| |
I0OJJ > ANTENN 03.07.10 00:33l 113 Lines 4559 Bytes #-5795 (0) @ WW
BID : 34467I0OJJ
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: what happens to reflected energy ?
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<OK0NHD<OE2XEL<OE6XPE<DB0RES<DK0WUE<IK6ZDE<I4UKI<
I0OJJ
Sent: 100702/2013z @:I0OJJ.ILAZ.ITA.EU #:6326 $:34467i0ojj
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:04:57 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj <lu6etj@gmail.com>
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
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
