On Jul 7, 12:57*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:04*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

At a junction, where charge can not be stored, this reduces to

Sorry, your examples are irrelevant to the technical fact that there
is no conservation of current principle because charge can be stored.
Until you can prove a conservation of current principle, you are
wasting my time.

This is toooooo amusing.

You refuse to start to examine the proof because it has not yet been
proved ... which can not happen until you examine the proof.

You are truly amazing at developing mind stopping techniques that
inhibit your ability to learn.

....Keith

On Jul 6, 7:27*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
Excellent attempt at diversion.

Sorry, "I don't know", is NOT a diversion.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Jul 6, 11:11*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 6, 7:27*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Excellent attempt at diversion.

Sorry, "I don't know", is NOT a diversion.

T'is when the thing you claim not to know has nothing to do with
the problem at hand.

As i pointed out, the energy levels are well above the noise.

And you skipped the intriguing question...

If the signal was a 50 W sinusoid at 15 nHz, would you have the
same reluctance to declare it an EM wave? It is a sinusoid.
What criteria could it possibly fail to satisfy?

At what frequency would you no longer be reluctanct?
1 microHz
1 mHz
0.1 Hz
1 Hz
10 Hz
100 Hz
1 kHz
10 kHz
?

Real applications run at 10 kHz so I assume you would accept,
without concern, at least this number. Where would your
trepidation begin?

....Keith

On Jul 7, 6:14*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
As i pointed out, the energy levels are well above the noise.

You have certainly not proved that to be true. The current is
essentially DC for most of the year. Therefore, you cannot assume the
proof to the question of whether the photons, which may or may not
exist, are above the noise level. (Hint: assuming the proof is one of
the most well known logical diversions.)

What I said was that one photon at 0.5 cycles/year is NOT above the
noise. You are free to try to prove that I was wrong. If you window
your signal for 1/2 of a year, I believe you will find it to be DC
steady-state. I do not believe it is far enough removed from DC to
generate any detectable photons.

I will be away from my computer for a few days. In the meanwhile, I
suggest that you prove that a conservation of power principle exists
and a conservation of current principle exists. Until you do that, you
are just blowing smoke. But it you succeed, you will no doubt receive
a Nobel Prize.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Jul 7, 1:12*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:14*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

As i pointed out, the energy levels are well above the noise.

You have certainly not proved that to be true. The current is
essentially DC for most of the year. Therefore, you cannot assume the
proof to the question of whether the photons, which may or may not
exist, are above the noise level. (Hint: assuming the proof is one of
the most well known logical diversions.)

What I said was that one photon at 0.5 cycles/year is NOT above the
noise.

Of course, there are many photons in the 50W signal previously
mentioned. That is the only way to get to 50W.

You are free to try to prove that I was wrong. If you window
your signal for 1/2 of a year, I believe you will find it to be DC
steady-state. I do not believe it is far enough removed from DC to
generate any detectable photons.

I will be away from my computer for a few days. In the meanwhile, I
suggest that you prove that a conservation of power principle exists
and a conservation of current principle exists. Until you do that, you
are just blowing smoke. But it you succeed, you will no doubt receive
a Nobel Prize.

Ahhm, so you are proposing a new concept: a lower frequency limit
where
a sinusoid stops being an EM wave and becomes what? Slowly varying DC?

I have never seen such a concept mentioned previously. Perhaps it will
be you who deserves the Nobel prize.

At what frequency, approximately, is this limit?

Or, if that is not yet known, what is the lowest frequency that you
are currently convinced would be an EM wave, such that the cutoff
must be less than this frequency?

Ballpark is good:
1 MHz
10 kHz
1 kHz
100 Hz
10 Hz
1 Hz
0.1 Hz
0.01 Hz
0.001 Hz
1 uHz
1 nHz

Just to the nearest order of magnitude, from the above list, which
frequency are you sure is still an EM wave rather than slowly
varying DC?

I am pretty sure that you would accept 10 kHz as been EM. Omega
used to be around 10 kHz.
How about 60 Hz? This is standard AC power in some jurisdictions.
25 Hz used to be common as AC power.
10 Hz? Is the audio on its way to the woofer an EM wave?
1 Hz?

Just an order of magnitude frequency that you are sure your EM
cutoff frequency will be below.

And how much above the noise does a photon have to be for
you to consider it to be a photon? Perhaps this will help you
choose your cutoff frequency, though it seems to me you will
have some difficulty when there are lots and lots of photons
at this low frequency. Will this not be adequate for detection?

By the way, is it possible to detect a single photon at 10 kHz,
a frequency which I am pretty sure you would consider to be
an EM wave.

....Keith

On Jul 7, 11:14*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:11*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jul 6, 7:27*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Excellent attempt at diversion.

Sorry, "I don't know", is NOT a diversion.

T'is when the thing you claim not to know has nothing to do with
the problem at hand.

As i pointed out, the energy levels are well above the noise.

And you skipped the intriguing question...

If the signal was a 50 W sinusoid at 15 nHz, would you have the
same reluctance to declare it an EM wave? It is a sinusoid.
What criteria could it possibly fail to satisfy?

At what frequency would you no longer be reluctanct?
* 1 microHz
* 1 mHz
* 0.1 Hz
* 1 Hz
* 10 Hz
* 100 Hz
* 1 kHz
* 10 kHz
* ?

Real applications run at 10 kHz so I assume you would accept,
without concern, at least this number. Where would your
trepidation begin?

...Keith

i have trepidation when it takes longer to reach steady state than i
am willing to sit and watch the experiment.

On Jul 8, 10:51*am, K1TTT wrote:
i have trepidation when it takes longer to reach steady state than i
am willing to sit and watch the experiment.

For some reason, Keith prefers living in the theoretical world rather
than the real world. His idea of reality is what his math model
subliminally tells him to believe. He doesn't seem to know that
reality is supposed to dictate math models, not vice-versa. :-)

P.S. Let's go card-counting.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com