Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

:-) That was c ^ 2 without the spaces. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Dave wrote:
This bull**** has nothing to do with ham radio.

Exponents used in such terms as P = I^2R have
nothing to do with ham radio?

That's a really sad statement about the present
technical level of amateur radio.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Rectifier wrote:
I am asking you: What if the sun put out nothing except
EM waves. Would comets still have a tail or not?

Are you talking about the ion tail or the dust tail? The dust tail is
affected by EM; but the ion tail is affected only by magnetic forces.

So a large part of the visible tail of the comet would
still point away from the sun even if the sun emitted
nothing but EM waves. EM waves possess momentum, apply
radiation pressure to dust particles (matter), and have
relativistic mass.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

That is correct.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Rectifier wrote:
The word was not misspelled. According to dictionary.com, which quotes
the American Heritage Dictionary, "traveling" and "travelling" are both
accepted ways of spelling the word.

Sorry, Thunderbird said it was misspelled. Guess I
should add "travelling" to Thunderbird's dictionary.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Rectifier wrote:
... so I may get some
terminology wrong or not be able to explain it as well as I could
before. However, discussions like these are interesting and stimulate
thought and a desire to go back and review the subject.

Yes, that is the important thing. I don't mind my spelling corrected,
and I may mention the misspelling of another ... however, you have it right.

To error is human ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Tom Ring wrote:

...
To understand the situation, I would suggest that you start down the
calculus road. The internet has to have tutorials on it. Differential
equations look terribly obtuse, but they are an obtainable destination
down that road if you choose to follow it.

tom
K0TAR

My take on that is a bit different ... on "AMATEUR Radio" that is.

In building antennas, tank ciruits, etc., I very seldom whip out a
programmable scientific calculator and delve into the depths of the
maths which allow them to preform/function/"work."

A few times, I have just grabbed up some tubing/wire a variable
condenser or two, and "eyeballed" the construction--past experience
provided "ballpark" figures/placements/wiring, testing, trimming and
adjusting got me the final result ...

Mainly, I point this out so as not to "obsfucate" that layman, or
discourage him ... the men who first started/awakened my interest in
such things never gave any indication, to me, they had an understanding
of calculus, only basic-math/algebra, and of course, geometry!

Indeed, at least one passed away without ever expressing any real
interest in learning it!

However, in Arts pursuits, an understanding would be a real advantage ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:42:55 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Try again...would you believe light as 38 miles per hour?

38 miles per hour is the speed of light in that medium
but not in a vacuum.

You're still using vacuum tubes? Most of my equipment runs in a
medium, not in a vacuum.

Quiz: How fast do the electrons flow in a copper conductor?
Hint: It's not the speed of light.

Of course not, compared to photons, electrons are massive,
capable of absorbing photons with ease.

Well, to split hairs, electrons don't emit or absorb photons. The
energy or momentum from or to a photon is absorbed or emitted and
photons are either destroyed or created in the interaction in descrete
quanta levels. However, unless I heat my copper wire to
incandescence, it's is not going to emit or absorb any photons. I
just wanted to point out that the speed of propagation through a
medium is not the same as the speed of the particles involved in
conduction.




--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:49:04 +0000, Dave wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

That's the convention I use for exponents.

Why don't you two get a room? This bull**** has nothing to do with ham
radio. However, maybe if we ionized your hot air we could bounce some
70 cm off the cloud.

I've always suspected that some hams hated math and other technical
subjects. While it is conceivable that you could build a ham antenna
without using math, I don't think the results would be optimal. There
are also those that advocate converting ham radio from a technical
hobby, to a sport, where the technical aspects are diminished to the
point of extinction, and the operational exercises of contesting, DX,
CW, and rag chewing are predominant. No math required. Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?
snip
Art
If you do the differential equations, it doesn't say why the center
can't so much as why the skin does. Similar to gravitation and water
flowing downhill vs uphill.

My understanding was about molecular alignment and that the flow of
electrons would be there first. Notice that stranded wire is often
preferred for it's current handling ability even though solid is easier to
terminate to and doesn't have the problem of discontinuities due to
corrosion on many surfaces that rub together.

This doesn't mean that eddy currents aren't there in hollow elements. Solid
or stranded or hollow tubing, the eddy currents contribute to loss but don't
contribute to radiation.

Ejection of particles should lead to deterioration of the metal but if you
were to coat the elements (with non-conductive and non-reactive coating)
there would be no deterioration. It would also prevent rain static.

I don't burden myself with paradigms to explain electromagnetic wave
propagation in free space. It and Gravity do very well without my
explanation. We know that the AC current in the antenna induces an
electromagnetic wave is sufficient for my purpose. Unless I can find
funding for renewed efforts... (wink nudge)

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Well, to split hairs, electrons don't emit or absorb photons.

I was just quoting "QED", by Richard Feynman:

"-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place."
"-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place."
"-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."

I'm sorry that Feynman was not precise enough for you. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com