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

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

"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.

Art Unwin wrote:
... 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 ...

Art

Well, I certainly don't know about all that ...

But, if my understanding is correct, newtons laws begin to "fall apart"
with very small particles ... and indeed, the ether (eather, aether --
sometimes I make a typo and type it as "either") is composed of such ...

I am sure, I am least correct at the quantum level ... wink

Regards,
JS

On Sep 16, 4:23*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
... 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 ...
Art

Well, I certainly don't know about all that ...

But, if my understanding is correct, newtons laws begin to "fall apart"
with very small particles ... and indeed, the ether (eather, aether --
sometimes I make a typo and type it as "either") is composed of such ...

I am sure, I am least correct at the quantum level ... wink

Regards,
JS

That was ruled out when it was determined that Neutrons were not
without mass !

Art Unwin wrote:

...
That was ruled out when it was determined that Neutrons were not
without mass !

Hmmm ... actually, how can anything "really" be without "mass", isn't
energy just a "form of mass" and "vice versa?" I mean, the equations
certainly imply this ...

I mean really, when we deal with particles the size of photons and below
.... aren't they "melding" into the same "thingys" grin ... and,
perhaps my data is old ... I don't think "newton does quantum", but he
might have a brother by the same name ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:23:55 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I am sure, I am least correct at the quantum level ... wink
Regards,
JS

There are quantum mechanics in antennas:
http://www.amazon.com/24775-Quantum-Indoor-HDTV-Antenna/dp/B000W8XQJC
It's even amplified.

More realistically:
"Superconducting quantum antenna"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=rM2pAAAAEBAJ&dq=7369093
Apparently it uses a quantum screen to generate fringing. That's
common at infrared but I haven't seen it used to focus RF. I can't
tell if it's for real. I'll get brain damage from trying to read this
stuff after midnight. Tomorrow...

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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:23:55 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I am sure, I am least correct at the quantum level ... wink
Regards,
JS

There are quantum mechanics in antennas:
http://www.amazon.com/24775-Quantum-Indoor-HDTV-Antenna/dp/B000W8XQJC
It's even amplified.

More realistically:
"Superconducting quantum antenna"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=rM2pAAAAEBAJ&dq=7369093
Apparently it uses a quantum screen to generate fringing. That's
common at infrared but I haven't seen it used to focus RF. I can't
tell if it's for real. I'll get brain damage from trying to read this
stuff after midnight. Tomorrow...


Jeff:

Another good point, I avoid patents in my searches!

In the google search box, I always include the search terms "-patents"
and "-patent" (minus the double quotes) ... that is the type of stuff
(silly patents) which just accelerates my insane questions to
unfathomable limits!

Heck, I can't even tell the "silly" ones (patents) from the "real" ones
.... indeed, I strongly suspect I am a poor one to judge!

LOL!

Regards,
JS

Art Unwin wrote:

Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get
you something to read

Nope, unless you are interested in insects, the above statement is dead
wrong.

tom
K0TAR

"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