Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: Midland UHF NMO 5/8 over 1/2 wave Mobile Antennas | Swap | |||
FA: Midland UHF NMO 5/8 over 1/2 wave Mobile Antennas | Swap | |||
FA: Midland UHF NMO 5/8 over 1/2 wave Mobile Antennas | Equipment | |||
7/8 wave antennas? | Homebrew | |||
Loop Antennas, Medium Wave - 120m Band | Antenna |