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

On 1 jul, 02:42, Richard Clark wrote:
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

Hello Richard:

(I am not quoting with "" because I get unpredictable results with
google :) )

You said: "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."
I could not translate this sentence, (sometimes your writings are
complicated for me Richard, try Tarzan style or better yet... try as
you were writing to Cheeta! :)
(I handed the sentence to a friend who lives in England and today said
to me that have so many interpretations and did not solve my
problem...)

"Why do you compare 80M to green light?"

Well... I like it! photons born from light, green light it is a
central zone of visible light spectrum, and 80 m is my favourite ex-
novice band...
Look, light has a very rough "texture", light quanta is a very
energetic thing, its "granularity" it is high and we easily perceive
its quantic nature, 80 m energy instead has a very, very "soft"
texture, 10^8 time softer than green light, and we can not measure its
"granularity" with our instruments. Think of a 1000 kg car smashing
against your car at 100 km/h, now think of a mosquito (10 mg) smashing
against your windshield at the same speed.. well if the one green
light quantum had the cinetc energy of a 1000 kg thrown against your
car, 80 m quantum would have the mosquito energy! It is a really good
example... you should congratulate me for that formidable approach!!
no?, hi hi

Physicists said that we can better perceive energy glanularity at
lower temperatures and they say we have classic behaviour when hv
kT, well... at 1 K, kT it is 6000 times bigger than 80 m hv, a very
classic oscilator indeed!, at 293 K ambient temperature I think we can
not appreciate quantized nature of RF waves!, (at least with my Bird
43) :)

I have a question too, please tell me (I am very curious): why you
take every opportunity to bite (sting?) my friend Cecil, ah? ;). I
read carefully Cecil writings and I do not find flawings in his
affirmations; usually he is very precise and scholar on this matters,
sometimes he has an occasional forgivable habit, such his predilection
for photons and polished glass things, but I think he has not so
"distractive", usually I understand wiich is "his point" to bring
another physics areas on the table... I think often we have a little
stubborn too :D

73, and thank you very much for your company - Miguel - LU6ETJ

On Jul 2, 2:04*pm, lu6etj wrote:
I have a question too, please tell me (I am very curious): why you
take every opportunity to bite (sting?) my friend Cecil, ah? ;).

I once caught Richard red-handed, blatently superposing powers and he
has never forgiven me for that. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:04:57 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hello Richard:

(I am not quoting with "" because I get unpredictable results with
google :) )

You said: "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."
I could not translate this sentence, (sometimes your writings are
complicated for me Richard, try Tarzan style or better yet... try as
you were writing to Cheeta! :)

Hi Miguel,

Fair enough - and sorry for the density of style.

(I handed the sentence to a friend who lives in England and today said
to me that have so many interpretations and did not solve my
problem...)

Well, that sentence was more about context than it was about style. I
am glad you did not ask your friend to read the thread.

"Why do you compare 80M to green light?"

Well... I like it! photons born from light, green light it is a
central zone of visible light spectrum, and 80 m is my favourite ex-
novice band...

Yes, green (actually green-yellow) light corresponds to photopic (day)
vision. Scotopic (moonless night) vision is blue-shifted. Sitting
inside would tend towards a combination called mesopic vision.

The analogue of the eye as "receiver" gives us the peculiar action of
resonance shifting due to strength of the QSO. Propagation fading
would find the contact drifting from the 80M Band up through the 60M
band.

Look, light has a very rough "texture",

Is Cheeta trying to say photons?

light quanta is a very
energetic thing, its "granularity" it is high and we easily perceive
its quantic nature,

The eye can sense one photon out of two under the best of conditions,
but what that means as far as "granularity" is lost on me. A RADAR
(even if not an 80M one) can respond to a pulse it sends and senses in
an echo. The packet contains at least 100 to 10000 cycles. Pulse
shape signatures would suggest that individual cycles are resolved -
granularity?

80 m energy instead has a very, very "soft"
texture, 10^8 time softer than green light, and we can not measure its
"granularity" with our instruments.

The granularity can be expressed in microKelvins of temperature which
can be (and has been) resolved. What you describe as "we can not
measure" is more a function of background noise, not ability, nor
instrumentation incapacity.

Think of a 1000 kg car smashing
against your car at 100 km/h, now think of a mosquito (10 mg) smashing
against your windshield at the same speed.. well if the one green
light quantum had the cinetc energy of a 1000 kg thrown against your
car, 80 m quantum would have the mosquito energy! It is a really good
example... you should congratulate me for that formidable approach!!
no?, hi hi

Analogies, as we have mulled them over in the past, often lead to
their own failure and that, in turn, brings down the central point
trying to be argued.

Case in point with your mosquito: The two collision events can also
be expressed as energy translation into temperature change. This is
called phononic energy - or sound. The crash of cars or bugs resolves
into a sound. Do we hear, or do we have the capacity to hear either?
Both? There are 8 orders of magnitude difference between the two
masses at the same velocities. Our hearing dynamic range easily
encompasses that. I can hear bugs bump against my living room window
at far slower velocity. I would not hear them with the background
noise of an operating automobile and the various road, wind,
conversational or radio noises raising the noise floor.

This points out that measurement failures are often a matter of
method, hence the human component of psychological impairment. Science
is more fascinating in its stories of overcoming shortfalls of
perception. Einstein wasn't known for his math, or his benchwork, he
gave us perspective.

Physicists said that we can better perceive energy glanularity at
lower temperatures and they say we have classic behaviour when hv
kT, well... at 1 K, kT it is 6000 times bigger than 80 m hv, a very
classic oscilator indeed!, at 293 K ambient temperature I think we can
not appreciate quantized nature of RF waves!, (at least with my Bird
43) :)

All the matter of background noise.

I have a question too, please tell me (I am very curious): why you
take every opportunity to bite (sting?) my friend Cecil, ah? ;).

Probably because you enjoy reading it, otherwise why are you offering
another opportunity? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC