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

On 30 jun, 19:16, Richard Clark wrote:
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

Dear Richard:

On examples we usually start with a visible common data, here I made
with a 100 W TX power during one second to gives certain amount of
energy, this amount of energy stored in a system (for example a LC
tank) gives the quantic number of the system. well... Energy it is
Power * Time and n=E/h*v, it easy, it is an electrical cuasi identical
example as page 1616 part II Spanih translated Resnick & Halliday
book. if for Resnick & Halliday guys is a good example for me is good
too :)

I do not confussing wavelengh with quanta!, quantized energy it is
E=nhv and v it is 1/lambda, how do you calculate E without v in such
equation?
I don not believe my translations are too wrong! I wrote what book say
= "they said "we CAN NOT DISTINGUISH energy difference among n = 3 *
10^14 and n = [3 * 10^14] +1"), (page 1652 op.cit.); where you read:
"quantum of smaller energy of a dust particle is measureable"? my text
says just the opposite!

You say: "OK, so they are talking about the difference in quantum, not
energy" I do not know if I am translating well your sentence...
perhaps you refer to my missuse of the latin word quanta (plural)
instead "quantum" (singular) (in spanish we usually say "cuanto/
cuantos" -not latin-, in english I believe you use latin, sorry by my
translating error), but I think not is that.
Quantum in this context is "energy quantum", they are talking about
difference of energy, that difference it is not continuos but
quantized, and each energy quantum is 2.3 * 10^ -27 J, one quantum,
two quantum... n*quantum, n*quantum in the system = E (op. cit. page
1615), what is wrong?

I am talking about 80 m technically useles quantum treatment, and you
say to me: "The limitation is called Quatum Efficiency and the human
eye is vastly superior (to all but $1,000,000 components) at rougly QE
= 50%."

What sort of human eye we use to see 80 m "light"? :)

I did not want go out off topic, I claimed quantum mechanics do not
help so much to solve TL related problems and give some reasons for
that. I am not an expert in quantum physics and I am not going further
that my elementary physic book examples. Are they wrong? well... then,
I am wrong too :) PSE do not argue with me, I am innocent of charges,
read the references...

73 - Miguel - LU6ETJ

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:46:10 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

a 100 W TX power during one second to gives certain amount of
energy

Hi Miguel,

POWER. Please observe the distinction as appeals to 100W or "one
second" have no bearing on where you seem to be fixated with quanta
and energy. Introducing distractions is not very useful. [I can
appreciate that you are not the source of the distractions.]

I do not confussing wavelengh with quanta!, quantized energy it is

Then quanta is a distraction, or wavelength is.

What sort of human eye we use to see 80 m "light"? :)

Why do you compare 80M to green light? The more wavelength
appropriate scale would be invisible in the 800nM Infra Red or in the
80nM Ultra Violet. Green light's correlative would be in the 55.5M
band (tropical SW).

I did not want go out off topic, I claimed quantum mechanics do not
help so much to solve TL related problems and give some reasons for
that.

Indeed, no doubt this [distraction] is attributable to a Texas
[distracting] snake in the grass.

Quantum mechanics can give a certain perspective and sense of scale,
but [distracting] amateurs shouldn't try that at home or on the
Internet.

I am not an expert in quantum physics and I am not going further
that my elementary physic book examples. Are they wrong? well... then,
I am wrong too :) PSE do not argue with me, I am innocent of charges,
read the references...

The Cosmic Radiation Background has been measured to about 2.76 K,
where the mapping variation (fluctuations of 30 microKelvins) are
within the Energy perturbation (contribution) of our Amateur
transmissions.

So as to not argue, I firmly agree with you that no one is going to
find any utility in any of this. But the debate will rage on
heedless.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC