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

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

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

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

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

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

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! :-)

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.