| |
I0OJJ > ANTENN 03.07.10 00:33l 152 Lines 6788 Bytes #-5795 (0) @ WW
BID : 23267I0OJJ
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: what happens to reflected energy ?
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DK0WUE<IK6ZDE<I4UKI<I0OJJ
Sent: 100702/2143z @:I0OJJ.ILAZ.ITA.EU #:6332 $:23267i0ojj
On 2 jul, 16:57, Richard Clark <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:04:57 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj <lu6...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello Richard:
>
> >(I am not quoting with ">" because I get unpredictable results with
> >google :>) =A0)
>
> >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. =A0I
> am glad you did not ask your friend to read the thread.
>
> >"Why do you compare 80M to green light?"
>
> >Well... I like it! =A0photons 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. =A0Scotopic (moonless night) vision is blue-shifted. =A0Sitting
> 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. =A0Propagation 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. =A0A RADAR
> (even if not an 80M one) can respond to a pulse it sends and senses in
> an echo. =A0The packet contains at least 100 to 10000 cycles. =A0Pulse
> 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. =A0What 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.. =A0well 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: =A0The two collision events can also
> be expressed as energy translation into temperature change. =A0This is
> called phononic energy - or sound. =A0The crash of cars or bugs resolves
> into a sound. =A0Do we hear, or do we have the capacity to hear either?
> Both? =A0There are 8 orders of magnitude difference between the two
> masses at the same velocities. =A0Our hearing dynamic range easily
> encompasses that. =A0I can hear bugs bump against my living room window
> at far slower velocity. =A0I 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. =A0Einstein 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? =A0;-)
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Hi hi, no, not Cheeta... Resnick & Halliday & Krane use "granularity"
metaphor, "granularity" and "texture" are words that denote same idea:
ligth photons are really very big Jerry Lee's "Great balls of fire",
80 m photons are very very tiny balls :>) For that reason your eyes
catch light photon, they (photons) are fat guys, you know?.
Glanularity is not about "cycles" but quantum energy =3D> hv,
v=3Dfrequency, high frequency =3D> high energy quantum =3D> high
granularity, not cycles
Not "analogies", no, no, I am only comparing energy magnitud
differences! (I am not resigning my rights to analogies, with this),
10^8 more bigger cinetic E represents so much energy difference at any
scale; obviously a light photon has very, very much lower energy as a
1 t (Tm) car at 100 km/h (it has 3.6*10^-19 J) but 80 m photon it is
100000000 lower!, Can you hear 80 dB sounds below mosquito buzzing?
are you the six million dollar man? :>)
You talk about "fluctuations" OK, can you assure to me those
fluctuations are due quantized nature of RF signals? have you
references about that? Naturally I have my doubts, what you say do not
match my sacred Wiley & sons bible physics verses: remember at only 1
K, kt >> hv, and for R, H & K elders, granularity can not be
perceived.
Well, but stop here, please: I did not say we can not measure 100 W
oscillator granularity, eh?, I am not any authority to say such
thing!, look what the fathers of my church say in page 483:
"Quantized energy simply not reveales in large scale oscillators, the
smallness of the h Plank component make the granulosity very fine
(thin?) so that we can not detect it"
I bet you live a little more near them than I, Ask to them why they
said that. I am innocent, I am only the postman who brings the news
(where is Petrocelli?) :D :D
73 - Miguel - LU6ETJ
PS: Cecil, friend, this man this is already yours. Just confessed his
inconditional love for RF quanta...
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
