Richard Clark writes:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 00:18:25 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

"----Unlike protons and neutrons, photons have zero rest mass. (Albert
Einstein`s special relativity theory predicted that massless particles
travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.)

It should be added that "particles" accelerated to the speed of light
(radiation) have infinite mass requiring infinite energy to get them
there.

Particles with non zero rest mass, that is.

art wrote:
Cecil you are familiar with the many
aspects of radiation thus you have a great opportunity to supply the
required info that cannot be refuted by others .,So sieze the
opportunity where others are shying away.

Art, I am moving myself to a new QTH and just don't have the
time. To the best of my present knowledge, all of the coherent
photons are identical.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Ahhh come on guys, and Art, , get a grip...

Electrons are 'emitted' from the surface of a conductor only under
specific circumstances, such as the Photoelectric Effect, in a direct
electric arc such as an arc welder, off the hot surface of a
filament, off the cathode of an electroplating device, etc.... All of
these are mass events where the departing electrons will in time
change/erode the surface material of the emitter...


Electrons do not normally depart the surface of an RF antenna; local
corona discharge, or mechanical short circuit, or electric arc, being
the main exceptions and are not germain to the intended purpose of
the RF antenna..
The antenna surface is not eroded or mass altered by the long term
emission of electromagetic waves because no electrons are being
launched/emitted off the surface res ipsa loquitor...

OK, now back to the regularily scheduled reruns of Howdy Doody you
can learn a lot from these

denny / k8do

Denny wrote:
Electrons are 'emitted' from the surface of a conductor only under
specific circumstances, such as the Photoelectric Effect, in a direct
electric arc such as an arc welder, off the hot surface of a
filament, off the cathode of an electroplating device, etc.... All of
these are mass events where the departing electrons will in time
change/erode the surface material of the emitter...

Is that because the departing electrons leave "holes"
in the conductor atoms? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 10 May, 04:43, Denny wrote:
Ahhh come on guys, and Art, , get a grip...

Electrons are 'emitted' from the surface of a conductor only under
specific circumstances, such as the Photoelectric Effect, in a direct
electric arc such as an arc welder, off the hot surface of a
filament, off the cathode of an electroplating device, etc.... All of
these are mass events where the departing electrons will in time
change/erode the surface material of the emitter...

Electrons do not normally depart the surface of an RF antenna; local
corona discharge, or mechanical short circuit, or electric arc, being
the main exceptions and are not germain to the intended purpose of
the RF antenna..
The antenna surface is not eroded or mass altered by the long term
emission of electromagetic waves because no electrons are being
launched/emitted off the surface res ipsa loquitor...

OK, now back to the regularily scheduled reruns of Howdy Doody you
can learn a lot from these

denny / k8do

Denny, I believe you are correct that what is known as basic physics
does not have universal consensus in this group which is not all that
bad because we are all amateurs.I know that mass is not constant in
itself since it is always self adjusting to maintain equilibrium. It
would also appear that what is emitted is so small and numourous that
it can be seen as a cloud or a field.
I also believe there is some sort of consensus that these two clouds
are still somewhat homogenous after they have escaped from the initial
gravitational forcesi.e merging of these entities is achieved beyond
the arbitary border.
Some have gone off at a tangent by introducing 377 ohms as a ratio
which ofcourse is an impossibility which destoys the credability of
their whole statement. At the back of my mind I was trying to
determine how the makeup of skin depth occurs since at a moment in
time the surface of the conductor is seen as composed entirely of
static particles and what changes occur when the material conducts
since the surface is totally boundduring the radiation process. So Tom
this is a good time to bow out, since once again on this group we have
encountered a situation where actual knoweledge is piece meal at best
and where continuation could only introduce falacies to the subject.
One thing I am assured of is that despite claims offered this is by no
means BASIC physics theory but a collection of fragmentary knoweledge
which could easily evolve in what is termed junk science as the many
opinions merge.
Gentlemen have a great day and try to concentrate on the beginnings
that Gauss has now provided us by the addition of the metric of time
and formulate a theory within that context since it presents an avenue
of new additional information.than that previously known.
Regards
Art

Hi Art,

If you are, as you say, interested in where you depart from simple
physics; then an enumeration follows:

On 10 May 2007 06:29:46 -0700, art wrote:

1)
I know that mass is not constant in
itself since it is always self adjusting to maintain equilibrium.
Mass is constant unless you are performing nuclear reactions. You
don't have sufficient energy to do that at home.

2)
would also appear that what is emitted is so small and numourous that
it can be seen as a cloud or a field.
You don't have sufficient energy at home to force emission. An
incandescent antenna is one that would be readily obvious to everyone
for miles around.

3)
I also believe there is some sort of consensus that these two clouds
There are not two of anything in emission.

4)
are still somewhat homogenous after they have escaped from the initial
gravitational forcesi.e merging of these entities is achieved beyond
the arbitary border.
Gravity is fundamentally one of the weakest forces in nature, emission
requires considerable energy and would easily eclipse its influence.

5)
Some have gone off at a tangent by introducing 377 ohms as a ratio
which ofcourse is an impossibility which destoys the credability of
their whole statement.
This ratio is a fact of nature. You could, of course, change it by
changing nature, or having invented an underwater CB antenna.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 10 May, 06:29, art wrote:
On 10 May, 04:43, Denny wrote:





Ahhh come on guys, and Art, , get a grip...

Electrons are 'emitted' from the surface of a conductor only under
specific circumstances, such as the Photoelectric Effect, in a direct
electric arc such as an arc welder, off the hot surface of a
filament, off the cathode of an electroplating device, etc.... All of
these are mass events where the departing electrons will in time
change/erode the surface material of the emitter...

Electrons do not normally depart the surface of an RF antenna; local
corona discharge, or mechanical short circuit, or electric arc, being
the main exceptions and are not germain to the intended purpose of
the RF antenna..
The antenna surface is not eroded or mass altered by the long term
emission of electromagetic waves because no electrons are being
launched/emitted off the surface res ipsa loquitor...

OK, now back to the regularily scheduled reruns of Howdy Doody you
can learn a lot from these

denny / k8do

Denny, I believe you are correct that what is known as basic physics
does not have universal consensus in this group which is not all that
bad because we are all amateurs.I know that mass is not constant in
itself since it is always self adjusting to maintain equilibrium. It
would also appear that what is emitted is so small and numourous that
it can be seen as a cloud or a field.
I also believe there is some sort of consensus that these two clouds
are still somewhat homogenous after they have escaped from the initial
gravitational forcesi.e merging of these entities is achieved beyond
the arbitary border.
Some have gone off at a tangent by introducing 377 ohms as a ratio
which ofcourse is an impossibility which destoys the credability of
their whole statement. At the back of my mind I was trying to
determine how the makeup of skin depth occurs since at a moment in
time the surface of the conductor is seen as composed entirely of
static particles and what changes occur when the material conducts
since the surface is totally boundduring the radiation process. So Tom
this is a good time to bow out, since once again on this group we have
encountered a situation where actual knoweledge is piece meal at best
and where continuation could only introduce falacies to the subject.
One thing I am assured of is that despite claims offered this is by no
means BASIC physics theory but a collection of fragmentary knoweledge
which could easily evolve in what is termed junk science as the many
opinions merge.
Gentlemen have a great day and try to concentrate on the beginnings
that Gauss has now provided us by the addition of the metric of time
and formulate a theory within that context since it presents an avenue
of new additional information.than that previously known.
Regards
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For those who are interested in the finite details of radiation I just
read in a industrial magazine that it has been determined that the
electric field in the near zone is transformed into a electric field
of an opposite polarity in the far zone.
This by implication upsets the idea that surrounds radiation emmission
from the far zone if there is still in existence an electric field.
Thus it would appear that basic physics has still not determined the
inter relative actions from a dormant static field to a mobile
radiative field. Note that the introduction of the word of ' polarity'
into the subject of antennas is not unusual in the antenna
industry.i.e. it is their words not mine.
Regards
Arthur
Art

art wrote:
What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator
compared with
with the number of electrons emmitted due to current flow?
What is the combination ratio required of both types of electrons to
form a radiation field?
Regards
Art


You mean the radiation from an antenna driven by a radio transmitter?
It doesn't emit electrons, but it does emit photons at that radio
frequency.

Go find a book on electromagnetism and fields, but be prepared for
calculus level math in that book. I took such a class 30 years ago, and
got a "C", and remember even less now. A high school physics book might
be enough depending on your needs.

robert casey wrote:
art wrote:
What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator
compared with
with the number of electrons emmitted due to current flow?
What is the combination ratio required of both types of electrons to
form a radiation field?
Regards
Art


You mean the radiation from an antenna driven by a radio transmitter?
It doesn't emit electrons, but it does emit photons at that radio
frequency.

Go find a book on electromagnetism and fields, but be prepared for
calculus level math in that book. I took such a class 30 years ago, and
got a "C", and remember even less now. A high school physics book might
be enough depending on your needs.

The current (May/June) issue of QEX contains the article:

Electromagnetic Radiation: A Brief Tutorial

It contains equations but no calculus that I noticed.

"magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator" isn't mentioned, but
that isn't a surprise to most people.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 10 May, 11:45, wrote:
robert casey wrote:
art wrote:
What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator
compared with
with the number of electrons emmitted due to current flow?
What is the combination ratio required of both types of electrons to
form a radiation field?
Regards
Art

You mean the radiation from an antenna driven by a radio transmitter?
It doesn't emit electrons, but it does emit photons at that radio
frequency.
Go find a book on electromagnetism and fields, but be prepared for
calculus level math in that book. I took such a class 30 years ago, and
got a "C", and remember even less now. A high school physics book might
be enough depending on your needs.

The current (May/June) issue of QEX contains the article:

Electromagnetic Radiation: A Brief Tutorial

It contains equations but no calculus that I noticed.

"magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator" isn't mentioned, but
that isn't a surprise to most people.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim, you have no legitamacy in the subject of radiation, your past
posts prove that. On top of that you do not talk for most people as
you intimate.
You haven't yet capitulated on the static subject or negated the truth
of the mathematics and examples supplied. Just stating consistently
that you can't this or you can't that just doesn't elevate your
stature.