On Sep 16, 4:06*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
...
Radiation has no mass? You just made that up

Yes, that would seem to break the law of "'E' equals mc squared", and
its' opposite, counterpart ... I mean, if you really think about it ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time. I have difficulty with it as the motion of an observer
acheiving the speed of light seems like standing on a sand spar
waiting for the tide to come in. Same goes with Feynman diagrams
as it just replaces an unknown with another unknown! Are these both
emporers with no clothes surrounded by Lemmings?
Art

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

On Sep 17, 2:26*pm, "JB" 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

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.

Could well be but I have no alternative and am going my own way. Why
should this disturb others?
They could easily show me the error of my ways instead of taking up
the cause against change
We all know Newtons Laws ( some interprete in different ways) So we
have a radiator upon which a charge rests
there for ethere is no need for a opposing vector inside the radiator.
Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium and thus we have a
vector
which according to the laws of Newton or equilibrium or what ever
requires a responding vector inside the conductor. Inside the
conductor there is no magnetic field nor the Foucalt current thus it
is not radiating just spending copper losses. Put the apparatus in a
vacuum and the current will take a less resistive route by producing
an arc at the ends AWAY from the radiator. To me that sounds as
perfect logic but there is no book that states it or the presence of
the Foucalt current. That is not to say there are not a lot of
explanations all of which are different so I go back to first
principles and people get angry at the idea of change. Now the tide on
this post has turned around on Cecil. Let me warn you that Cecil has
outlasted this group several times to the tune of threads extending
more than a thousand more than a few times over the last 20 years. One
person who harasses him tries a lot of tactics on him including
pointing out that his only difference he has with a dog is lipstickl
but only the newbies respond to him unnowingly. Cecil will out last
them all.
Art Back to the mowing

Art Unwin wrote:

...
John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time. I have difficulty with it as the motion of an observer
acheiving the speed of light seems like standing on a sand spar
waiting for the tide to come in. Same goes with Feynman diagrams
as it just replaces an unknown with another unknown! Are these both
emporers with no clothes surrounded by Lemmings?
Art

Well, darn Art, those nuclear explosions, yanno', like the ones "we"
used to do in Nevada ... those flying particles, the heat, the light,
the radiation, the sand blast, the wind!, etc., it is hard enough to
keep track of all that c*rp flying about, at those speeds (not to
mention the amount of sun screen a guy needs just to be in vicinity!),
it is hard to arrive at an exact tally when, it is all over--yanno' what
I mean, Vern? ;-)

Regards,
JS