On Sep 4, 3:03*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Mike you forget.
I do not subscribe to the wave theory over the particle aproach.
I cannot see any other way to fit that "radiation is from the
acceleration of a charge". And I can not find any explanation of this
in any books. Only mass is able to have spin and at the same time
transport energy, at least to my mind.
So are you saying that FR energy has mass, or that it doesn't have spin?

Therefore accelaration is the
creation of two forces that are not in the same plain ala a shear
action where the combination of gravity and the Coriolis force are the
weakest forces known in the std model.
What is the acceleration of RF?

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

The speed of light.

Acceleration isn't expressed as C.

Does RF energy have mass?

Yes if you see it as a particle and not a electromagnetic wave.

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:03 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Mike you forget.
I do not subscribe to the wave theory over the particle aproach.
I cannot see any other way to fit that "radiation is from the
acceleration of a charge". And I can not find any explanation of this
in any books. Only mass is able to have spin and at the same time
transport energy, at least to my mind.
So are you saying that FR energy has mass, or that it doesn't have spin?
Therefore accelaration is the
creation of two forces that are not in the same plain ala a shear
action where the combination of gravity and the Coriolis force are the
weakest forces known in the std model.
What is the acceleration of RF?
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
The speed of light.
Acceleration isn't expressed as C.

Does RF energy have mass?

Yes if you see it as a particle and not a electromagnetic wave.

A test can be performed easily.

If RF energy has mass

It then follows that a transmitting antenna will lose mass.
Likewise, a receiving antenna will gain mass.

The confirming experiment can be made by using a two small antennas in
an isolated environment. One is transmitting, and one receiving. If RF
energy is a particle - therefore mechanical force, the receiving antenna
must accumulate mass, and the transmitting antenna must lose it.

We do have the needed resolution of measurement to make that test.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Sep 5, 9:44*am, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:03 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Mike you forget.
I do not subscribe to the wave theory over the particle aproach.
I cannot see any other way to fit that "radiation is from the
acceleration of a charge". And I can not find any explanation of this
in any books. Only mass is able to have spin and at the same time
transport energy, at least to my mind.
So are you saying that FR energy has mass, or that it doesn't have spin?
Therefore accelaration is the
creation of two forces that are not in the same plain ala a shear
action where the combination of gravity and the Coriolis force are the
weakest forces known in the std model.
What is the acceleration of RF?
* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -
The speed of light.
Acceleration isn't expressed as C.

Does RF energy have mass?

Yes if you see it as a particle and not a electromagnetic wave.

A test can be performed easily.

If RF energy has mass

It then follows that a transmitting antenna will lose mass.
Likewise, a receiving antenna will gain mass.

The confirming experiment can be made by using a two small antennas in
an isolated environment. One is transmitting, and one receiving. If RF
energy is a particle - therefore mechanical force, the receiving antenna
must accumulate mass, and the transmitting antenna must lose it.

We do have the needed resolution of measurement to make that test.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

That is the presently accepted formula in science where atoms are
removed from the matrics of the radiator.
For me, all diamagnetic materials are completely covered with
particles that entered the solar stream from the Sun. As soon as they
are projected away from a radiator another takes its place, thus no
changes in mass.
When placing such an arrangement in boundary form on the outside is
the vectors of gravity and the Coriolis force. On the inside of the
arbitrary boundary
are the vectors of a moving charge together with a spin action of a
eddy current together with a particle at rest where all transforms in
to a projection with spin of the static particle.
This breaks the arbitrary boundary and where the arrival of another
static particle restores equilibrium.
This mechanism is the same as that from the sun when equilibrium is
broken by the escape of such particles because of the exchange of
potential energy to kinetic energy within its boundary.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 9:44 am, Mike Coslo wrote:
The confirming experiment can be made by using a two small antennas in
an isolated environment. One is transmitting, and one receiving. If RF
energy is a particle - therefore mechanical force, the receiving antenna
must accumulate mass, and the transmitting antenna must lose it.

That is the presently accepted formula in science where atoms are
removed from the matrics of the radiator.
For me, all diamagnetic materials are completely covered with
particles that entered the solar stream from the Sun. As soon as they
are projected away from a radiator another takes its place, thus no
changes in mass.

what about my ferromagnetic radiators??? since they don't have your magical
levitating diamagnetic neutrinos they must constantly be losing mass and
will eventually fall apart!

On Sep 5, 2:28*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 9:44 am, Mike Coslo wrote:

The confirming experiment can be made by using a two small antennas in
an isolated environment. One is transmitting, and one receiving. If RF
energy is a particle - therefore mechanical force, the receiving antenna
must accumulate mass, and the transmitting antenna must lose it.
That is the presently accepted formula in science where atoms are
removed from the matrics of the radiator.
For me, all diamagnetic materials are completely covered with
particles that entered the solar stream from the Sun. As soon as they
are projected away from a radiator another takes its place, thus no
changes in mass.

what about my ferromagnetic radiators??? since they don't have your magical
levitating diamagnetic neutrinos they must constantly be losing mass and
will eventually fall apart!

And you are the role model that this group is in lockstep with? Pay
attention and stop manufacturing things

Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 5, 11:36*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of?
Mass with potential energy or what? This word is bandied around so
much
but its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture!
This approach has handicapped the advance in physics and radio for
over a century now.
Should we not explore a different avenue to see if answers lay
elsewhere.? Why do we resist change to so called accepted analogies
and theories? Why is this group so confident
that particles are not involved because it is an electrical thing? If
one accepts kinetic and potential energy why do they fight the
presence of mass?
Regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of?
... its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture!

Photons are quantized elementary particles in the standard
model. Every time you see something, like this posting of mine,
you are capturing the photons incident upon your retina.

Double slit experiments with photons have been performed
with a single photon which apparently can go through both
slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the
other side. Those photon detectors indeed can capture
individual photons.

Photons are quite often generated and detected within
particle accelerators.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 5, 1:22*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of?
... its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture!

Photons are quantized elementary particles in the standard
model. Every time you see something, like this posting of mine,
you are capturing the photons incident upon your retina.

Double slit experiments with photons have been performed
with a single photon which apparently can go through both
slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the
other side. Those photon detectors indeed can capture
individual photons.

Photons are quite often generated and detected within
particle accelerators.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

My problem is with how photons fit in with radiation?
It is a nice name but how does it get launched and where did it come
from?
Personaly I can't distinguish it from a particle at rest on a radiator
or how it can possibly get attached to it which apparently you
believe. I just want to see how this proton fits in with what we know.
Waves or particles.

Art Unwin wrote:
My problem is with how photons fit in with radiation?
It is a nice name but how does it get launched and where did it come
from?
Personaly I can't distinguish it from a particle at rest on a radiator
or how it can possibly get attached to it which apparently you
believe. I just want to see how this proton fits in with what we know.
Waves or particles.

EM radiation waves *are* groups of quantized coherent
particles. It's called the wave/particle duality. If
one is expecting a wave, one detects a wave. If one
is expecting particles, one detects particles. In
reality, there is no difference between waves and
particles which existed long before man evolved.

If you will simply conceptually replace whatever particle
that you believe is blasted off the surface of a radiator
with a photon radiated by an energetic electron that
remains on the surface of the radiator, you will
have the presently accepted standard physics model.

For something resembling your concepts, one might say that
the RF source supplies the energy for the bullets fired
by the electron gun located on the surface of the radiator.
The gun didn't have any bullets before the source supplied
the energy for them. Once the electron gun is loaded,
Mother Nature pulls the trigger.

A photon at rest on a radiator is undetectable if it can
exist at all. The theory is that photons are created by
supplying energy to electrons. Photons are the method that
electrons use to shed their excess energy.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com