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

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 ?

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

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! :-)

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

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.

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.

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

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

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