--a genius tomorrow. 3) The three blind men go to see the elephant. 4) Mistakes are forgive-able. 5) etc. 6) etc. I am afraid with your offering, I cannot offer fitting argument ... we live, we learn. Regards, JS Michael Coslo wrote: I don't know anyone here that is that way. I do know people who have the temerity to question wild claims, and not accept them as fact until good and compelling proof is offered, or if it at least "works" to a close approximation. It is a mark of wisdom to understand that is prudent, not foolish. Has a person stopped asking questions if they ask a question about some new and unproven concept? The idea is to answer or discuss the question, not deride the questioner. Otherwise we sound like: Person 1: Boy the US healthcare system has some big problems Person 2: LIBERAL! Person 1: It's hot out today. Person 2: LIBERAL! - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 30 Aug, 08:15, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote: Dean Craft wrote: ... And describing those who did not agree with him as idiots and fools! Dean -- W4IHK Well, that is certainly one way to look at it. Another might be: Fools simply stop asking questions, accept mysteries, have a religious devotion to the idea, "All is already known!", shout at all who keep looking in cupboards for clues, etc., etc. ... time has a way of working some of this out. I don't know anyone here that is that way. I do know people who have the temerity to question wild claims, and not accept them as fact until good and compelling proof is offered, or if it at least "works" to a close approximation. It is a mark of wisdom to understand that is prudent, not foolish. Has a person stopped asking questions if they ask a question about some new and unproven concept? The idea is to answer or discuss the question, not deride the questioner. Otherwise we sound like: Person 1: Boy the US healthcare system has some big problems Person 2: LIBERAL! Person 1: It's hot out today. Person 2: LIBERAL! - 73 de Mike KB3EIA -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - John, to debate Proton s is to first describe it correctly. Some would say that protons are without mass and composed only of energy and onlso have momentum! Newton is quite clear that one has to have mass to have momentum and all the masters would state that you can't have equilibrium if a photon does not have mass. With respect to waves scientists state there are two types of waves! It would appear that more experimentation is to take place before this can be resoved. Art |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
"The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof is hard to come by." Proof of the wave property is abundant. Electrical energy escapes into free space in the form of waves. Countless observations prove it. The wavefront is composed of the electric and magnetic fields at right angles to each other and both are at right angles to the direction of travel. Direction of the electric flux is called the polarization of the wave. Voltage on a wire properly aligned with the electric field varies along the length of the wire and not very much across the width of the wire. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:30:23 -0700, art wrote:
With respect to waves scientists state there are two types of waves! Hi Arthur, They would (without breathless exclamation) explain they are ordinary and for centuries have been called transverse and longitudinal. It would appear that more experimentation is to take place before this can be resoved. For those same centuries, experimentation has been ongoing and has no implied necessity of stopping to ponder (aka resolving) any new wonder of Physics. The only surprise can come from one who misapplies these conventional terms - NEWS at 11! In that regard, the news is sadly of the Fox headlines variety that streams across the screen below creationist-intellectuals (sic) screaming about the pollution of science (sic) with humanistic left-wing bias. Those snippets of disneyfied science will inform (sic) you about mind control through sonic waves never before known (sic) to have that ability. A scientist would explain it was due to enormous power levels compressing the medium to non-linearity wherein a second source could mix with it to produce heterodyning. The second source could be modulated with a voice such that the target (a person) would hear "God speaking to them." That being the breathlessly announced mind control. I should quickly modify that with: a scientist would attempt to explain, but sonic mind control of the rather more prosaic means of yelling would overwhelm him, followed by a break for a commercial and the hosts' call for Fox security to take the heretic away. Sound, by the way, consists of both transverse and longitudinal wave components. This becomes meaningful if your detector (antenna) is small in relation to the wavelength. And as few relate Photons to sound, they should be advised the two are quite integral to the most commonplace reactions. For some, this may take quite some time to resolve. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Richard Harrison wrote:
John Smith wrote: "The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof is hard to come by." Proof of the wave property is abundant. Electrical energy escapes into free space in the form of waves. Countless observations prove it. ... Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard: You sing to the choir, and waves need a media to propagate through/on .... plus, just as an extra kicker, they appear enough as particles to have an arguable point--which brings us here. Well, unless that thinking is wrong and there is no ether (medium.) And, radio "waves" are nothing but flying packets of energy stings ... scratches head Warmest regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 30 Aug, 10:32, John Smith wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote: John Smith wrote: "The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof is hard to come by." Proof of the wave property is abundant. Electrical energy escapes into free space in the form of waves. Countless observations prove it. ... Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard: You sing to the choir, and waves need a media to propagate through/on ... plus, just as an extra kicker, they appear enough as particles to have an arguable point--which brings us here. Well, unless that thinking is wrong and there is no ether (medium.) And, radio "waves" are nothing but flying packets of energy stings ... scratches head Warmest regards, JS Agreed. Evidence is that the particles are separated from its companion radiator into space and those that do not escape are drawn back to the radiatior where it decay's. There is no "abundance" of evidence to either side of the particle wave debate, only the evidence that has been chosen for the moment at least until the printer of science books get back to work again. Ofcourse some say if it is in a book then that is what is correct, just like on the web! Of course if one considers that a particle that is projected into space creates a magnetic field then the question is what came first, the particulate or the magnetic field of constant polarity. Art |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Aug 30, 9:32 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Denny wrote: So Cecil , what should I call incoherent photons? I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure you cannot call them a single wave (function). Speaking of which, I now feel the urge to put Beethoven's Fifth on the turntable... I prefer Glenlivet's fifth on my table. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Ahhha, so that's where the incoherent photons come from! |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
art wrote:
... only the evidence that has been chosen for the moment at least until the printer of science books get back to work again. Ofcourse some say if it is in a book then that is what is correct, just like on the web! ... Art Art: When we make this final leap, explain that one-more-thing which will trigger that flood of understanding, that revelation, that epiphany--we will only look back and marvel that it took us so long--that we were so close, for so long ... An example is the atomic bomb. We always knew that if you pile up a lot of pure radioactive material--you get heat--we speculated with a great belief that an explosion from this process was possible. But putting it all together, getting the right isotope with the extra atomic particles available and a system to SLAM! enough of the material together (~2.2Kg) and an "exploding bottle" of force to surround it and keep it together so it didn't just melt/vaporize/weak-poof but would burst out in a healthy explosion, until then, we hadn't really discovered the atomic bomb ... We stand such a threshold now, this "silence of new discovery" only leads before the "storm of revelation(s)", that very next step may take us there ... or, so I hope. Somewhere out there is the mind(s) which will accomplish it. We simply need to continue the discussion and search--keep the candle in the window. Simply put, we need an Einstein and a Manhattan Project. Or, perhaps we only just need a bunch more high IQ "kooks" in their basements with wires and reactances--thinking and building from their imaginations. Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
WHAT DO I WIN? denny / k8do BTW, while this is done in the spirit of fun all answers are accurate as best I can make them based on my understanding of physics Good answers! - you win my respect. I saw a program on Public TV a while back, and they were trying to tie Macro and micro mechanics together with a String theory. There were several dimensions, and according to that program, It appears gravity waves might be the only common 'thread' between the several dimensions, and may hold the key to communications from one dimension to another. Now I want THAT transceiver! A gravity-wave transceiver. CQ, CQ, CQ 8th Dimension Dahdidi dit diDahdah dididididah didahdahdit dahdah didahdahdah How can we modulate graviry waves Then demodulate them and make sense of the result? We need Radio shack for some answers. Yes sir, do you have a Gravity-Wave Walkie-Talkie? |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 30 Aug, 15:31, John Smith wrote:
art wrote: ... only the evidence that has been chosen for the moment at least until the printer of science books get back to work again. Ofcourse some say if it is in a book then that is what is correct, just like on the web! ... Art Art: When we make this final leap, explain that one-more-thing which will trigger that flood of understanding, that revelation, that epiphany--we will only look back and marvel that it took us so long--that we were so close, for so long ... An example is the atomic bomb. We always knew that if you pile up a lot of pure radioactive material--you get heat--we speculated with a great belief that an explosion from this process was possible. But putting it all together, getting the right isotope with the extra atomic particles available and a system to SLAM! enough of the material together (~2.2Kg) and an "exploding bottle" of force to surround it and keep it together so it didn't just melt/vaporize/weak-poof but would burst out in a healthy explosion, until then, we hadn't really discovered the atomic bomb ... We stand such a threshold now, this "silence of new discovery" only leads before the "storm of revelation(s)", that very next step may take us there ... or, so I hope. Somewhere out there is the mind(s) which will accomplish it. We simply need to continue the discussion and search--keep the candle in the window. Simply put, we need an Einstein and a Manhattan Project. Or, perhaps we only just need a bunch more high IQ "kooks" in their basements with wires and reactances--thinking and building from their imaginations. Regards, JS Yup..And after that person dies and only after he dies will people examine what he found and depending on the favorable publicity of the time will they consider its validity. To acknowledge its validity while the man is still alive means acceptance that the man is the smartest of all a tribute that no man is willing to assign. For instance, if I stated that I had a dipole for 160 meters that was rotatable only snarls and laughter would be heard since it is NOT something that one WANTS to believe, because, if it was really possible he himself would have made it. Art |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Hal Rosser wrote:
... Now I want THAT transceiver! A gravity-wave transceiver. ... If I remember correctly, Alexander Graham Bell was working on a device to communicate with the dead, just before his end? Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
K7ITM wrote in
ups.com: On Aug 29, 4:11 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing antennas emitting photons? And, I would answer: Photon emissions from an antenna element(s) seems difficult, at best, to visualize (no pun intended.) Consider a 1/2 inch dia. single element antenna (monopole?) If the thing is emitting photons, one would think the photons are being emitted equally around the elements circumference. Well, now flatten that 1/2 dia rod into a very thin ribbon--however, the ribbon still has the same area of cross section, and equal to the cross section of the round rod. If this conductor is emitting photons, one would expect them, now, to be off the two flat sides of the element and relative few off the sides--indeed, one would now expect this element to be becoming directional in two favored directions--off the flat sides ... to date, I have NOT been able to measure an acceptable difference to reinforce the "illumination properties" of the element. The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof hard to come by. Regards, JS John Imagine your ribbon antena flattened to the thickness of a razor blade. Instead of using RF, heat the antenna with a blow torch until it becomes white hot. It is only when looking at the exact edge of the antenna that any appreciable drop in light out put will be noticed. At all broadside angles an appreciable amount of light would be seen. The same effects can be expected to occur at RF but the majority of amateur test equipment would not have the resolution to measure the dip with the antenna edge on. The width of the receiving antenna and diffraction effects would tend to hide this in the far field, and alignment, reflection effects and manufacturing tolerances in the near field. Or perhaps more appropriately, with visible light being around 500 nanometers wavelength, imagine your antenna wire being about 0.01 nanometers thick and 1 nanometer wide (and 250 nanometers long, if you wish) ... Now does you intuition tell you anything useful about the angular distribution of emitted photons? I suppose not. The real reason that photons are not a particularly useful concept in RF design is that they are vanishingly small in energy, due to the rather long wavelenths. I doubt if there is any equipment that would actually intercept a MEASURABLE photon at most radio frequencies. You cannot always say that of short-wavelength gamma rays or even light. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 30 Aug, 23:33, Dave Oldridge wrote:
snip The real reason that photons are not a particularly useful concept in RF design is that they are vanishingly small in energy, due to the rather long wavelenths. I doubt if there is any equipment that would actually intercept a MEASURABLE photon at most radio frequencies. You cannot always say that of short-wavelength gamma rays or even light. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It seams that many here have aligned themselvezs with modern relativistic theories expoused by scientists and lately championed by Einstein. Yet to do this pushes aside great scientists of the past such as Newton, Ohm and many others with phoney thinking. The next decade will push aside this ludicrous thinking and move back to Newtonian thinking where "equilibrium" was always at center stage. Gravitation is at the center of all science and to build on anything else is to place a foundation on sand. Particulates DO have mass which thus places it firmly into Newtons Laws of physics areana which has never been disproved. Regards Art |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
Somewhere out there is the mind(s) which will accomplish it. Whoever developed the technique of correctly "guessing" the state of quantum Qubit particles without collapsing their probability functions gets a tip of the hat from me. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Hal Rosser wrote:
How can we modulate graviry waves Modulating a gravity wave would probably distort the space-time occupied by the operator. Maybe best to limit operation to QRP levels. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Aug 30, 11:33 pm, Dave Oldridge
wrote: K7ITM wrote roups.com: On Aug 29, 4:11 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing antennas emitting photons? And, I would answer: Photon emissions from an antenna element(s) seems difficult, at best, to visualize (no pun intended.) Consider a 1/2 inch dia. single element antenna (monopole?) If the thing is emitting photons, one would think the photons are being emitted equally around the elements circumference. Well, now flatten that 1/2 dia rod into a very thin ribbon--however, the ribbon still has the same area of cross section, and equal to the cross section of the round rod. If this conductor is emitting photons, one would expect them, now, to be off the two flat sides of the element and relative few off the sides--indeed, one would now expect this element to be becoming directional in two favored directions--off the flat sides ... to date, I have NOT been able to measure an acceptable difference to reinforce the "illumination properties" of the element. The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof hard to come by. Regards, JS John Imagine your ribbon antena flattened to the thickness of a razor blade. Instead of using RF, heat the antenna with a blow torch until it becomes white hot. It is only when looking at the exact edge of the antenna that any appreciable drop in light out put will be noticed. At all broadside angles an appreciable amount of light would be seen. The same effects can be expected to occur at RF but the majority of amateur test equipment would not have the resolution to measure the dip with the antenna edge on. The width of the receiving antenna and diffraction effects would tend to hide this in the far field, and alignment, reflection effects and manufacturing tolerances in the near field. Or perhaps more appropriately, with visible light being around 500 nanometers wavelength, imagine your antenna wire being about 0.01 nanometers thick and 1 nanometer wide (and 250 nanometers long, if you wish) ... Now does you intuition tell you anything useful about the angular distribution of emitted photons? I suppose not. The real reason that photons are not a particularly useful concept in RF design is that they are vanishingly small in energy, due to the rather long wavelenths. I doubt if there is any equipment that would actually intercept a MEASURABLE photon at most radio frequencies. You cannot always say that of short-wavelength gamma rays or even light. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Yes, exactly. As I pointed out in another posting in this thread, for 14MHz electromagnetic radiation, it takes about 1e6 quanta per second to equal the noise power in a one Hz bandwidth in a resistor at room temperature. I suppose it could be open to discussion exactly _what_ the low energy per quantum is due to. That might be more interesting than a lot else that's gone on in this thread, so far. |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 31 Aug, 09:01, K7ITM wrote:
On Aug 30, 11:33 pm, Dave Oldridge wrote: K7ITM wrote roups.com: On Aug 29, 4:11 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing antennas emitting photons? And, I would answer: Photon emissions from an antenna element(s) seems difficult, at best, to visualize (no pun intended.) Consider a 1/2 inch dia. single element antenna (monopole?) If the thing is emitting photons, one would think the photons are being emitted equally around the elements circumference. Well, now flatten that 1/2 dia rod into a very thin ribbon--however, the ribbon still has the same area of cross section, and equal to the cross section of the round rod. If this conductor is emitting photons, one would expect them, now, to be off the two flat sides of the element and relative few off the sides--indeed, one would now expect this element to be becoming directional in two favored directions--off the flat sides ... to date, I have NOT been able to measure an acceptable difference to reinforce the "illumination properties" of the element. The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof hard to come by. Regards, JS John Imagine your ribbon antena flattened to the thickness of a razor blade. Instead of using RF, heat the antenna with a blow torch until it becomes white hot. It is only when looking at the exact edge of the antenna that any appreciable drop in light out put will be noticed. At all broadside angles an appreciable amount of light would be seen. The same effects can be expected to occur at RF but the majority of amateur test equipment would not have the resolution to measure the dip with the antenna edge on. The width of the receiving antenna and diffraction effects would tend to hide this in the far field, and alignment, reflection effects and manufacturing tolerances in the near field. Or perhaps more appropriately, with visible light being around 500 nanometers wavelength, imagine your antenna wire being about 0.01 nanometers thick and 1 nanometer wide (and 250 nanometers long, if you wish) ... Now does you intuition tell you anything useful about the angular distribution of emitted photons? I suppose not. The real reason that photons are not a particularly useful concept in RF design is that they are vanishingly small in energy, due to the rather long wavelenths. I doubt if there is any equipment that would actually intercept a MEASURABLE photon at most radio frequencies. You cannot always say that of short-wavelength gamma rays or even light. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Yes, exactly. As I pointed out in another posting in this thread, for 14MHz electromagnetic radiation, it takes about 1e6 quanta per second to equal the noise power in a one Hz bandwidth in a resistor at room temperature. I suppose it could be open to discussion exactly _what_ the low energy per quantum is due to. That might be more interesting than a lot else that's gone on in this thread, so far.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Oh I don't know about that. I find some of the comments quite interesting since it shows that there are some interested thinkers out there who are interested in relativistic versus particulate theorems and its connection to electro magnetic waves. The thread has certainly attracted a lot of attention from hams interested in the mystery of communication transmission beyond the glib and unverifiable statements made by some . Art |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Dave Oldridge wrote:
... The real reason that photons are not a particularly useful concept in RF design is that they are vanishingly small in energy, due to the rather long wavelenths. I doubt if there is any equipment that would actually intercept a MEASURABLE photon at most radio frequencies. You cannot always say that of short-wavelength gamma rays or even light. Yeah. And, photons like razor edges, with a passion! ROFLOL! JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
art wrote:
... build on anything else is to place a foundation on sand. Particulates DO have mass ... Regards Art Ever seen a radiometer? What do you think turns those vanes--if it ain't the "mass" of photons striking the plates? So, back to square one, again? Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
K7ITM wrote:
... the low energy per quantum is due to. That might be more interesting than a lot else that's gone on in this thread, so far. Don't be surprised if you do not receive a greater return than what you put into this thread, don't expect much at his point ... perhaps later? Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Whoever developed the technique of correctly "guessing" the state of quantum Qubit particles without collapsing their probability functions gets a tip of the hat from me. Stop already Cecil, I already know your mind has this kind of potential ... But, we can have some fun with 'em :-) Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:20:50 -0700, John Smith
wrote: What do you think turns those vanes--if it ain't the "mass" of photons striking the plates? Hmm, dare anyone ask either of you for a simple computation to support this notion of "mass?" If Arthur is so wedded to a Newtonian universe, it should be a walk in the apple orchard. A very simple question of rotational kinematics: How much power is required to accelerate the 1 gram mass of the vanes from 0cM/s to 1cM/s in 10s? Extra credit: How many photons does it take to do this? Extra special, super duper credit: What is the weight of one of those photons? You can use your calculator to convert mass to slugs in an Earth environment. Of course, this may be an egregious speculation of ability if the prior compuations are begged (or whined) off with extraneous demands (not worth Newton's spit) for parsing F=MA. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Aug 31, 12:36 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:20:50 -0700, John Smith wrote: What do you think turns those vanes--if it ain't the "mass" of photons striking the plates? Hmm, dare anyone ask either of you for a simple computation to support this notion of "mass?" If Arthur is so wedded to a Newtonian universe, it should be a walk in the apple orchard. A very simple question of rotational kinematics: How much power is required to accelerate the 1 gram mass of the vanes from 0cM/s to 1cM/s in 10s? Extra credit: How many photons does it take to do this? Extra special, super duper credit: What is the weight of one of those photons? You can use your calculator to convert mass to slugs in an Earth environment. Of course, this may be an egregious speculation of ability if the prior compuations are begged (or whined) off with extraneous demands (not worth Newton's spit) for parsing F=MA. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC I'm left with the impression that JS, at least, hasn't a clue about how those little radiometers actually work. (Or perhaps he just thinks he's having fun with a little trolling.) Answers to your questions, of course, won't get him there. Here are a couple of questions that just might: Just how good is the vacuum in one of those radiometers? What happens if you evacuate the globe down to, say, 1e-6 Torr? Cheers, Tom |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:54:51 -0700, K7ITM wrote:
I'm left with the impression that JS, at least, hasn't a clue about how those little radiometers actually work. Hi Tom, I was thinking more of Arthur who is quick to hug Newton's corpse to prove his own "theory." (Or perhaps he just thinks he's having fun with a little trolling.) Brett will plead guilty to that faster than an Idaho Senator in a Minneapolis Airport lockup. Answers to your questions, of course, won't get him there. Actually, I think they would. ...But not so handily as scribbling a few lines of fluff passing as deep insights into the mysteries Einstein couldn't fathom (like building a gaussian array). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 31 Aug, 14:40, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:54:51 -0700, K7ITM wrote: I'm left with the impression that JS, at least, hasn't a clue about how those little radiometers actually work. Hi Tom, I was thinking more of Arthur who is quick to hug Newton's corpse to prove his own "theory." (Or perhaps he just thinks he's having fun with a little trolling.) Brett will plead guilty to that faster than an Idaho Senator in a Minneapolis Airport lockup. Answers to your questions, of course, won't get him there. Actually, I think they would. ...But not so handily as scribbling a few lines of fluff passing as deep insights into the mysteries Einstein couldn't fathom (like building a gaussian array). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Einstein hasbeenproven wrong many many times. Einstein also did not produce the Gaussian array since it would prove him wrong once again. Haven't you got anything to contribute of a technical nature other than following news from Minninapolis airport stalls ? |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:22:21 -0700, art wrote:
Einstein hasbeenproven wrong many many times. Hi Arthur, Saying that was simpler than doing Newton's math, certainly. :-P.... (the web version of Newton's rasberry) Let's make this simpler. Can you give us the mass of a photon within 6 orders of magnitude? Can Brett? And, more important, if I did, would you reference me? (Gad what a prospect that would be - enough to convert satan to scientology.) For extra credit for that massive Photon: What is its dimensions? (radius, distance on a side, whathaveyou) Extra stupidous credit question: If a 10 base-pair strand of DNA is 3.5 nM long; and we have a 550 nM Photon illuminating it; would it crush the strand? Hint: The DNA strand has mass, we can weigh and tell you that, and the Photon (if massive) dimensions are 157 time larger. Now this may be like comparing feathers to lead, so perhaps you might know what the Relative Density of Photons are? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Richard Clark wrote:
... Actually, I think they would. ...But not so handily as scribbling a few lines of fluff passing as deep insights into the mysteries Einstein couldn't fathom (like building a gaussian array). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC :-) Regards, Brett! :-) |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
art wrote:
... Einstein hasbeenproven wrong many many times. Einstein also did not produce the Gaussian array since it would prove him wrong once again. Haven't you got anything to contribute of a technical nature other than following news from Minninapolis airport stalls ? Art: Actually, when I first came into this group, I was on Richards' A55 ... I changed my mind, he "encrypts" chit into his text which is not a first apparent ... check it out dude ... Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 31 Aug, 17:11, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:22:21 -0700, art wrote: Einstein hasbeenproven wrong many many times. Hi Arthur, Saying that was simpler than doing Newton's math, certainly. :-P.... (the web version of Newton's rasberry) Let's make this simpler. Can you give us the mass of a photon within 6 orders of magnitude? Can Brett? And, more important, if I did, would you reference me? (Gad what a prospect that would be - enough to convert satan to scientology.) For extra credit for that massive Photon: What is its dimensions? (radius, distance on a side, whathaveyou) Extra stupidous credit question: If a 10 base-pair strand of DNA is 3.5 nM long; and we have a 550 nM Photon illuminating it; would it crush the strand? Hint: The DNA strand has mass, we can weigh and tell you that, and the Photon (if massive) dimensions are 157 time larger. Now this may be like comparing feathers to lead, so perhaps you might know what the Relative Density of Photons are? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC John I think the thread just died. Opponnent have no answers so they pose questions to change the subject. I believe they have no idea either way what is correct since they don't know enough to debate it. Give them time to read a book and see what they can come up with. It certainly will not be mathematical based on their mathematical responses to Gaussian law integral equations and the equality to Maxwellian laws. In the U.K. everything is not equated to size as a measure of importance and their is a rhyme that goes.... For the sake of a nail a shoe was lost. For the sake of a shoe a horse was lost. For the sake of a horse a king was lost. And for the sake of a king a kingdom was lost. A little nail can have huge importance way beyond its size. On the other side of the coin when the U.S. exploded an airial H bomb in the fifties the emitted radio energy knocked out all of Honolulu's power network. Since the bomb did not have an antenna the particulates in the bomb must have had a horrendos speed where its energy blew all the fuses. No wonder the millitary immediatly returned to tube radios. Yes Richard, I can see why you think what goes on at airport stalls is more interesting since you are so unlike the rest of us on this thread. |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Aug 31, 2:40 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:54:51 -0700, K7ITM wrote: ... Answers to your questions, of course, won't get him there. Actually, I think they would. Seriously?? Wow. |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 29 Aug, 20:47, K7ITM wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:35 pm, John Smith wrote: K7ITM wrote: ... On the other hand, there's probably not much utility in discussing photons of, say, a 14MHz signal, simply because the energy contained in one quantum at that frequency is so small that you won't be able to detect it: a little less than 10^-26 joules per photon. At one photon per second, that's under 10^-26 watts, if you collect all the energy. At 50 ohms, that's less than a picovolt. Noise in a 1Hz bandwidth in a 50 ohm resistor at room temperature is about a thousand times that much. -- Yes, the energy is quantized. But the quanta are going to be _very_ difficult to distinguish. Cheers, Tom If there are, indeed, as many photons being emitted by the thin edge of the ribbon, as by the broad edges, what law/effect/affect is being demonstrated here? Or. why are the photons "drawn" to the thin edge with such magnitude of force? The 14MHz photons are being emitted by the whole antenna, not by "broad edges" or "thin edges" as you suggest. You seem to be thinking of them as little tiny balls, or some such. That mental image just doesn't hold water. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, photons do not behave like billiard balls. They don't behave like anything you have encountered in the macro world we live in. There are some decent "modern physics for the masses" books that will explain to you some of the behaviour that you will probably think very strange, if you are thinking in terms of how the macro particles you're familiar with behave. Even particles like electrons, neutrons and protons don't behave like large spheres. They have distinct "wave- like" behaviour. As a start, it would probably help if you dropped "wave" and "photon" (particle) from your vocabulary when dealing with things like this and realize that the antenna emits a stream of quantized energy, with characteristics that can be described accurately without resorting to "particles" or "waves". If you had no idea what a passenger airplane was, but you were familiar with birds and busses, would you get into a discussion about the new thing being a bird and not a bus, or a bus and not a bird? Or would you realize that it has some characteristics of each, but is neither, and deserves a description all its own? Quantized radiation is rather like that. You will NOT describe it accurately as either "waves" or "particles" (in the macro sense). Cheers, Tom- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I like that explanation, a "packet" or a "swarm" of particles in pulsatic form. That last additive bit is extremely important because the escape co ordinates change with each pulse. This should satisfy those who seem to be more concerned with the size or shape of particulates. The bird part is especially interesting since a swarm of birds emulate equilibrium in mass form without collisions. Art |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 29 Aug, 12:53, John Smith wrote:
Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing antennas emitting photons? And, I would answer: Photon emissions from an antenna element(s) seems difficult, at best, to visualize (no pun intended.) Consider a 1/2 inch dia. single element antenna (monopole?) If the thing is emitting photons, one would think the photons are being emitted equally around the elements circumference. Well, now flatten that 1/2 dia rod into a very thin ribbon--however, the snip The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof hard to come by. Regards, JS Come on John Study Gauss and all becomes clear Art |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:11:20 -0700, art wrote:
Opponnent have no answers Hi Arthur, Can't substantiate the mass of the Photon? Your admission puts the amen to it. Your pronouncements thus enter into the category of superstition. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com