Jim Kelley wrote: As far as I know, there has never been any dispute
over which
direction the energy goes. The problem has always been with your
overly imaginative explanation for how it gets there.

I'm just quoting "Optics", by Hecht for how it gets there. Hecht's
irradiance equation tells the whole story. Total Irradiance = I1 + I2 +
2*SQRT(I1*I2)cos(A) where A is the angle between the I1 and I2 electric
fields. The last term is the interference term. If it is positive, the
interference is constructive. If it is negative, the interference is
destructive. If it is zero, the signals are orthogonal to each other
and no exchange of energy takes place. Please note that the dimensions
of Irradiance and the dimensions of average power flow vectors
(Poynting vectors) are the same. Hecht says that in the localized
absence of a source, any constructive interference must be equaled by
the same magnitude of destructive interference. The destructive
interference that eliminates reflections on the source side of the
thin-film coating on non-reflective glass is exactly offset by an equal
magnitude of constructive interference on the other side of that thin
film surface. It's all there in "Optics" by Hecht.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
And electric and magnetic fields exist quite independently of ANY
photons (invisible or otherwise) ...

Richard, I suggest you take time to digest the material before making
any more obviously false statements like the above.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:59:11 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Photons I do see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing all
electric and magnetic fields."

Photons I do NOT see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing
all electric and magnetic fields."

And electric and magnetic fields exist quite independently of ANY
photons (invisible or otherwise) which, of course, means that photons
were NEVER "responsible for producing" these "electric and magnetic
fields." Note that ALL is inclusive in its totality and I have thrice
demonstrated that falsity.

Like I said, your naive statements propagate a lot of foolishness and
fall far short of illuminating.

So, time for another simple computation:

What is the temperature of an 80M photon?

Looking forward to your fumble.

The ball lay dormant on the 1 inch line with 2 days to snap it and....

OK, the quick Xeroxed answer from my own posting, some time earlier:

0°K or so close as to be indistinguishable;

For extra credit (sic, nothing extra as nothing was credited to Cecil
in the first place):

What is the actual answer to within NOT ±69%,
but to within one order of magnitude!?

All may note the munificence of allowing up to 1000% error allowable
as a "correct" answer. Certainly the master of Xeroxphotonic-zen
might grasp at a straw? After all, how close do you have to be when
you are already dead-nutz on to zero? :-0

[Hint, when I taught Electronics in the Navy, my students swore I
always had an "Ace-Buster" in the quiz.]

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:59:11 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Photons I do see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing all
electric and magnetic fields."

Photons I do NOT see, do exist, and are NOT "responsible for producing
all electric and magnetic fields."

And electric and magnetic fields exist quite independently of ANY
photons (invisible or otherwise) which, of course, means that photons
were NEVER "responsible for producing" these "electric and magnetic
fields." Note that ALL is inclusive in its totality and I have thrice
demonstrated that falsity.

Like I said, your naive statements propagate a lot of foolishness and
fall far short of illuminating.

So, time for another simple computation:

What is the temperature of an 80M photon?

Looking forward to your fumble.

The ball lay dormant on the 1 inch line with 2 days to snap it and....

OK, the quick Xeroxed answer from my own posting, some time earlier:

0°K or so close as to be indistinguishable;

For extra credit (sic, nothing extra as nothing was credited to Cecil
in the first place):

What is the actual answer to within NOT ±69%,
but to within one order of magnitude!?

All may note the munificence of allowing up to 1000% error allowable
as a "correct" answer. Certainly the master of Xeroxphotonic-zen
might grasp at a straw? After all, how close do you have to be when
you are already dead-nutz on to zero? :-0

[Hint, when I taught Electronics in the Navy, my students swore I
always had an "Ace-Buster" in the quiz.]

ET or AT ratings.

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:48:53 -0800, "Dana" wrote:

[Hint, when I taught Electronics in the Navy, my students swore I
always had an "Ace-Buster" in the quiz.]

ET or AT ratings.

Hi Dana,

ETN. Instructor in branches A1, A3, and A4 at Treasure Island, 1969 -
1972.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, ET1 (through A5 and A6 as an ETR)

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:04:00 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

So, time for another simple computation:

What is the temperature of an 80M photon?

Looking forward to your fumble.

The ball lay dormant on the 1 inch line with 2 days to snap it and....

OK, the quick Xeroxed answer from my own posting, some time earlier:

0°K or so close as to be indistinguishable;

For extra credit (sic, nothing extra as nothing was credited to Cecil
in the first place):

What is the actual answer to within NOT ±69%,
but to within one order of magnitude!?

All may note the munificence of allowing up to 1000% error allowable
as a "correct" answer. Certainly the master of Xeroxphotonic-zen
might grasp at a straw? After all, how close do you have to be when
you are already dead-nutz on to zero? :-0

[Hint, when I taught Electronics in the Navy, my students swore I
always had an "Ace-Buster" in the quiz.]

BBBBBBRRRRrrringgggggg!

No point in waiting two days for Cecil's fruitless search for
Xeroxable material - even with a latitude of one order of magnitude
slop above and beyond his usual ±69%.

A Photon in the (bottom of the) 80M band would have the equivalent
temperature of:
60µ°K
for extra credit, the answer would have to have fallen somewhere in
the range:
6µ°K..600µ°K

Still pretty darn cold (and a far sight harder to answer than simply
stating near 0°K which was a sufficient answer in the first round).

This, of course, is simple Black Body radiator mechanics that novices
in Optics would have migrated through in High School. Cecil's Photon
radiator seems to need serious back-flushing.

Dare I challenge our master of Xeroxphotonimetry as to the temperature
of a 10M Photon? It would seem that if you cannot compute the simple
matters of heat, you are certainly the person who needs to ask "Where
Does the Power Go?" :-0

Awaiting more Photonic (no, I did NOT misspell pathetic) nonsense from
Cecil....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:48:53 -0800, "Dana" wrote:

[Hint, when I taught Electronics in the Navy, my students swore I
always had an "Ace-Buster" in the quiz.]

ET or AT ratings.

Hi Dana,

ETN. Instructor in branches A1, A3, and A4 at Treasure Island, 1969 -
1972.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, ET1 (through A5 and A6 as an ETR)

Had I been in the Navy I would have been an AT, I am a former Marine who
went through the Avionics schools in Millington. BE&E, AVA, AFTA, and C7
1980 for the first term schools, and 88 for C7

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 18:46:04 -0800, "Dana" wrote:
Had I been in the Navy I would have been an AT, I am a former Marine who
went through the Avionics schools in Millington. BE&E, AVA, AFTA, and C7
1980 for the first term schools, and 88 for C7

Hi Dana,

Welcome to the group. To explain the alpha-numeric soup in my reply,
I was trained in Radar Systems before being cross-trained as an
instructor in RF Communication Systems (I then migrated into Precision
RF power measurement out to 12GHz).

The first class I taught was a two week course in the theory and
maintenance for the Collins R-390. I also taught the four week course
for the Collins URC-32 (very few seen in amateur application as
KWT-6). I taught other equipment as well, but they are even more
obscure to Hams. The Collins gear was like learning to drive and
maintain a Rolls-Royce.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:59:07 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Dare I challenge our master of Xeroxphotonimetry as to the temperature
of a 10M Photon? It would seem that if you cannot compute the simple
matters of heat, you are certainly the person who needs to ask "Where
Does the Power Go?" :-0


Hi All,

Pushing further down the humiliation trail, if one considers the pain
of lowering temperatures into the microKelvins, one question arises:
How?

Dare I day photons? ;-)

Those same photons to have been claimed to be the source of ALL fields
and the inspiration for electrons are used to "calm" atoms (or corral
them) so that their jitters are reduced along with temperature. Hence
we return to Cecil's inability to express photonic pressure where it
counts most (shuffling those atoms). At the jeopardy of starting more
gibbering, we have photonic tweezers that move atoms around in quantum
dots.

The next esoteric observation comes with the introduction of the
Phonon, which is a sound wave that can move through material faster
than light. That, of course, is highly qualified because phonons
migrate through far more materials than light can. Albeit that rare
distinction, the frequency of that sound commonly pushes past 10s of
Terahertz (or as low as an 80M QSO).

The Phonon (not the Photon) would be that natural progression into
"Where Does the Power Go?" but would be another fumble at the 1 inch
line with a goal-to-goal reversal.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 18:46:04 -0800, "Dana" wrote:
Had I been in the Navy I would have been an AT, I am a former Marine who
went through the Avionics schools in Millington. BE&E, AVA, AFTA, and C7
1980 for the first term schools, and 88 for C7

Hi Dana,

Welcome to the group. To explain the alpha-numeric soup in my reply,
I was trained in Radar Systems before being cross-trained as an
instructor in RF Communication Systems (I then migrated into Precision
RF power measurement out to 12GHz).

The first class I taught was a two week course in the theory and
maintenance for the Collins R-390. I also taught the four week course
for the Collins URC-32 (very few seen in amateur application as
KWT-6). I taught other equipment as well, but they are even more
obscure to Hams. The Collins gear was like learning to drive and
maintain a Rolls-Royce.

I was an I level DECM tech.
I maintained the ALQ126, countermeasure system, the ALR 45, 50, and 67,
receivers and pulse analyzer, the USM 406, flight line test set, the box
that helped the O level guys sweep the lines and verify the ew equipment,
and the ALM 106 test bench, one of the first automatic test benches made,
and its replacement the USM 458. I was assigned to an A6 squadron, that
swapped out a few years before I got out to FA18's, but I was detailed out
to support them via the IMA shop.

I went into comm, when I got out, worked for a Motorola service shop
maintaing smartnet trunking systems, as well as conventional repeaters and
systems, then went over to Nextel as a cell site tech/performance engineer,
and then over to VoiceStream as a switch tech and performance engineer.


I see that guy has not answered yet about the temp, that thread is kind opf
amusing.


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC