|
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Aug 31, 3:36 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 Uhhh, gawd, I hate to even get into THIS mess... But, somebody has gotta do it... First guys, photons hitting the blades of the radiometer do not turn it by F=MA... If it did were we so lucky then NASA is wasting a hell of a lot of money designing the mars rockets when all they have to do is have the space shuttle throw out a sail and have their heads snap back as they are accellerated like a half drunk blond hitting the gas pedal in a red corvette... Actually, the radiometer blades turn because infrared energy differentially heats the black surface of the blade as opposed to the silver surface, causing it to differentially heat the local air molecules on that side of the blade as opposed to the silver side... The more energetic bombardment of the black surace by the heated molecules as opposed to the less energetic bombardment on the silver surface causes a differential in pressure that pushes the blade on its way... (no Virginia, that is not a vacuum inside the radiometer, just high altitude - and yes there is no Santa Claus - now come over here and sit on my lap) denny |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 31 Aug, 17:58, John Smith wrote:
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 John, I don't quite understand what you are saying......."encrypts chits" that is completely foreign to me. Are you saying wrapped in a enigma? I have never really understood him so maybe I am missing something! And that "A55" comment, don't understand that either. Regards Art |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
art wrote:
... Come on John Study Gauss and all becomes clear Art Clear? Hmmm. Sure you don't strive to over simplify a bit? But, ok. When I lay down a bar neodymium magnet, cover it with a sheet of paper and sprinkle iron powder upon it, to see the lines of force--what are those lines depicting? Are those photons? Are those waves? Are you completely sure they are only of static properties--and some type of movement is not occurring just outside my range of vision and ability to measure? Are they contained within a media I cannot see and measure? It is quite easy for me to generate those same lines of force with an electric energies' flow though a conductor. And, the reverse is also easy to accomplish, I can cause an electric energy to be generated by moving a conductor though these lines of force. I suspect, in the future, it will be easy to switch matter and energies' states back in forth, with similar ease. But, at this point, clear? Surely your vision is much better than my own ... And, if I am unable to get my mind completely wrapped around this problem, to be able to claim I understand this with precision--how would I suddenly be able to make claims about the much more complex? But, if you have the time, enlighten me, what is gravities relationship to magnetism? Is there a reason their properties share similar characteristics/behaviors? Know of any "iron powder tricks" to allow me to see gravities lines of force? I think gauss is a link in a chain--not a complete answer in itself, and a chain which is still missing links ... Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 2 Sep, 07:31, John Smith wrote:
art wrote: ... Come on John Study Gauss and all becomes clear Art Clear? Hmmm. Sure you don't strive to over simplify a bit? But, ok. When I lay down a bar neodymium magnet, cover it with a sheet of paper and sprinkle iron powder upon it, to see the lines of force--what are those lines depicting? Are those photons? Are those waves? Are you completely sure they are only of static properties--and some type of movement is not occurring just outside my range of vision and ability to measure? Are they contained within a media I cannot see and measure? It is quite easy for me to generate those same lines of force with an electric energies' flow though a conductor. And, the reverse is also easy to accomplish, I can cause an electric energy to be generated by moving a conductor though these lines of force. I suspect, in the future, it will be easy to switch matter and energies' states back in forth, with similar ease. But, at this point, clear? Surely your vision is much better than my own ... And, if I am unable to get my mind completely wrapped around this problem, to be able to claim I understand this with precision--how would I suddenly be able to make claims about the much more complex? But, if you have the time, enlighten me, what is gravities relationship to magnetism? Is there a reason their properties share similar characteristics/behaviors? Know of any "iron powder tricks" to allow me to see gravities lines of force? I think gauss is a link in a chain--not a complete answer in itself, and a chain which is still missing links ... Regards, JS John, The moment one introduces equilibrium into the equation it becomes a whole new ball game. I asked you to do something with an antenna design, remember. Because therein lies the clue to all this instead of talking around the houses. Talking has proved nothing so try my way! Today I am going to put my 160 meter antenna onto the top of my tower so that I can try to get the impedance higher tho it is useable at present on the ground.(Resonated at 20 ohms) I made one for 80M and it was 60 ohms and the gain was undeniable. I think only a 160M antenna will get believers so I will use one this winter on the bands. Yes I said bands (plural) Nobody has done this before and I am sharing it with you. In the next week or so I will attach it to a rotator to see what the directional pattern is. (Actually I have two styles of this new antenna made). If you did as I asked you may well have that next step that you talk about. Seeing is believing so why not take a look for your self. Send me an Email if you hit a problem. I am sharing it with you purely to put a lot of these experts in their place so you will have what they can't have or want. You certainly will be closer to derive the answer for yourself Art |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
art wrote:
... If you did as I asked you may well have that next step that you talk about. Seeing is believing so why not take a look for your self. ... Art Art: Sorry, but that is/would not be easy for me at present. I have moved into a smaller place. I am getting too old to maintain a large yard/home, etc.--even my antenna experiments are on a shrinking scale. Plus, I do more communications via IRC, instant messaging, email, news posting, video chat, cell phone, etc. than I ever did on amateur bands .... a sign of the times, perhaps. I have been focused in a much different direction--small, stealth antennas are the mode of the day here--I attempt to stay 10-100 watts, just local traffic with a handful of friends. Bought a new ford explorer and am not even going to bother moving the rig to it, besides, I have to bring the antenna in if I park the car on the street--cell phone is just too easy. Indeed, the XYL is favoring a 3 bedroom modular in a park with gated security--all cement--no yard--I may end up giving in to her wishes. The new area we have moved into is not without drug/gang/graffiti/ethnic-diversity problems--my own fault (graffiti on the car/fence/house, tires slashed and windows smashed if you leave the car outside at night, stabbing in a park just blocks away, etc.) ... even the nicer areas of town are five bedrooms with five different families of unknown ethnic origin occupying them--frequent marijuana growing busts. :-( Geesh, I have gotten old and the world has changed--my kingdom for a few good neighbors ... at least at this location I have high speed DSL! (was using clearwire at old place and signal was poor, I had to "hack" the clearwire modem for an external antenna) I will be looking forward for any information about your endeavors ... Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 08:56:48 -0700, art wrote:
The moment one introduces equilibrium into the equation Hi Arthur, Ever wondered how the Latins used the root 'equ' in those two words? The Latins also introduced the sugar into their sucrose (and did not introduce nutrition into nutrasweet); and discovered petrol in our petroleum; and poured aqua into his aquarium; and played euchre with the eucharist; and laughed at the saccharine in this sacrament; and slipped librium into someone's library.... Language be whack 2 what wrote in ebonics o' tennas. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On 2 Sep, 09:45, John Smith wrote:
art wrote: ... If you did as I asked you may well have that next step that you talk about. Seeing is believing so why not take a look for your self. ... Art Art: Sorry, but that is/would not be easy for me at present. I have moved into a smaller place. I am getting too old to maintain a large yard/home, etc.--even my antenna experiments are on a shrinking scale. Plus, I do more communications via IRC, instant messaging, email, news posting, video chat, cell phone, etc. than I ever did on amateur bands ... a sign of the times, perhaps. I have been focused in a much different direction--small, stealth antennas are the mode of the day here--I attempt to stay 10-100 watts, just local traffic with a handful of friends. Bought a new ford explorer and am not even going to bother moving the rig to it, besides, I have to bring the antenna in if I park the car on the street--cell phone is just too easy. Indeed, the XYL is favoring a 3 bedroom modular in a park with gated security--all cement--no yard--I may end up giving in to her wishes. The new area we have moved into is not without drug/gang/graffiti/ethnic-diversity problems--my own fault (graffiti on the car/fence/house, tires slashed and windows smashed if you leave the car outside at night, stabbing in a park just blocks away, etc.) ... even the nicer areas of town are five bedrooms with five different families of unknown ethnic origin occupying them--frequent marijuana growing busts. :-( Geesh, I have gotten old and the world has changed--my kingdom for a few good neighbors ... at least at this location I have high speed DSL! (was using clearwire at old place and signal was poor, I had to "hack" the clearwire modem for an external antenna) I will be looking forward for any information about your endeavors ... Regards, JS I'll get it to you Art |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Richard Clark wrote:
and poured aqua into his aquarium; and performed hysterectomies to avoid hysteria. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing antennas emitting photons? ... Regards, JS Ok. So you pose your arguments why photons are at play ... I listen, we move to the second level ... On which, I respond; "Why would the mere length/phasing of elements on an antenna be able to cause one to act as a mirror (the one longer than DE) and the other as a director (the one shorter than DE)? All I can visualize are swarms of these little energy bundles (their shape is important to some, however, at this exact point, not me) colliding with those being emitted from the DE--then, swarms of these little energy bundles being emitted from the director are only leaving in a forward direction--causing a vacuum and pulling those emitted from the DE along with 'em, and along with those "repulsed" from the reflector ... I really am in need of a good explanation here. I mean, come on now, certainly you can understand my difficulty in following all this--right? I mean charges on the grid of a vacuum tube can, apparently, cause things similar to these with particles/energy-packets; but, an antenna??? Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
On which, I respond; "Why would the mere length/phasing of elements on an antenna be able to cause one to act as a mirror (the one longer than DE) and the other as a director (the one shorter than DE)? It has to do with the phasing of the photons and the spacing of the elements. The phasing+spacing results in constructive interference in the direction of the director and destructive interference in the direction of the reflector referenced to the driven element. The length of the element affects (and effects) the phase of the re-radiated signals from the parasitic elements. Using EZNEC with two identical driven elements, one can control the direction of maximum radiation simply by adjusting the phasing of one of the driven elements referenced to the other. Reversing the phasing reverses the direction of maximum radiation. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
John Smith wrote: Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing antennas emitting photons? ... Regards, JS Ok. So you pose your arguments why photons are at play ... I listen, we move to the second level ... ... Regards, JS This: "Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math is nothing but bookkeeping." And this: Amrit Sorli: Einstein stood on the point that the notion of "space" designates "gravitational ether", which is a physical reality. "With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether", says he in his "Ether and the Theory of Relativity". According to Einstein, gravitational ether does not have the same properties as ponderable matter, that is why it cannot be described by notions such as "time" and "motion" . .... Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in human reasoning. Changes take place "here and now" in the gravitational ether. From he http://www.mu6.com/einstein.html I am sure most will find it highly interesting and enlightening ... Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Using EZNEC with two identical driven elements, one ... Cecil: The "approximations" which EZNEC accomplishes, may, or may not be real--indeed, much of what these "antenna tools" have told me appears to work in reality ... I CANNOT and do NOT say these tools are without value. However, when you have an "un-ponder-able unknown", such as the ether, and you see NO mention of it in mathematical equations, no allowances made for it, no affects/effects noted for it--indeed, when you see a public ignorant of it--don't you grow a bit suspicious? I mean, and according to Einstein, every bit of matter we can possibly view was torn asunder from it! It is real, we only exist in an altered and unnatural state--along with our antennas. Why has ether become synonymous with "kook?" It should not be; why does it seem to have been missing from everyones physics books but mine? My books just stated it was as it appears to be--unknown, but a real thing--I took it to be a thing future minds would "discover"; that its' promise was a better understanding of the world, in the future. Now, we can come up with a lot of explanations about a lot of things--might it not help to give this KNOWN/REAL thing some thought; ask some questions on its' possible interactions with our antennas? If my wonder-ings about this ether cause me to be a marked man and easily dismissed--so be it. And, I would prefer to read and experiment in this direction than jump to the conclusion our antennas are emitting photons, others may feel free to disagree with me and suffer no evil intentions from me. Whatever is the reality of this matter, let's pray it quickly becomes known; either way I will be just as thrilled. New discoveries, which we can get our minds wrapped around, speak of new and interesting phenomenon we can manipulate to our benefit. And, debate is interesting ... Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Jimmie D wrote:
... It is generally excepted that ether is space-time. There are a couple concepts you must understand. Space is not nothing. When the universe was created it was not just the result of material being propagated through space, it was the creation of space itself. This was not a new concept for Einstien, it was an idea he had difficulty and uncertainty about expressing. Even Einstien had to deal with peer pressure. Jimmie I must disagree totally, and for reasons you will find echoed on that URL I gave. Our material bodies are as if they are constructed of screen--ether sees no resistance whatsoever in passing through our beings, indeed, all matter exists as such to it ... I simply speculate that the EM waves/radiations from an antenna have the power to interact with it (and, possibly even Cecils' photons.) Matter is mostly space, between each atom in your body is something like a relative football field of distance--here ether exists. Indeed, with the vast distances between the atoms/electrons in a current carrying conductor--there is much which could happen to the likes of ether. Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 02:02:41 -0400, "Jimmie D"
wrote: Even Einstien had to deal with peer pressure. Which means Einstein didn't troll his ideas. [and provided equilibrium in his equations - as does all of engineering, math, and science as a commonplace.] 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
... That was poorly expressed, ether always existed. You must grow to accept that ether is god--is, was and always will be. The big bang created matter, matter needed a medium to be "created in", and ether was there for it--I suspect we ARE ether, just an altered form. Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Jimmie D wrote:
If the concept of duality is difficult to grasp when it comes to photons just imagine how hard it will be to grasp that duality exist for all particles and therefore all matter. What is particularly interesting (to me) is the wave-particle duality of a C60 Buckyball where 60 matrixed carbon atoms exhibit wave properties. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jimmie D wrote: If the concept of duality is difficult to grasp when it comes to photons just imagine how hard it will be to grasp that duality exist for all particles and therefore all matter. What is particularly interesting (to me) is the wave-particle duality of a C60 Buckyball where 60 matrixed carbon atoms exhibit wave properties. Sixty? That's a LOT of balls! :-) Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in human reasoning. Lots of things didn't exist before homo sapiens. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Jimmie D wrote:
... Then you believe space is nothing? Then you believe that the creation of the universe is jis the propagation of matter through space? It is obvious Einstein was right, if you cannot state a simple model which people can grasp, which obeys the rules of logic--all you are running is a complex shell game. Matter exists in the soup of ether ... What I said in no way disagrees with the article and besides that I know of no published work of Einstiens that states what the article said. Perhaps this was something he pondered at one time. I am sure he changed his thinking on a lot of things over the years given the fact he and other physicist were breaking new ground at the time. The discovery that light always travels at the same speed relative to the observer opened up a real can of worms. At some speed, the resistance of travel though the ether becomes of such a significant drag or force, matter no longer can traverse without resistance--this is the speed of light. You appear to have real problem dealing with the fact that there is no difference between matter and energy, everythinhg exist in a dual state. I have no problem with matter and energy being composed only of an altered state of the ether. But you are absolutely correct, I have as much problem with matter and energy being the same, as the smoke, light, ash and heat left from a tree burning, as it being the SAME as the tree itself! DUH! But in a very pure sense--they are ... it can be argued that the only real difference matters to life on earth. Jimmie Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in human reasoning. Lots of things didn't exist before homo sapiens. :-) --------- What if all things were true - and false? Personally, I'd just open the box and ask the cat. Assuming that it was still alive, that is. G And who was this Schroedinger guy anyway? Ed, NM2K |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Jimmie D wrote:
... What I said in no way disagrees with the article and besides that I know of no published work of Einstiens that states what the article said. Perhaps this was something he pondered at one time. I am sure he changed his thinking on a lot of things over the years given the fact he and other ... Jimmie I know of no significant denial(s) made my Einstein to what has been stated. One can begin he http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html Let me know of any works, statements, writings which I am ignorant of and to ... Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:35:50 -0400, Ed Cregger
wrote: And who was this Schroedinger guy anyway? He was Lucia's boyfriend who played the Pianoforte. Their lives were humorously chronicled in an illustrated fiction called "Goober Peas." Continuing themes of their friends and relatives populated this series with such stories as the "strange attractors" of kites and trees, or the wave function of a football that couldn't be kicked. The illustrator was purported to be one Eisenstein, but this was later found to be erroneously inferred from earlier cinematic work with similar themes found in "Aleksandr Nevskiy." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
"Ed Cregger" wrote in message .. . Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith wrote: Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in human reasoning. Lots of things didn't exist before homo sapiens. :-) --------- What if all things were true - and false? Personally, I'd just open the box and ask the cat. Assuming that it was still alive, that is. G And who was this Schroedinger guy anyway? Ed, NM2K The point Schroedinger was trying to make is that in the absence of information, there is no way we can absolutely know something. The very act of measuring or observing something causes the wave function to collapse and reveal an object's position, speed or some other state we are trying to establish. Opening the box and asking the cat seems eminently reasonable. The cat is never actually in a quasi alive/dead condition. In it's own 'universe' (box) it is either alive or dead. We cannot know which without opening the box at which point the two separated 'universes' collapse into one. Prior to opening the box it is necessary to consider both options alive or dead as a possibility but there is no third case where the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. The physical laws in our universe do not appear to allow for objects larger than a buckyball molecule of C60 to exist in quasi states. Trying to establish whether individual photons or electromagnetic waves are emitted by an antenna suffers from the same difficulties. The very act of trying to establish what is being emitted will collapse the wave function of the photons or electromagnetic wave to reveal one or the other, but not both simultaneously. Mike G0ULI |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:35:50 -0400, Ed Cregger wrote: And who was this Schroedinger guy anyway? He was Lucia's boyfriend who played the Pianoforte. Their lives were humorously chronicled in an illustrated fiction called "Goober Peas." Continuing themes of their friends and relatives populated this series with such stories as the "strange attractors" of kites and trees, or the wave function of a football that couldn't be kicked. The illustrator was purported to be one Eisenstein, but this was later found to be erroneously inferred from earlier cinematic work with similar themes found in "Aleksandr Nevskiy." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Interesting. Did it/he/they have anything to say about visions of silvery and copper colored fingers plucking the harp strings of the seemingly invisible ether? Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
... Did it/he/they have anything to say about visions of silvery and copper colored fingers plucking the harp strings of the seemingly invisible ether? Regards, JS This: "The greatest change in the axiomatic basis of physics - in other words, of our conception of the structure of reality - since Newton laid the foundation of theoretical physics was brought about by Faraday's and Maxwell's work on electromagnetic field phenomena. Faraday must have grasped with unerring instinct the artificial nature of all attempts to refer electromagnetic phenomena to actions-at-a-distance between electric particles reacting on each other. How was each single iron filing among a lot scattered on a piece of paper to know of the single electric particles running round in a nearby conductor? All these electric particles together seemed to create in the surrounding space a condition which in turn produced a certain order in the filings. These spatial states, today called fields, would, he was convinced, furnish the clue to the mysterious electromagnetic interactions. He conceived these fields as states of mechanical stress in an elastically distended body (ether)." (Albert Einstein, 1954) From he http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...trum-Waves.htm Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
art wrote:
... I'll get it to you Art I got it--pun intended. It should be becoming obvious that I have read Einstein--and believed. Indeed, what other force can we produce upon the ether to achieve our communications? EM fields strike/push/pull/influence the ethers' strings ... Those lines of force, seen in iron filings/powder, show "stress" of the ether--any engineer worth his salt will recognize these "stress lines" in a media ... in this case "gravitational ether"--an un-ponder-able media. Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
... Level three: I show up in your neighborhood--I am just joe-blow-citizen ... with me, I have a 1,000,000 rpm LARGE motor and a good sized, bar, neodymium magnet. I affix the middle of the magnet to the shaft of the motor and plug her in! Meanwhile, inside your home, you pick up a signal around the middle of the am broadcast band. Suspicious, you look out the window and see me with my "rig." You call the "rf police." They charge me with: 1) Exceeding the legal input power on a xmitter? 2) Shooting rf photons at your home? 3) Creating a disturbance (in the gravitational ether?) 4) All of the above? 5) None of the above? Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:35:10 -0700, John Smith wrote:
I show up in your neighborhood--I am just joe-blow-citizen ... with me, I have a 1,000,000 rpm LARGE motor and a good sized, bar, neodymium magnet. I affix the middle of the magnet to the shaft of the motor and plug her in! Meanwhile, inside your home, you pick up a signal around the middle of the am broadcast band. Suspicious, you look out the window and see me with my "rig." You call the "rf police." They charge me with: 1) Exceeding the legal input power on a xmitter? 2) Shooting rf photons at your home? 3) Creating a disturbance (in the gravitational ether?) 4) All of the above? 5) None of the above? Regards, JS They would charge you with making a deadly explosive device. The large motor alone would disinagrate at that amount of rpm. :-) |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
John Smith wrote: ... Level three: I show up in your neighborhood--I am just joe-blow-citizen ... with me, I have a 1,000,000 rpm LARGE motor and a good sized, bar, neodymium magnet. I affix the middle of the magnet to the shaft of the motor and plug her in! Meanwhile, inside your home, you pick up a signal around the middle of the am broadcast band... I might pick up a signal in the middle of the AM broadcast band but it won't be yours, you're at 16.7 kHz. |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:29:07 GMT, gwatts
wrote: John Smith wrote: John Smith wrote: ... Level three: I show up in your neighborhood--I am just joe-blow-citizen ... with me, I have a 1,000,000 rpm LARGE motor and a good sized, bar, neodymium magnet. I affix the middle of the magnet to the shaft of the motor and plug her in! Meanwhile, inside your home, you pick up a signal around the middle of the am broadcast band... I might pick up a signal in the middle of the AM broadcast band but it won't be yours, you're at 16.7 kHz. One reason why the FCC gives exams for licenses (and an example of self-thinning at the shallow end of the genetic pool). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
gwatts wrote:
... I might pick up a signal in the middle of the AM broadcast band but it won't be yours, you're at 16.7 kHz. Really? A 360 degree rotation is somehow stuck with a divisor? Do you divide the 360 degree "rotations" of your transmitters sine wave with a large divisor also? Or, possibly your sine waves are greater than 360 degrees? Interesting ... Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote:
gwatts wrote: ... I might pick up a signal in the middle of the AM broadcast band but it won't be yours, you're at 16.7 kHz. Really? A 360 degree rotation is somehow stuck with a divisor? Do you divide the 360 degree "rotations" of your transmitters sine wave with a large divisor also? Or, possibly your sine waves are greater than 360 degrees? Interesting ... Regards, JS My error, I was thinking RPS (Rotations Per Second) but wrote rpm--'ya got me, just not used to those high speed motors :-) ... and you MOST CERTAINLY pick up my signal now ... And, no, this motor doesn't come apart at this speed--the metal the motor is made of came from the UFO crash in Roswell NM ;-) Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Richard Clark wrote:
... One reason why the FCC gives exams for licenses (and an example of self-thinning at the shallow end of the genetic pool). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Actually, I believe 'ya! You certainly know what you are talking about ... Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
K7ITM wrote: 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.) Both are correct, IMO. ac6xg |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Ed Cregger wrote:
What if all things were true - and false? Personally, I'd just open the box and ask the cat. Assuming that it was still alive, that is. G And who was this Schroedinger guy anyway? Ed, NM2K If Schroedinger was doing his thing today instead of 100 years ago, would he be heading to a prison cell like Michael Vick? A great many students have declared that quantum mechanics is evil, but in today's courts it might be criminal as well. 8-) 73, Gene W4SZ |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Jim Kelley wrote:
K7ITM wrote: 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.) Both are correct, IMO. ac6xg Actually, you are partially correct. In the cookes radiometer, the motion cannot be ALL attributed to the radiation pressure. A nichols radiometer can accurately measure this radiation pressure ... the effect (photons having mass) is real ... Regards, JS |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
Richard Clark wrote:
The description you offer requires a porous plate which is absent in every radiometer that has come down the pike On the other hand, the absence of porous plates in operating radiometers tends to cast some doubt on your claim that the plates must be porous. As for the local air, there is none in many radiometers that are more sensitive than the Crookes. Again, which radiometer? If you are arguing a "perfect" vacuum, then like a free lunch, I would agree there's no such thing. The Crookes radiometer requires a partial atmosphere to work, other radiometers work quite fine with much less. Depends entirely on what one intends to measure. The distinction in the multiplicity of radiometers is significant and relates to an effect predicted in Maxwell's work, and exhibited by Lebedev; and Nichols, Tear, Hull, and Webb by THEIR radiometers. It requires very little more work than stating the surface area and rendering the expression of force in the units pascals if one wishes to remain within their classical descriptions. To put a number to it: 0.3 slug per sq. mile (under less than demanding conditions) If the twins can't cope with the crippling Newtonian math, then one might grant them the mental prowess of scaling by area - something within the reach of a very special fifth grader. Yet and all, this bone that I am tossing them only answers the less than Extra special, super duper credit question. To keep it in pascals in conditions of sunlight, on the equator, at noon, on the solstice: 3 µPa (one square meter is implied, but this is certainly not the size of any radiometer's vane - hence this number should be further reduced by roughly 1/10,000 or 300 pPa). If the twins can follow the mathematical progression in the parenthetical statement, they should be able to answer the less than Extra special, super duper credit question. There are two possible mechanisms here. One is a momentum exchange effect which is orders of magnitude smaller than the other and can only be observed at ultra high vacuum. The other (the one Denny accurately described) is a radiative molecular heating effect which creates a differential pressure and as such, can only be observed in at most a partial vacuum. The way to recognize the difference is that the two mechanisms produce their respective forces in opposite directions. 73, ac6xg |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
John Smith wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: K7ITM wrote: 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.) Both are correct, IMO. ac6xg Actually, you are partially correct. At the time it was posted, the statment was entirely correct. jk |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:04:23 -0000, Jim Kelley
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: The description you offer requires a porous plate which is absent in every radiometer that has come down the pike On the other hand, the absence of porous plates in operating radiometers tends to cast some doubt on your claim that the plates must be porous. Not "my claim," my report. The claim they must be porous arrives through the math necessary to balance the kinetic forces. As that math balance (from Einstein and Reynolds) has never been achieved, then Denny's description has never been proven. Less than porous vanes only further removes such "explanations" from the realm of proof. In fact, as a description, Denny's is incomplete insofar as there is no description of the turbulence created in the near vacuum that serves as the "thrust" for the vanes which is missing in a complete vacuum. The "thrust" is optimal only for porous plates, as an explanation; and that explanation, as I've said, does not fully balance. Now, if we simply move to another radiometer (Nichols, Tear, Hull, and Webb already recited) without that partial vacuum, the vanes still move, and expressely by Radiation Pressure. And the problem remains as to the balance of forces. In essence, these instruments indicate, not measure. As for the local air, there is none in many radiometers that are more sensitive than the Crookes. Again, which radiometer? If you are arguing a "perfect" vacuum, then like a free lunch, I would agree there's no such thing. The Crookes radiometer requires a partial atmosphere to work, other radiometers work quite fine with much less. Depends entirely on what one intends to measure. The coy context of the thread was measuring the mass of a Photon. Absolutely no SI Units have been named or any quantitative values offered (the rather standard omission from claims made here). However, feel free to introduce your own side thread's goal or even offer a guess (your own quatitative value for the mass). Such additional discussion would vastly elevate the inane repetition of claims above the level of "Photons have the flavor of Crème brûlée." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
On the other hand, the absence of porous plates in operating radiometers tends to cast some doubt on your claim that the plates must be porous. Not "my claim," my report. The claim they must be porous arrives through the math necessary to balance the kinetic forces. Again, which radiometer? If you are arguing a "perfect" vacuum, then like a free lunch, I would agree there's no such thing. The Crookes radiometer requires a partial atmosphere to work, other radiometers work quite fine with much less. Depends entirely on what one intends to measure. Despite the photon torpedoes fired at me, I have not seen a convincing physics experiment that deflates my previous arguement... Where the F=MA arguement fails in a radiometer is that the photons impact both sides of the paddles leaving a zero net force for rotation... The fact that a Crookes Radiometer requires an atmosphere is proof of its mode of operation. The fact that it has to be a partial vacuum further proves how it operates (more air density means too much air drag to allow rotation by the weak local differential pressure across the paddle)... Those who reject local differential pressure changes due to local heating by claiming the pressure in the bulb is static ignore the factor of time in molecular exchange of thermal energy gains... Carrying their argument to the logical end means sun heating cannot cause the winds to ever blow across the ground because the net air pressure of Terra is static... denny It's 10PM somewhere, have you hugged your radio today? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com