Waves vs Particles
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:30:46 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:40:13 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a chance
to recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ


Oh, crap, Daniel. Roy did not say free space was = 1 ohm. Look back and
read:

You said:
" I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a
permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-) "

Roy said:
"I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability.

The characteristic impedance is the square root of permeability divided
by permittivity, so if both are one, the characteristic impedance would
have to be one."

Get it? He is saying that the permeability and the permittivity of space can
not = 1 because if they were, then the intrinsic impedance of space would be
= 1 because the intrinsic impedance of space is actually Zo =
sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

The correct values were posted earlier in this thread. You can verify them
for yourself using your favorite source. But don't confuse them with
relative permeability/permittivity.


John

Waves vs Particles
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"K7ITM" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 2:47 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:00:34 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you
has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this
groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms
and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm?
You still have a chance to recover your cred, bro.

Have you been reading any of this?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hahahahaha! Thanks, Richard! ;-) I'd been wondering that myself.

This, from an alleged guru who has been able to rewrite quantum theory and
disprove maxwell planc and Neils Bohr and state that a photon is not a
particle. He claims he can follow a discussion and actually follow a
thread with Richard Clark involved in it? All this is happening whilst
Richard C. is still trying to sort out how RF EM waves and acoustic sound
waves interact with each other. Of course, all this is going on with
neither knowing what the characteristic impedance of free space is or what
it implies. I need to make the following reality check: This group is
entitle rec.radio.AMATEUR.antenna so discussing technical issues with
these two is akin to discussing evolution theory with the late Jerry
Falwell. Still I find it quite amazing.
Or Jerry Springer?

Waves vs Particles
 

John KD5YI wrote:

According to "Reference Data for Radio Engineers", published by
International Telephone and Telegraph, fourth edition, page 35:

"Properties of Free Space"

Permeability = 1.257 * 10^-6 henry per meter.
Permittivity = 8.85 * 10^-12 farad per meter.

Characteristic impedance = sqrt(Permeability/Permittivity) = 376.7 ohms

John

My earlier citations of reputable sources were denounced as being an
intentional insult. I see that yours is simply being ignored. Perhaps
that's progress?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377 Ohms
and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a chance to
recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ

Earlier you implied that I was promoting the superposition of power. Now
you're saying that I claimed the intrinsic impedance of free space is
one ohm. Where are you coming up with this stuff? And why?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Waves vs Particles
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:57:50 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I assume you made a typo when you say cv; you meant vc.

He didn't. It is most common and evident (meaning you can trust your
eyes this time) in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors.

Richard, per your comment above you agree then to the possibility of a
case where the vc. Tell me, what kind of particle or wave can have a
velocity faster than the speed of light? Perhaps you are discussing
tachyons? ;-) Do you believe in universal constants such as the speed of
light?

73 de AI4QJ


It is clearly possible for certain events to happen at speeds greater than
the speed of light in a vacuum, or any other material for that matter. It is
relatively trivial to accelerate electrons and other charged atomic
particles to speeds approaching the speed of light (in a vacuum). If the
particles in two such beams are collided head on, clearly the impact
velocity will be something just below 600,000 Km per second, or just under
twice the speed of light.

The resulting atomic debris and energy generated in such collisions are
keenly studied by physicists eager to probe the limits of physical science.
Neither set of particles are exceeding the speed of light and yet any
collisions must take place at velocities greater than the speed of light.
The speed of light is a fundamental physical limit against which other
phenomena may be measured. It is not necessarily a barrier which cannot be
exceeded under any circumstances. There is ample experimental evidence to
suggest that faster than light phenomena do exist. The most compelling
evidence to date coming from experiments involving entangled particles and
quantum encryption techniques.

Mike G0ULI

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 18:33:00 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I assume you made a typo when you say cv; you meant vc.

He didn't. It is most common and evident (meaning you can trust your
eyes this time) in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors.

Richard, per your comment above you agree then to the possibility of a case
where the vc.

When I review the content which you quote from me (complete to all my
statements), yes it appears that I said that. Those two words would
seem to be terse enough not to be equivocal. Question is, having
offered it twice now, are you going to ask me again if I said it?

And specifically, it is not a "possibility" such that it is arguable,
it is a certainty. Also within the quote above is a very common
instance cited that can be easily verified or rejected on the basis of
fact - if you check facts that is.

This topic must be in the scope of your earlier claim about taking me
head to head on Physics and emerging best. A poor fool such as I with
a simple English degree should be easy to champion over. You should
be able to re-parse your earlier question into a match draw. If not,
read more Cecil to refine your technique.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a
chance to recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ

Earlier you implied that I was promoting the superposition of power. Now
you're saying that I claimed the intrinsic impedance of free space is
one ohm. Where are you coming up with this stuff? And why?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hi Roy!

I've been away from the list for a few months, and I've been catching up
the last few days. Who is this new whacko? Is he Art with a different
name? I'm guessing no, since his style of attack is much more
primitive, but I had to ask. He is kind of funny in a weird way, but
I'm guessing that wears off quickly.

Hope you've been well.

tom
K0TAR

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:57:50 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I assume you made a typo when you say cv; you meant vc.
He didn't. It is most common and evident (meaning you can trust your
eyes this time) in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors.

Richard, per your comment above you agree then to the possibility of a case
where the vc. Tell me, what kind of particle or wave can have a velocity
faster than the speed of light? Perhaps you are discussing tachyons? ;-) Do
you believe in universal constants such as the speed of light?

73 de AI4QJ



The particles exit the radioactive substance at just a smidge less than
c in a vacuum, and enter water which has a value of c much lower than c
in a vacuum. They then produce a wonderful blue glow because they are
breaking the speed limit.

Here is a page with a relatively simple explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

I breathlessly await your response.

tom
K0TAR

Waves vs Particles
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message
...

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:57:50 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I assume you made a typo when you say cv; you meant vc.

He didn't. It is most common and evident (meaning you can trust your
eyes this time) in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors.

Richard, per your comment above you agree then to the possibility of a
case where the vc. Tell me, what kind of particle or wave can have a
velocity faster than the speed of light? Perhaps you are discussing
tachyons? ;-) Do you believe in universal constants such as the speed of
light?

73 de AI4QJ


It is clearly possible for certain events to happen at speeds greater
than the speed of light in a vacuum,

True, but these "events" would not include travelling 3 X 10E8 meyers in
less than one second.

or any other material for that matter. It is relatively trivial to
accelerate electrons and other charged atomic particles to speeds
approaching the speed of light (in a vacuum).

Well, not trivial but possible. It happens in nature with mu-mesons
(cosmic rays). But you were careful to say "approaching" the speed of
light.

If the particles in two such beams are collided head on, clearly the
impact velocity will be something just below 600,000 Km per second, or
just under twice the speed of light.

Have you ever read about the theory of relativity? GONG! The speed of each
beam relative to the other is still 3 X 10E8 meters/sec. Sorry but you
just betrayed your lack of knowledge of that theory. Einstien
disprovedwhat you said in 1905 but take comfort in the fact that it was
difficult to comprehend at the time. The speed of liht relative to any
reference point is a universal constant, c = 3 X 10E8.


Well you are kind of right, but see below...

The resulting atomic debris and energy generated in such collisions are
keenly studied by physicists eager to probe the limits of physical
science. Neither set of particles are exceeding the speed of light and
yet any collisions must take place at velocities greater than the speed
of light. The speed of light is a fundamental physical limit against
which other phenomena may be measured. It is not necessarily a barrier
which cannot be exceeded under any circumstances. There is ample
experimental evidence to suggest that faster than light phenomena do
exist. The most compelling evidence to date coming from experiments
involving entangled particles and quantum encryption techniques.

Arthur, where are you????



While the speed of each beam relative to a stationary observer is 300,000
Km/s with both beams travelling in opposite directions, the combined
velocity relative to that stationary observer is 600,000 Km/s. Einstein did
state that from the point of view of someone or something travelling with
the beam the combined velocity of the two beams approaching collision would
appear to be 300,000 Km/s. Einstein was wrong on this point because for a
wavefront or beam propagating at the speed of light, no time passes and
therefore no velocity measurement is possible or has any meaning in
conventional terms. Clearly we are wasting a lot of time, effort and money
in bothering to build bigger particle accelerators (like at CERN) if the
combined collision velocities can never exceed 300,000 Km/s.

Einstein (who is greatly over rated in my opinion) got a lot of stuff right,
but there are some pretty huge gaps in the theory, particularly where values
tend towards infinity. Hence the inability to deal with gravity, a failure
of the theory in dealing with black holes and an inability to deal with
super luminal velocities. Richard Feynman was a far better theoretical
physicist who actually invented ways of reconciling and sidestepping some of
the paradoxes inherent in Einstein's equations.

Just as Einstein refined Newton's ideas, future physicists will regard
Einstein's theories the way we regard Newton's; a good approximation for
everyday use, but not a true description of the processes. How on earth did
NASA get astronauts to the moon using just Newtonian mechanics? The mind
boggles. :-)

Mike G0ULI

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:

According to "Reference Data for Radio Engineers", published by
International Telephone and Telegraph, fourth edition, page 35:

"Properties of Free Space"

Permeability = 1.257 * 10^-6 henry per meter.
Permittivity = 8.85 * 10^-12 farad per meter.

Characteristic impedance = sqrt(Permeability/Permittivity) = 376.7 ohms

John

My earlier citations of reputable sources were denounced as being an
intentional insult. I see that yours is simply being ignored. Perhaps
that's progress?

Well, he is correct, you were wrong with your SQRT(1/1) = Zo = 1. If you use
his values, you will get the proper value (377 Ohms) so he is correct. Glad
you finally saw the light.

WTF are you talking about?

In Roy's original post were the words "if" and "then", which all the knee
jerking twits seemed to have missed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.