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