On Jun 29, 11:44*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
You should decide: EM or electrons. The mixture is fun.

That's an interesting idea to which I don't know the answer. Let me
rephrase the question:

Although it is known that electrons cannot flow through the dielectric
of an ideal capacitor, how about photons? Can RF photons flow directly
through the dielectric layer of a capacitor? If they can, it would
explain a lot of things.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 29, 11:44 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
You should decide: EM or electrons. The mixture is fun.

That's an interesting idea to which I don't know the answer. Let me
rephrase the question:

Although it is known that electrons cannot flow through the dielectric
of an ideal capacitor, how about photons? Can RF photons flow directly
through the dielectric layer of a capacitor? If they can, it would
explain a lot of things.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

photons can flow through a dielectric.. isn't that what EM propagation
is, after all?

On Jun 29, 12:54*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
photons can flow through a dielectric.. isn't that what EM propagation
is, after all?

Yes, after I posted it, I realized that it was a rhetorical question.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 29 jun, 15:08, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:54*pm, Jim Lux wrote:

photons can flow through a dielectric.. isn't that what EM propagation
is, after all?

Yes, after I posted it, I realized that it was a rhetorical question.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Dear friends, I follow with interest your interesting digressions,
however in various different posts about differents matters, I notice
discussion arises about what is "real" and what is not. IMO that
contributes to the solution goes away from us (I remember making this
comment in a previous post). In this sense respecto to energy I would
like to quote a great physics:

"...there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not
change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most
abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that
there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something
happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete;
it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when
we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the
number again, it is the same."

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no
knowledge of what
energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs
of a definite
amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for
calculating some
numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives "28"'—
always the
same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the
mechanism or
the reasons for the various formulas."

From: Richard Feynman. "Six easy pieces"

Miguel LU6ETJ

On 29 jun, 20:57, lu6etj wrote:
On 29 jun, 15:08, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jun 29, 12:54*pm, Jim Lux wrote:

photons can flow through a dielectric.. isn't that what EM propagation
is, after all?

Yes, after I posted it, I realized that it was a rhetorical question.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Dear friends, I follow with interest your interesting digressions,
however in various different posts about differents matters, I notice
discussion arises about what is "real" and what is not. IMO that
contributes to the solution goes away from us (I remember making this
comment in a previous post). In this sense respecto to energy I would
like to quote a great physics:

"...there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not
change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most
abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that
there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something
happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete;
it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when
we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the
number again, it is the same."

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no
knowledge of what
energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs
of a definite
amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for
calculating some
numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives "28"'—
always the
same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the
mechanism or
the reasons for the various formulas."

From: Richard Feynman. "Six easy pieces"

Miguel LU6ETJ

Sorry, I forget to made clear that my comment not reference Cecil
recent post mentioning "real power" in mathematical sense, referencing
complex numbers. :)

Miguel

On 29 jun, 15:08, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:54*pm, Jim Lux wrote:

photons can flow through a dielectric.. isn't that what EM propagation
is, after all?

Yes, after I posted it, I realized that it was a rhetorical question.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I learnt displacement current inside a condenser it was = eo* d(phi E)/
dt no EM radiation inside the condenser to made that current possible,
in any case EM radiation in physical condenser will come out from
condenser to the rest of the universe :).
I also learnt photons was necessary to explain certain energy
interchange phenomena such as fotoelectric effect or subatomic
particle interactions, wave-particle duality for me means "duality",
not "wave kaput" :) to account for EM wave well explainable
phenomenom.
As it was taught to me (I am not physicist), quantum nature of a 80 m
wavelenght energy it is useless for calculations and invisible to our
instrument resolution because its immensely large quantic number. Is
it wrong?

Miguel LU6ETJ

On Jun 29, 8:41*pm, lu6etj wrote:
I learnt displacement current inside a condenser it was = eo* d(phi E)/
dt no EM radiation inside the condenser to made that current possible,
in any case EM radiation in physical condenser will come out from
condenser to the rest of the universe :).

It depends on your definition of "radiation". In an ideal transmission
line, energy is not lost to radiation but photons (EM fields and
waves) necessarily exist all up and down the line. In an ideal coaxial
transmission line, the photons (EM fields and waves) are confined to
the dielectric. Electrons cannot travel at the speed of light. EM
waves travel at the speed of light. Therefore EM waves are photons.
Given the physical nature of a capacitor, refraction would be the
primary mechanism for losing energy to radiation and there's probably
very, very little refraction in the capacitor dielectric. If electrons
are being acelerated and decelerated in the capacitor, photons will be
emitted. It seems obvious now that when electrons are decelerated on
one capacitor plate, photons are emitted that propogate across the
capacitor dielectric and are absorbed by electrons on the opposite
plate. When the concept of displacement current was invented, nobody
knew that RF fields were actually made up of particles (photons) but
now we do know. Displacement current seems only to be EM radiation
from one capacitor plate to the other.

As it was taught to me (I am not physicist), quantum nature of a 80 m
wavelenght energy it is useless for calculations and invisible to our
instrument resolution because its immensely large quantic number. Is
it wrong?

The quantized nature of a single RF photon is no longer open to
argument and the energy in that single photon can be calculated,
(h*f), where h is Planck's constant, 6.626 x 10^-34 J*s. Whether there
are any instruments sensitive enough to detect a single 80m photon is
a moot point that does not change the nature of RF fields and waves.
What is important is that it is impossible to radiate a signal level
less than (h*f). If anyone asserts that RF fields and waves can
violate the laws of physics regarding photons, that person is wrong
and delusional. (Light left over from the time when the universe
became transparent is today red-shifted down to RF microwave
frequencies and called background radiation.)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

As it was taught to me (I am not physicist), quantum nature of a 80 m
wavelenght energy it is useless for calculations and invisible to our
instrument resolution because its immensely large quantic number. Is
it wrong?

Yes.

We experience 80M activity every day irrespective of it being
Newtonian or Quantum. All it reveals is that something with a very,
very, very low energy is still quite measurable.

However, you "can" deliberately choose the wrong instrument to measure
the energy. That instrument reveals more about the choice-maker than
the energy.

For instance, a 1KW 80M energy source presents a near 0 degree
absolute temperature. A fever thermometer is not going to register
that energy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 30 jun, 16:00, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

As it was taught to me (I am not physicist), quantum nature of a 80 m
wavelenght energy it is useless for calculations and invisible to our
instrument resolution because its immensely large quantic number. Is
it wrong?

Yes.

We experience 80M activity every day irrespective of it being
Newtonian or Quantum. *All it reveals is that something with a very,
very, very low energy is still quite measurable. *

However, you "can" deliberately choose the wrong instrument to measure
the energy. *That instrument reveals more about the choice-maker than
the energy.

For instance, a 1KW 80M energy source presents a near 0 degree
absolute temperature. *A fever thermometer is not going to register
that energy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dear Richard:

What I said is what my physics book says, I swear there no creation of
mine... :) (I have not any authority on this matter).
I was thinking in quantic number describing the energy of a typical
100 W 80 m oscillator devolped in one second, representing a quantic
number n = 4.3 * 10^28; we know our quanta represents the minimun
possible energy of a 80 m radiation AND the minimun "delta" Energy
possible for a given oscillator, energy difference between (among?)
one quanta an two quanta of 80 m radiation is 2.3 * 10^ -27 J, that
difference (my physic book say) it is unmeasurable experimentally
(this energy leap (skip?, hop?) it is in the order of 10^-8 smaller
that green light leap (in reality my book -Resnick Halliday- give a
moving dust particle example with quantic number very much lower than
my 80 m example yet = n = 3 * 10^14, they said "we can not
distiguish energy difference among n = 3 * 10^14 and n = [3 * 10^14]
+1")
What it is the ohysical sense of working with magnitudes we can not
measure? Nobody (as we know) use (or need) quantum mechanics to deal
with (or explain) locomotive movement :)

Cecil said "electrons can not travel at light speed, photon yes
therefore EM waves are photons", well... EM CAN travel at light speed,
then photons are EM waves As I know duality (particles can
behave as waves and vice versa) have not dead yet (or he died and I
found out?).
Cecil said: "When the concept of displacement current was invented,
nobody
knew that RF fields were actually made up of particles (photons) but
now we do know". Cecil seem to me as Zarathustra has declared: "¡Wave
is dead!" :)

Yes, yes, I know some people bring very strange ideas into the forums,
but I think it is not necessary argue them with exotic others -even if
they are true- because the partner will double the bet and will bring
other even more bizarre yet...! :)

Well, dont be bothered by my comments, I am joking a little...

73 - Miguel - LU6ETJ

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:02:14 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I was thinking in quantic number describing the energy of a typical
100 W 80 m oscillator devolped in one second,

Hi Miguel,

Power? Energy? One second? Choose one to talk about, and perhaps
the mystery of numbers might clear up.

one quanta an two quanta

Quanta? Two Quanta? We are now up to four intermixed terms.
Simplify. Choose one thing.

of 80 m radiation is 2.3 * 10^ -27 J, that
difference (my physic book say) it is unmeasurable experimentally
(this energy leap (skip?, hop?) it is in the order of 10^-8 smaller
that green light leap

True, but immaterial. You are confusing wavelength and quanta (no
surprise given the blearing of topic). Compare Green and IR. Is
there a correlation on a scale of two that predicts out to a scale of
10^8? Compare Green and deep IR. Is there a correlation on a scale
of ten that predicts out to a scale of 10^8? Compare Green and the
Sub-millimeter band. Is there a correlation on a scale of 100 that
predicts out to a scale of 10^8?

(in reality my book -Resnick Halliday- give a
moving dust particle example with quantic number very much lower than
my 80 m example yet = n = 3 * 10^14, they said "we can not
distiguish energy difference among n = 3 * 10^14 and n = [3 * 10^14]
+1")

So a quantum of smaller energy of a dust particle is measureable but
80M transmission is not? Common sense is wheezing in this dust.

OK, so they are talking about the difference in quantum, not energy.
Would it surprise you that you cannot even tell the difference between
one quanta of green light and two with conventional detecting
technology?

What it is the ohysical sense of working with magnitudes we can not
measure? Nobody (as we know) use (or need) quantum mechanics to deal
with (or explain) locomotive movement :)

The limitation is called Quatum Efficiency and the human eye is vastly
superior (to all but $1,000,000 components) at rougly QE = 50%.

Cecil said
Cecil said
Yes, yes, I know some people bring very strange ideas into the forums,

Indeed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC