On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:52:38 -0400, John Popelish
wrote:

Not much to discuss. I don't do such calculations often, but I get
about 5*10^-27 joule per photon. What do you calculate their energy
to be?

Hi John,

Closer to 4.63 · 10^-27 joule. Not enough difference to matter. So,
we are talking about a little more than 10^28 photons and when we
return to your statement (or is it twice that?)
I didn't mean that the mirror produces half of the total photons that are radiated.
or
I meant that half as many photons are produced, compared to the
full dipole antenna that produces the same fields above the center line.

I have to again exclaim:

No, I suppose not.

Further, as to your "stipulation:"
the field strength above the centerline
being constant, rather than the radiated power. I missed that we were
only talking about a case of radiating 100 watts.

It would be strange to talk about radiation without some expression of
power to the antenna. 100 watts has been a cardinal value in this
group for many years. Field strength is generally expressed in
volts/meter. Somehow, its translation into eV to follow the photon
metaphor seems rather strained. Going further with this convolution
of centerline partition that relates to same fields (same?) to explain
a difference is also quite odd. Would you care to elaborate on this
concept of the centerline?

Do you have some point?

This is odder yet, you introduce the topic and ask me what my point
is? My own separate observation is the introduction of photonics
doesn't add much does it?

Hard to escape, and makes a mess of describing mirrors too, especially
when they are skeletal approximations as well.

You have to start understanding mirrors, somewhere. Perhaps you
prefer a different starting point. There are several.

Starting with radials would seem to be in keeping with the thread.
Shifting starts when you haven't finished seems to defeat the
progression of where you were going.

I can offer more thread-busters when it comes to photonics, but that
is a slam dunk. Get us rolling on one ace proposition, and I will get
back to you in a couple of hours.

I have no idea what you are saying with these two sentences.

No doubt. I read these same admissions with some frequency. It
rarely keeps me up at nights worrying anymore.

You were going to tie this all together weren't you?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Dan Richardson wrote
wrote:

What's the matter with 3, equi-spaced radials?

Be economical. Save a radial! It looks better too. And there are
no
arguments about directionality.
----
Reg.

Modeling such an arrangement gave no real noticeable difference
between using three or four radials.
=========================================
Of course it didn't. That's the point I was making. The number of
radials, from 1 to N, is immaterial.

As N increases there will be a slight improvement in radiating
efficiency. The N loss resistances are all in parallel as seen by the
feedline.
----
Reg.

Tom Donaly wrote:
Besides, you said, yourself, that Cecil
is always right.

False. Reg didn't say that.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:06:19 -0400, John Popelish
wrote:

By the way, I am having second thoughts as to whether or not there
should be a 2*pi factor in there, since most physics formulas deal
with frequency in radians per second, not cycles per second. But the
photon energy formulas usually deal with wavelength, and I have never
seen one that assumes a wavelength is a radian of a cycle, rather that
a full cycle, so, perhaps Hz is the correct unit.

If anyone can clear this up for me, I would appreciate it.

Hi John,

That would be 2 pi radians per second as frequency - same thing as a
cycle. For photonic interactions the classic treatment is usually
with wavenumber as frequency not cycles nor radians. However, the 2
pi difference is the difference between the Planck constant
represented as h, and its rational equivalent (with 2 pi divided out)
of h-bar.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

John Popelish wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I don't demand agreement, John, just resolution.

Resolution in who's mind?

In mine, of course. I am obsessive-compulsive that way.
Sorry about that - it's probably a character flaw.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Reg Edwards wrote:
Of course it didn't. That's the point I was making. The number of
radials, from 1 to N, is immaterial.

Guess it depends upon one's definition of "immaterial".
One horizontal radial will certainly radiate more
horizontal radiation than two opposing horizontal radials.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:52:38 -0400, John Popelish
wrote:
(snip)

I meant that half as many photons are produced, compared to the
full dipole antenna that produces the same fields above the center line.


I have to again exclaim:


No, I suppose not.


Further, as to your "stipulation:"

the field strength above the centerline
being constant, rather than the radiated power. I missed that we were
only talking about a case of radiating 100 watts.


It would be strange to talk about radiation without some expression of
power to the antenna. 100 watts has been a cardinal value in this
group for many years. Field strength is generally expressed in
volts/meter. Somehow, its translation into eV to follow the photon
metaphor seems rather strained. Going further with this convolution
of centerline partition that relates to same fields (same?) to explain
a difference is also quite odd. Would you care to elaborate on this
concept of the centerline?

The center line I am referring to is the mirror line of the ground
plane or radial group that allows a monopole to have a field pattern
(both E and H) above that mirror line, that would exist there, if the
antenna was a symmetrical dipole. Without the mirror effect, the
field pattern of the monopole depends on the path the feed line takes
away from the monopole, and any other conductive objects nearby.

Since I am talking about field patterns, it seemed natural to switch
from total radiated watts to field intensities and the photons that
field emits and where those photons head.

Do you have some point?

I see that you snipped the line of nonsense you originally posted that
prompted this question. You asked,

"Should we discuss how infinitesimal the energy is in a 40M photon?
(Easily accounts for why so many are needed for that same 100W.)

No, I suppose not. "

So I asked if asking a question and dismissing it made some point.

This is odder yet, you introduce the topic and ask me what my point
is? My own separate observation is the introduction of photonics
doesn't add much does it?

While amateurs may ultimately be interested in radiating power in
particular directions, we are discussing the physics of the radiation
process, and photonics is one way to think about that process.

Hard to escape, and makes a mess of describing mirrors too, especially
when they are skeletal approximations as well.

You have to start understanding mirrors, somewhere. Perhaps you
prefer a different starting point. There are several.


Starting with radials would seem to be in keeping with the thread.
Shifting starts when you haven't finished seems to defeat the
progression of where you were going.

The ultimate radial pattern is a solid disk. Once you understand what
that does to the field pattern, you can start toward a radial wire
layer, and see how, in important ways, like the ability to carry
radial current, it resembles a disk. Then, you can explore how
reducing the number of radials alters the approximation.

I can offer more thread-busters when it comes to photonics, but that
is a slam dunk. Get us rolling on one ace proposition, and I will get
back to you in a couple of hours.

I have no idea what you are saying with these two sentences.

No doubt. I read these same admissions with some frequency. It
rarely keeps me up at nights worrying anymore.

I find that unsurprising. Your posts do not seem addressed to me or
others, so much as to yourself.

You were going to tie this all together weren't you?

Probably not, since I am working through the process in my own mind.
I am not the teacher so much as a student trying to learn something
useful. I hope my posts generate more useful discussion from others
than I have gotten from you, so far.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Besides, you said, yourself, that Cecil
is always right.


False. Reg didn't say that.

He said it under his breath as he was writing it to this
newsgroup.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:06:19 -0400, John Popelish
wrote:


By the way, I am having second thoughts as to whether or not there
should be a 2*pi factor in there, since most physics formulas deal
with frequency in radians per second, not cycles per second. But the
photon energy formulas usually deal with wavelength, and I have never
seen one that assumes a wavelength is a radian of a cycle, rather that
a full cycle, so, perhaps Hz is the correct unit.

If anyone can clear this up for me, I would appreciate it.


Hi John,

That would be 2 pi radians per second as frequency - same thing as a
cycle. For photonic interactions the classic treatment is usually
with wavenumber as frequency not cycles nor radians. However, the 2
pi difference is the difference between the Planck constant
represented as h, and its rational equivalent (with 2 pi divided out)
of h-bar.

Thank you. Makes good sense.

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

I don't demand agreement, John, just resolution.

Resolution in who's mind?

In mine, of course. I am obsessive-compulsive that way.
Sorry about that - it's probably a character flaw.

Then you also probably believe that a character flaw is an absolute,
as are and evil.