| |
I0OJJ > ANTENN 03.07.10 00:33l 105 Lines 4408 Bytes #-5795 (0) @ WW
BID : 31911I0OJJ
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: what happens to reflected energy ?
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<OK0NHD<SR1BSZ<ON4HU<DB0RES<DK0WUE<IK6ZDE<I4UKI<
I0OJJ
Sent: 100702/1922z @:I0OJJ.ILAZ.ITA.EU #:6309 $:31911i0ojj
On 1 jul, 02:42, Richard Clark <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:46:10 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj <lu6...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > a 100 W TX power during one second to gives certain amount of
> >energy
>
> Hi Miguel,
>
> POWER. =A0Please observe the distinction as appeals to 100W or "one
> second" have no bearing on where you seem to be fixated with quanta
> and energy. =A0Introducing distractions is not very useful. =A0[I can
> appreciate that you are not the source of the distractions.]
>
> >I do not confussing wavelengh with quanta!, quantized energy it is
>
> Then quanta is a distraction, or wavelength is.
>
> >What sort of human eye we use to see 80 m "light"? :>)
>
> Why do you compare 80M to green light? =A0 The more wavelength
> appropriate scale would be invisible in the 800nM Infra Red or in the
> 80nM Ultra Violet. =A0Green light's correlative would be in the 55.5M
> band (tropical SW).
>
> >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.
>
> Indeed, no doubt this [distraction] is attributable to a Texas
> [distracting] snake in the grass. =A0
>
> Quantum mechanics can give a certain perspective and sense of scale,
> but [distracting] amateurs shouldn't try that at home or on the
> Internet.
>
> > 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...
>
> The Cosmic Radiation Background has been measured to about 2.76 K,
> where the mapping variation (fluctuations of 30 microKelvins) are
> within the Energy perturbation (contribution) of our Amateur
> transmissions. =A0
>
> So as to not argue, I firmly agree with you that no one is going to
> find any utility in any of this. =A0But the debate will rage on
> heedless.
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
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! :>)
(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...)
"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...
Look, light has a very rough "texture", light quanta is a very
energetic thing, its "granularity" it is high and we easily perceive
its quantic nature, 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. 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
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) :>)
I have a question too, please tell me (I am very curious): why you
take every opportunity to bite (sting?) my friend Cecil, ah? ;>). I
read carefully Cecil writings and I do not find flawings in his
affirmations; usually he is very precise and scholar on this matters,
sometimes he has an occasional forgivable habit, such his predilection
for photons and polished glass things, but I think he has not so
"distractive", usually I understand wiich is "his point" to bring
another physics areas on the table... I think often we have a little
stubborn too :>D
73, and thank you very much for your company - Miguel - LU6ETJ
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
