|
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Richard Clark wrote:
Just waiting for Cecileo to sign in for the last of the Three Stoogz. How would you ever know since you ploinked me? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Do I get a gold star? That doesn't work for photons which are particles with zero rest mass. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 7:48 pm, Jim Kelley wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Rectifier wrote: Radiation has no mass ... On the contrary, radiation is photons which indeed do have mass when traveling at the speed of light, which radiation does. According to Einstein, anything with energy has mass equivalence - especially photons. But other than that, nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. You can have one, or the other, not both. 73, ac6xg True, travel is something less than the speed of light Art - In what medium? Remember that the speed of light is different in different media. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 9:57 pm, John Smith wrote: wrote: ... Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can be bent by large bodies of mass. Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to be able to measure it, don't we? How do you know it "exists ALL ITS TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? Can you provide any relevant data here to prove it? Any URLs? Any quotes from famous physicists? Any psychics? Have you consulted Art? again-innocent-smile But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and measure it? I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect (heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well, most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you? pleasant-innocent-smile Geesh! looks-out-window Regards, JS I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the property of mass inerent in light ;-) - Maybe it's not gravity that bends the light that comes near black holes. Maybe it's something more sinister like extremely strong magnetic forces. . .. Maybe I just don't have the faith necessary to believe in black holes (tongue firmly in cheek). |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 2:49 pm, "Rectifier" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 11:56 am, "Mike Lucas" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote I consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of examinations since equilibrium is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas No where do I see antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it like a plague? Art Art: You have written 2,947 posts to RRAA, and at least 2/3 of them contain a reference to " equilibrium". Numerous people have asked you to define or at least explain your usage of the term. So far, you have not done so.Actually, you have either diverted the question, or told questioners to do their own research. Your posts show that you know nothing about how antennas work, and suspect very little.Why would ARRL correct something that's perfectly fine as is??? Mike W5CHR Memphis Tenn Mike I know more about antennas and radiation than you think ! For instance, equilibrium demands that charges do not move laterally along an antenna when in equilibrium Without equilibrium charges do move along the surface of a radiator and Newtons law of parity demands that charges are moving thru the CENTER of the radiator thus encoundering just copper losses. Thus for a radiator that is not in equilibrium has three resistance 1 Radiation resistance 2 outer resistance 3 Inner copper resistance. Equilibrium is nothing more than the enforcement of Newtons law of parity. This is so simple to those who work from first principles for themselves instead of being lemmings. Correctness is not always determined from a poll Regards Art - I've heard of Newton's laws of motion, but not Newton's law of parity. Newton dealt primarily with motion, mass, and such. Electromagnetic radiation hadn't even been discovered when Newton was alive. Electromagnetic radiation does not behave the same way as matter, which is described in terms such as momentum, inertia, accceleration and such. Mike Einstein changed course in study because he could not solve the description of the weak force which I see as foucalt current. Knowing this Einstein would be proud to stand up as state his thoughts on Universal law has now been proved forget. You cannot parcel laws based on a particular subject. Universl laws are just that. UNIVERSAL. What on earth does parity mean in the U.S.? Art - The equal and opposite reaction thing applies to massive bodies and motion. It's all different when talking about relativistic speeds for things such as electromagnetic radiation. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Rectifier wrote: You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass. Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't travel at the speed of light. But photons traveling at the speed of light certainly have mass. Where in the world did you get such irrational ideas? Read it again! I didn't say photons have zero mass; I said electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has no mass. EMR exhibits both wave and particle properties. When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits wave properties. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 4:32 pm, Cecil Moore wrote: Rectifier wrote: You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass. Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't travel at the speed of light. But photons traveling at the speed of light certainly have mass. Where in the world did you get such irrational ideas? I have an Engineering Physics degree from a university program that is an ABET certified engineering program. After your latest posting, they may de-certify your university's program. Exactly what university was it that taught you that photons traveling at the speed of light have zero mass? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling your leg with his nonsence Art - No. I'm not David; and I just started posting here. I'm not trying to pull anyone's leg with nonsense. I'm trying to participate in a discussion where people have different perceptions and understanding of physics. Isn't that what causes us all to learn and/or change our perceptions on occassion? It seems that the last vestage of a lack of answers to a point is to mount a personal attack. Your refusal to answer the salient point and instead mount a personal attack means your ability to listen is totally stopped. Discussion over. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:44 pm, Tom Ring wrote: Art Unwin wrote: John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test of time. Next thing he'll claim is that nuclear fission doesn't release energy. tom K0TAR Oh Tom! bound particles means a LARGE force binding particles together. Break them apart and you release a large amount of energy which you cannot destroy. With heavy water you have two bound particles, the particles themselves are weak in energy. But then you are trying to get away from the subject at hand in this thread. Want to start atomic stuff then start a thread and attract those who are interested in that. Think antennas and radiation Art Went right over your head at 30,000 feet Art. tom K0TAR |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Rectifier wrote:
Read it again! I didn't say photons have zero mass; I said electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has no mass. EMR exhibits both wave and particle properties. When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits wave properties. When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle properties. It has been about half a century since experiments proved that light waves are bent by gravity thus proving that electromagnetic radiation has mass. That idea was postulated in 1915. Did you get your degree before then? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 17, 7:23*am, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: On Sep 16, 8:44 pm, Tom Ring wrote: Art Unwin wrote: John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test of time. Next thing he'll claim is that nuclear fission doesn't release energy. tom K0TAR Oh Tom! bound particles means a LARGE force binding particles together. Break them apart and you release a large amount of energy which you cannot destroy. With heavy water you have two bound particles, the particles themselves are weak in energy. But then you are trying to get away from the subject at hand in this thread. *Want to start atomic stuff then start a thread and attract those who are interested in that. Think antennas and radiation Art Went right over your head at 30,000 feet Art. tom K0TAR OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a radiator. Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I apologize I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things together. When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another try later Regards Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Art Unwin wrote:
OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a radiator. Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I apologize I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things together. When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another try later Regards Art WTF? |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 17, 12:30*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:38:29 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Truth is stranger than fiction and what I am saying is the truth or factual. Assertion does not constitute proof. *Speaking strictly for myself, I really don't care what you think, advocate, imply, or suggest. *What I do care is the reasoning behind your thinking, your advocacy, etc. Simply stating that something is right, wrong, or works in some manner is insufficient. *Unless you're an established authority on the topic of antenna design, I have no intention of accepting your rants at face value. In all the years that I have been on this group nobody has proved me wrong with respect to radiation. That's easy to understand. *You haven't said anything. *There's no substance to your "explanations". *I can't argue against an insubstantial fog or cloud, and neither can anyone else. *No models, no measurements, no tests, no numbers, no nothing. *Besides, it's not my position to prove that you are wrong. *It's your job to convince us that you're correct. *We pass judgement on your ideas, you do not. *Of course, you're always welcome to pass judgements on my qualifications to make such a judgement. If they had I would have apologized for the record. I should hope so. *I've been wrong a few times. *It happens. http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=bLQuYRAAAACBvd... http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tWGMphwAAAAGTj... Hmmm.... 24,000 postings. *Maybe I should find something more productive to do. For myself I can run all of these people out of town on antennas as they are all self perceived experts bestowing glory on them selves in retirement to supply the recognition they feel they earned in the past. Wow. *I'm not retired yet, but I'm not worried. *You would have no trouble running me out of town with your expertise on antennas. *I'm still learning and probably will never be an expert. *I read the NEC mailing list. *I dabble with EzNEC and 4NEC2. *I designm model, and build some rather odd microwave antennas. *I have two antenna related products to my name from about 20 years ago. *Not quite an expert but sufficiently functional to hold my own: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/ Note: I did *NOT* design the commercial antennas shown. Find an expert for yourself and ask him the same questions that you ask of me. I only asked one question. *What do you mean by equalibrium and what is being balanced against what else. *No expert or beginner could answer that. *Only you can. My statements are nothing special and nor am I Actually, your statements initially appeared quite special to me. *I was serious when I asked what program you used to generate your rant. I couldn't believe that anyone intentionally wrote such a word salad. I suspected there was some software behind it. *I even attempted to duplicate the feat by hand (and failed). *Your statements are special to me for no better reason than I failed to mimick the style. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 * * * * * #http://802.11junk.com* * * * * * * #http://www.LearnByDestroying.com* * * * * * * AE6KS Jeff Let us straighten out a few things about me that most know I am nowhere as clever or versatile in all the subjects that you mentioned. Frankly my present knoweledge is very limited. I had a heart attack, 5 bypasses plus a loss in memory.So that I could continue to live I chose radiation as a niche study for recovery. Ofcourse I will never recover fully. So basically I have tunnel vision built around the niche of radiation and antennas where I went back to first principles and started with Newton This process has lasted for several years, very slow progress but I have got to a point that my thoughts on antennas and radiation is so different from the books that I have to go back to the beginning with respect tp Newton and re evaluate with my peers. Yes I am seen as an idiot, very understandable but I am persistent in talking and discussing the initial point in radiation .From Newtons laws I deduce that current flow on a fractional wavelength antenna includes current flow thru the centre of a radiator. I am going right back to my new beginnings but the books do not say that! Soi I can't participate in the many diversions from the niche I have taken and thus ask for a similar focus from others. No sympathy or crying desired as I am comfortable and living a good life but even with tunnel vision I am determined to continue and participate in the route I have chosen as there is no alternative. Sooooo after more than a thousand posts based on the initial radiator and equilibrium I have been unable to make one step forward in a re evaluation of my journey. But I will never give up so you will have to live with that. All of this is old hat to most of the posters who give me hell and sometimes I respond in kind to new posters in a like manner which is wrong but it happens. So to sum up I am a simple man with tunnel vision in a single subject and no where as knoweledgable as other posters outside my field of choice. My very best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:33:07 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Just waiting for Cecileo to sign in for the last of the Three Stoogz. How would you ever know since you ploinked me? You misspelled plonk, but baby makes three. That makes the last one who can't do the math. 73's Richard, KB7QHC |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:08:04 -0700, John Smith
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: ... Just waiting for Cecileo to sign in for the last of the Three Stoogz. Three? All have been accounted for in muster. It wasn't that hard to find them in the wading pool. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Rectifier" wrote in message om... "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 4:32 pm, Cecil Moore wrote: Rectifier wrote: You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass. Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't travel at the speed of light. But photons traveling at the speed of light certainly have mass. Where in the world did you get such irrational ideas? I have an Engineering Physics degree from a university program that is an ABET certified engineering program. After your latest posting, they may de-certify your university's program. Exactly what university was it that taught you that photons traveling at the speed of light have zero mass? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling your leg with his nonsence Art - No. I'm not David; and I just started posting here. I'm not trying to pull anyone's leg with nonsense. I'm trying to participate in a discussion where people have different perceptions and understanding of physics. Isn't that what causes us all to learn and/or change our perceptions on occassion? It seems that the last vestage of a lack of answers to a point is to mount a personal attack. Your refusal to answer the salient point and instead mount a personal attack means your ability to listen is totally stopped. Discussion over. Hmm. Seems to move that the old wave/particle duality thing comes into play in this instance. A wave has no mass, agreed? So, if we collapse the wave function, the photon (a particle by popular concensus) loses its velocity, which means, you guessed it, no mass. Ed, NM2K |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Richard Clark wrote:
You misspelled plonk, but baby makes three. That makes the last one who can't do the math. The photon mass math is trivial. E= mc^2 = hf m = hf/c^2 = h/(c)lamda If I remember correctly, a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of light. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Ed Cregger wrote:
A wave has no mass, agreed? Not agreed. An EM wave possesses momentum per unit volume from which the mass of the wave can be calculated. A container of light has more mass than a similar container that does not contain light. EM waves certainly have mass that can bend a comet's tail away from the sun. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Cecil Moore wrote:
m = hf/c^2 = h/(c)lamda Uh, you over simplify there, a bit, don't you? Where is motion? Where is time? etc. However, on "energy at rest", that might come very close ... Regards, JS |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:18:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: Ummm... that wasn't Newton. No quantum effects in Newton's work. Hi Jeff, 167,770 miles/s is hardly quantum speed but it is achievable in electrons and photons. At last report F = M · A was Newton's work among two other laws (something the trio can't manage to compute). Art can't even manage parity here. If the prospects of error due to Quantum effects appear to be ugly, then any could have named a lower figure that is tolerable. Unfortunately it would still require computation, and the outcome would be those Newtonian Philosopherz would shy from an honest scribbling on the blackboard as taking their precious gaze away from their navels. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 3:39 pm, "Wayne" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ...I consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of examinations since equilibrium is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas No where do I see antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it like a plague? Art - My engineering training is many years old now, but I haven't seen equilibrium in the context of antennas discussed anywhere except by you, in this newsgroup. Do you have any references to papers that have been peer reviewed and published? Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get you something to read but difficult if you are starting from Zero. - - I'm not starting from zero, but it has been a number of years since I did theoretical analysis. When I google "equilibrium" and then start trying to filter the responses down to things that are potentially "on topic", the references lead back to you on this newsgroup. The point where you begin is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be nfired which goes for some of the people at University of Illinois in the electrical engineering area. - I'm not saying that you are wrong. But your claims would hve much more credibility if they were explained somewhere in addition to r.r.a.a. .EVERYTHING in science revolves around equilibrium. If a posting denys that or does not respond to that Law i will not respond and that includes Richard whose sole aim in life if to divert the crowd with off topic nothings as he does not ahve any engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender looking for a date with any poster. Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:18:49 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: The photon mass math is trivial. I still don't see a computation, so trivial must be beyond your capacity. E= mc^2 = hf m = hf/c^2 = h/(c)lamda If I remember correctly, a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of light. Well, we've established you can't compute it for an electron, certainly. And this speculation about a photon.... Do it for 167,770 miles/s then. Naw, let's simply say you've done it (there will never be any actual evidence of your work as we can all agree), and move on. So much for practicing Newtonian Philosopherz. I don't "ploink" your postings, I just don't read them because they are run off the xerox with no obvious intellectual value added - this last round fairly confirmed that. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
... Ed Cregger wrote: A wave has no mass, agreed? Not agreed. An EM wave possesses momentum per unit volume from which the mass of the wave can be calculated. A container of light has more mass than a similar container that does not contain light. EM waves certainly have mass that can bend a comet's tail away from the sun. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Do you know that the sun puts out a lot of neutrons and other particles? It's not the light that bends the comet's tail. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 17, 12:24*pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 3:39 pm, "Wayne" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ....I consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of examinations since equilibrium is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas No where do I see antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it like a plague? Art - My engineering training is many years old now, but I haven't seen equilibrium in the context of antennas discussed anywhere except by you, in this newsgroup. Do you have any references to papers that have been peer reviewed and published? Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get you something to read but difficult if you are starting from Zero. - - I'm not starting from zero, but it has been a number of years since I did theoretical analysis. When I google "equilibrium" and then start trying to filter the responses down to things that are potentially "on topic", the references lead back to you on this newsgroup. The point where you begin is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be nfired which goes for some of the people at *University of Illinois in the electrical engineering area. - I'm not saying that you are wrong. *But your claims would hve much more credibility if they were explained somewhere in addition to r.r.a.a. .EVERYTHING in science revolves around equilibrium. If a posting denys that or does not respond to that Law i will not respond and that includes Richard whose sole aim in life if to divert the crowd with off topic nothings as he does not ahve any engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender looking for a date with any poster. Art Wayn everybody wants me to answer their questions and not address mine so they took over the thread So to clear the air I started at the very beginning a radiator in equilibrium and what it presents to me. It has nothing to do with any of the sciences presented by the posters. In direct terms I have stated that current flows down the center of a radiator if it is of a fractional wave length. A very simple statement which nobody wishes to address. Fine by me, the thread would then have a single posting and the multitude can generate questions and discussion about deep space or other topics of choice. Ofcourse I am not knowledable in those areas and I would stand aside. I would prefer however the discussion to at least start with equilibrium which leads to why or why not it is correct that current can flow thru the center of a conductor the answer of which is not in the books. Some people prefer to read the last page of the book first. I prefere to examine foundations before determining the merits of a house. Regards Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Cecil Moore wrote:
When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle properties. When does light travel at a speed other than the speed of light? It has been about half a century since experiments proved that light waves are bent by gravity thus proving that electromagnetic radiation has mass. That idea was postulated in 1915. And later it was postulated that space is curved by massive objects and that light simply follows the curves. The idea of epicycles was first postulated in the 6th century BC. Therefore, what? 73 ac6xg |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:52:40 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:33:04 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: I consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of examinations since equilibrium is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas A very simple observation: Give us one question you would expect to see. Give us the answer that would be marked as passing. Without both, this sappy sentiment of yours is nothing more than a late night exercise of crying bitter tears into the pillow - and leaving the window open so the neighbors can hear the sobs of regret. It appears that sentimentality rules the thread. Lacking any steps taken by Art towards providing a question with its corresponding answer must mean he couldn't pass the same test it might be placed in. Barring Art's hesitancy to supply his own solution, I can only rummage up a similar instance from him where we might make this a quality of test a CBer might tackle that is drawn from patented (5,625,367) technology: Q. reflector element is usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE? Q. director elements are usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE? Thankfully, the PTO does not test nor issue licenses based upon this technology source used as reference material. I can well imagine how "equilibrium" would similarly pollute the question pool and the lack of follow-up leaves us with the soap opera it was always meant to be. It is painfully obvious that Art will never offer the questions only he can sign off on. The other Newtonian Philosopherz are equally flummoxed. As for others following this tempest in a teapot, Art has already answered the two TRUE/FALSE questions above: Q. reflector element is usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE! Q. director elements are usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE! and thus fulfills my observation he couldn't pass a test he Authured. Gad, the irony is thick and gooey sweet. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Rectifier wrote: Read it again! I didn't say photons have zero mass; I said electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has no mass. EMR exhibits both wave and particle properties. When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits wave properties. When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle properties. It has been about half a century since experiments proved that light waves are bent by gravity thus proving that electromagnetic radiation has mass. That idea was postulated in 1915. Did you get your degree before then? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Photons (the particle nature explanation of EMR) have no mass: http://www.physchem.co.za/OB12-ele/radiation.htm |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle
properties. It has been about half a century since experiments proved that light waves are bent by gravity thus proving that electromagnetic radiation has mass. That idea was postulated in 1915. Did you get your degree before then? :-) You say the "idea was postulated in 1915." Since when does a postulate become proof making something a law? |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:48:05 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Do I get a gold star? That doesn't work for photons which are particles with zero rest mass. Yep. Brain damage after midnight. I first read electron, due to the preceding CRT example. I then read proton without my reading glasses. This morning, it morphed into photon. My apologies and I promise never to post anything after midnight, on an empty stomach, without glasses, while still working in my palatial office, and on subjects I know little. However, the jury is still out if photons have mass. NASA and others say no: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=240 However, photons do have momentum or: p = m v which yields a calculatable value for mass at light speed for a measurable momentum (i.e. transfer of momentum due to light pressure). It's stuff like this that make me which quantum effects should never have been discovered. Fire the photon torpedoes... -- 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 Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:20:23 -0700, John Smith
wrote: I am top posting here, just because your post is so damn long, and I could NOT bring myself to cut any of it ... I wish you would edit my drivel. I just hate reading my own writing. I even have myself entered in my kill file. Don't worry about the length. The problem was that a tape backup and restore was taking far longer than I expected. I didn't wanna do anything useful, so I decided to dive into Usenet. Don't worry, it probably won't happen again. Thanks for being candid with us. I was too tired and overworked to fabricate any lies. It's so much easier to tell the truth, especially since I don't have to later remember and untangle the lies that I fabricated. Yep, you are one of us alright. Yep, we have to use others past books, thoughts, knowledge, computer apps, papers, etc. ... it is just too much, it is inundating ... I'm cleaning up. After many years of neglect and sloth, there's no more room left to add more things. I've already tossed or recycled most of the junk. I'm now working on the good stuff. I just discovered I have 5 air compressors, 5 bicycles, 3 sweep generators, etc. Time to downsize. I mean, my home office here looks like yours! And, the wife is a "neat-freak" ... I tell you, I spend all my time looking for materials she has "organized" for me ... smirk My secret is that I'm not married. Things tend to stay where I leave them. Count your blessings. If your wife didn't pickup after you, your shop would look like mine. I hope you didn't come here for answers, I mean I can't speak for everyone here, but all I have is questions! And, if I ask something that doesn't have a black and white answer, I get slapped in the face! blank-look If you check my posting history, you'll find that I usually answer questions, not ask them. I learn more by doing the necessary research to answer other peoples questions, than I do by asking questions. Demands for answers, demands for open discussions, demands we look at even the quantum world in "explorations into antennas", especially from some of the STRONG personalities you find here, can be intimidating ... but, welcome aboard. You obviously haven't read my postings. Try alt.internet.wireless. I'm the one that is doing the intimidating. However, if you thought you would find peace of mind, bliss and enlightenment here ... think again. ROFLOL Nope. My life is an endless search for entertainment value. That might explain why I wasted an hour or more replying to Art. How my world works: http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/panorama/jeffl.htm (Wait for the page to load. Move mouse around image.) You are just about to find out "how deep this Rabbit-Hole goes!" Well, thanks for the welcome and warnings. Warm regards, Yep. I just stacked about half a cord of firewood. I wanna be warm this winter. JS -- 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 Sep 16, 10:23*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote: ... I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the property of mass inerent in light ;-) Really? Then your mind is so limited it doesn't realize that a black hole would warp the very fabric of space/time itself, and therefore the wave propagating though it, and therefore the wave would have to choice but purse a course towards it? ... yanno', I suspected just that thing! Regards, JS Right. Black holes have high gravity. Gravity warps space. Light can travel only through the boundaries of space, therefore light has mass. No need to say space-time, "space" is sufficient. The discussion may be quantum related but it is not relativistic. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 17, 3:25*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:13:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:58:35 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: No Newtonians in this crowd. *Perhaps it was the relativistic term "speed of light" that confused this group so much. *Let's restate it in units that Newton could have appreciated. We know that we can accelerate an electron to *167,770 miles/s - it happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt displays still glowing in the world. *Some of us know its mass at this speed. *A question for the Newtonian philosopherz: * * * *"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?" Google to the rescue: http://asistm.duit.uwa.edu.au/synchrotron/downloads/pdfs/chapter11_7.pdf mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5 whe *mr = relativistic mass *mo = mass at rest *v *= velocity of particle *c *= speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec For v = 167,700 miles/sec *mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5 *mr/mo = 1/ 1 - 0.813^0.5 = 1/ (1 - 0.902) = 1/ 0.0984 = 10.2 So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that of the particle at rest. *It doesn't matter what particle. *Do I get a gold star? (Somebody please check my arithmetic as I forgot to eat dinner, it's after midnight, my brain is mush, and my calculator battery is fading fast). All wrong. *No gold star for that mess. *I just hate it when I click "send" and only then discover my arithmetic error. *Rev 1.0 follows: mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5 whe * mr = relativistic mass * mo = mass at rest * v *= velocity of particle * c *= speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec For v = 167,700 miles/sec * mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5 * mr/mo = 1/ (1 - 0.813)^0.5 = 1/ (0.187)^0.5 = 1/ 0.432 = 2.31 So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 2.3 times that of the particle at rest. *It doesn't matter what particle. *Maybe a silver star? -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 * * * * * #http://802.11junk.com* * * * * * * #http://www.LearnByDestroying.com* * * * * * * AE6KS- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not correct. It's not quite as simple as e = m*c**2. You must use the Lorentz transformation. Using the same values you have assiged to c and v, the correct equation would be: mr = mo/SQRT(1 - v**2/c**2) As v = c, mr must = infinity (therefore no mass can reach c) |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a radiator. Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I apologize I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things together. When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another try later Regards Art Consider that there is little difference in the performance of a solid radiator and hollow radiator. There are things about Electromagnetic Radiation that aren't discussed by Newton. Study classical antenna theory, then you will be on common ground with others that study antennas. The danger of concentrating on your own line of study so much is that you wind up out on a limb. I see this often when dealing with different terminology spawned of different paradigms, where similar circuits are redrawn and renamed by different engineering teams. This is nowhere more evident in Psychology and Philosophy, where insight springs from the conclusions derived from the limited experiences of an isolated group or individual. It is like the blind men describing an elephant when they have only one part in front of them. They each call the elephant something else based on their singular experience and arrive at logical conclusions that are false. The fact that we only have one lifetime to devote to all the pieces is indeed a limitation. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
John Smith wrote:
Where is motion? Velocity = c Where is time? Time stands still for anything traveling at velocity = c -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Rectifier wrote:
It's not the light that bends the comet's tail. If the sun put out nothing except EM waves, what would a comet's tail look like? I suggest you read Eugene Hecht's section in "Optics" titled: "3.3.4 Radiation Pressure and Momentum" in my 4th edition. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 16, 4:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 3:39*pm, "Wayne" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ...Iconsi der it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of examinations since equilibrium is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas No where do I see antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it like a plague? Art - My engineering training is many years old now, but I haven't seen equilibrium in the context of antennas discussed anywhere except by you, in this newsgroup. *Do you have any references to papers that have been peer reviewed and published? Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get you something to read but difficult if you are starting from Zero. The point where you begin is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be nfired which goes for some of the people at *University of Illinois in the electrical engineering area. EVERYTHING in science revolves around equilibrium. If a posting denys that or does not respond to that Law i will not respond and that includes Richard whose sole aim in life if to divert the crowd with off topic nothings as he does not ahve any Wayne engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender looking for a date with any poster. Art Wayn e I stated that I started at the point of first principles which is Newton and I went from there. There is not a book that I know that starts there. You want a lst of authors that physics examiners look for to determine what"famous " people will side with him if he accepts it. That lesson is not lost on all that aspire to heights in the academic world so a paper MUST be buillt on the works of others whose work has been accepted. In my case I start at a point where the shoulders that I stand aupon are all dead. I made reference to Newton only and I havent got a list of supporters. So I start at the beginning with just one name in consideration to isolate the point of possible error. The ARRL infers the circuit is the capacitance to ground where as I put the cuircuit as going thru the center of the conductor. I dont see the need to bring in quantum physics or to speculate about photons or massless items or how many gears that they can race thru to obtain the speed of light. I was not an electrical engineer and I am not wired like Richard as I have a wife and I am a great grandpa and no wish to be any part of his world. My subject is and will always be until in someway I am satisfied is what is the electrical circuit of a fractional wavelength antenna which is not specifically stated in the books and where every poster is waiting for somnebody else to dip his toe in the water and thus avoid any subsequent verbal thrashing. I can never point to a list of supporting evidence beyond Newton and his laws. Best regards.....I have to cut an acre of grass with a hand mower as my daily excercise yes I do have a tractor but that is not excercise Art |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Rectifier wrote: When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits wave properties. When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle properties. When does light travel at a speed other than the speed of light? From another of my postings: "If I remember correctly, a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of light." The first nine words in my first statement above are not mine but were copied verbatim from Rectifier's posting (except for the misspelled word). If there was an implication that light can travel at less than the speed of light, it didn't come from me. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Rectifier wrote:
Photons (the particle nature explanation of EMR) have no mass: http://www.physchem.co.za/OB12-ele/radiation.htm They should have said "no rest mass" to keep the uninitiated from getting confused. Any particle that can apply pressure, possesses momentum and "penetrating ability" at the least has relativistic mass. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html "In special relativity, it turns out that we are still able to define a particle's momentum p such that it behaves in well- defined ways that are an extension of the Newtonian case. Although p and v still point in the same direction, it turns out that they are no longer proportional; the best we can do is relate them via the particle's 'relativistic mass'." "It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Rectifier wrote:
You say the "idea was postulated in 1915." Since when does a postulate become proof making something a law? It was postulated by Einstein in 1915 and measurements agreed in 1919. It is said to have been proven a scientific fact in 1959. I'm just surprised that your university didn't teach it in the postulate stage, valid measurement stage, or in the scientific fact stage. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 17, 11:18*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote: You misspelled plonk, but baby makes three. *That makes the last one who can't do the math. The photon mass math is trivial. E= mc^2 = hf m = hf/c^2 = h/(c)lamda If I remember correctly, a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of light. -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com Are you proposing that a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of light in a vacuum, or it cannot travel slower than the speed of light in water or the speed of light through glass or air? Please reference which speed of light a photon cannot travel slower than. Assuming your answer is the universal constrant "c", then my question is, knowing that light travels faster through a vacuum than it does through water, is the light travelling through water still "photons" or is that impossible because they are travelling too slow? What are they then? Please advise. Thanks. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 17, 2:04*pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Rectifier wrote: Read it again! *I didn't say photons have zero mass; I said electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has no mass. *EMR exhibits both wave and particle properties. *When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits wave properties. When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle properties. It has been about half a century since experiments proved that light waves are bent by gravity thus proving that electromagnetic radiation has mass. That idea was postulated in 1915. Did you get your degree before then? :-) -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com Photons (the particle nature explanation of EMR) have no mass: http://www.physchem.co.za/OB12-ele/radiation.htm No REST mass. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com