"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"John KD5YI" wrote in message
news:7Yspj.6126$M71.3@trnddc08...
"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:30:46 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:40:13 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a chance
to recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ


Oh, crap, Daniel. Roy did not say free space was = 1 ohm. Look back and
read:

You said:
" I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a
permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-) "

Roy said:
"I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability.

The characteristic impedance is the square root of permeability divided
by permittivity, so if both are one, the characteristic impedance would
have to be one."

Get it? He is saying that the permeability and the permittivity of space
can not = 1 because if they were, then the intrinsic impedance of space
would be = 1 because the intrinsic impedance of space is actually Zo =
sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

No, he said it would gave to be one, so it is one.



Oh, crap, Daniel!

No! He said, "...if both are one, the characteristic impedance would
have to be one." He is saying that, if what YOU say is true (the
permittivity and permeability of free space is one), then that would force
the Zo of free space to one because Zo = sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

Note that he said IF. Pay attention!

John

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"John KD5YI" wrote in message
news:7Yspj.6126$M71.3@trnddc08...
"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:30:46 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:40:13 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a chance
to recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ


Oh, crap, Daniel. Roy did not say free space was = 1 ohm. Look back and
read:

You said:
" I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a
permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-) "

Roy said:
"I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability.

The characteristic impedance is the square root of permeability divided
by permittivity, so if both are one, the characteristic impedance would
have to be one."

Get it? He is saying that the permeability and the permittivity of space
can not = 1 because if they were, then the intrinsic impedance of space
would be = 1 because the intrinsic impedance of space is actually Zo =
sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

No, he said it would gave to be one, so it is one.


No, YOU'RE the one who said it is one. You are the one who said the
permittivity and permeability of free space = 1 (go read and understand your
own post). Now plug your ones into: Zo = sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

John

AI4QJ wrote:

Hi Tom!

Welcome to my PLONK file. Suggest you do the same.
73 de AI4QJ

If he's plonking me for that, he won't be here long.

Which is a GOOD THING!

tom
K0TAR

AI4QJ wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:
According to "Reference Data for Radio Engineers", published by
International Telephone and Telegraph, fourth edition, page 35:

"Properties of Free Space"

Permeability = 1.257 * 10^-6 henry per meter.
Permittivity = 8.85 * 10^-12 farad per meter.

Characteristic impedance = sqrt(Permeability/Permittivity) = 376.7 ohms

John
My earlier citations of reputable sources were denounced as being an
intentional insult. I see that yours is simply being ignored. Perhaps
that's progress?

Well, he is correct, you were wrong with your SQRT(1/1) = Zo = 1. If you use
his values, you will get the proper value (377 Ohms) so he is correct. Glad
you finally saw the light.

Anyone reviewing the previous few postings on this topic surely must
feel he's dropped down a rabbit hole. I certainly do.

I've got to plonk this guy so I don't waste any more time on this sort
of silliness.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a
chance to recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ

Earlier you implied that I was promoting the superposition of power. Now
you're saying that I claimed the intrinsic impedance of free space is
one ohm. Where are you coming up with this stuff? And why?

Please ignore the question. I won't see your response, or any other
postings you make.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:57:53 GMT, "John KD5YI"
wrote:

No! He said, "...if both are one, the characteristic impedance would
have to be one." He is saying that, if what YOU say is true (the
permittivity and permeability of free space is one), then that would force
the Zo of free space to one because Zo = sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

Note that he said IF. Pay attention!

"All these you may avoid but the Lie Direct; and you may avoid
that too with an If. I knew when seven justices could not take up
a quarrel; but when the parties were met themselves, one of them
thought but of an If, as:
'If you said so, then I said so.'
And they shook hands, and swore brothers.

"Your If is the only peace-maker; much virtue in If."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 22:58:49 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

You
appear to agree to the possibility that the universal constant c can be
exceeded, at least in nuclear cooling pools.

So, this is the third time I have to point out that two words were
unequivocal? As one of my groupies, you are the most devoted follower
of my posts currently.

I do not believe that any wave or any particle can exceed the speed of
light.

That is clearly evident.

I am too
old and too attached to Einstein's theory of General relativity to "Check
the facts" as you suggest.

Again, clearly evident. You are standing on the wrong street corner
for this parade.

I actually minored in English. When one participates in a baccalaureate
degree program at an actual "university", the BS curriculum requires a minor
in the arts. This means I understand to some degree where you are coming
from.

20 hours on your minor are not evident - not even by degree. Let's
perform some simple deconstruction on
"You appear to agree to the possibility..."
in response to an explicit and unequivocal:
"It is most common and evident
(meaning you can trust your eyes this time)
in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors."
Parentheticals aside, my two sentences and fifteen words are re-cast
into terms of "appear" and "possibility" where your ambiguous
interpretative paragraph (not completely quoted above) is longer than
the direct statement.

I never made an ad hominem attack on your arts capabilities as you did
my physics capabilities.

Yes, I know and it keeps me awake on these long winter nights. As you
yourself put it, I disappoint my groupies, don't I? You can add your
minor as a victim of ad hominem atrocities - I will have to make up
for it by sleeping in later in the mornings.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

AI4QJ wrote:

I actually minored in English. When one participates in a baccalaureate
degree program at an actual "university", the BS curriculum requires a minor
in the arts. This means I understand to some degree where you are coming
from. I never made an ad hominem attack on your arts capabilities as you did
my physics capabilities. I contend that you were not qualified to make that
judgement based only upon my being an engineer and not knowing which
university issued the degree or indeed if it was a university that issued
the degree (as opposed to an engineering "college").

English literarure was fun; it was a nice form of recreation and an easy ACE
for 20 of my 140 credits.

73 de AI4QJ



He sure knows how to pat himself on the back. It would have been more
convincing if he could spell literature.

tom
K0TAR

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 01:02:43 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

but I doubt it really affects your somnolence after all these years.

Of course it doesn't. And the bulk of lurking readers, few-to-none
having sat through a literature course, could figure that out easily.
Dan, this is not a remarkable insight.

Yes, I know, I disappoint my groupies, and with most of them absent
your disappointment is magnified out of proportion.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message
news:zPydneCHE5PB4TvanZ2dnUVZ8u-

While the speed of each beam relative to a stationary observer is 300,000
Km/s with both beams travelling in opposite directions, the combined
velocity relative to that stationary observer is 600,000 Km/s. Einstein
did state that from the point of view of someone or something travelling
with the beam the combined velocity of the two beams approaching
collision would appear to be 300,000 Km/s. Einstein was wrong on this
point because for a wavefront or beam propagating at the speed of light,
no time passes and therefore no velocity measurement is possible or has
any meaning in conventional terms.

Not true. The observer on light beam 1 is experiencing time in his own
frame of reference. As far as he is concerned, he is not moving. He
experiences normal time in his frame of reference. And, he sees light
beam 2 coming to him at 3 X 10E8 meters/sec.

Clearly we are wasting a lot of time, effort and money in bothering to
build bigger particle accelerators (like at CERN) if the combined
collision velocities can never exceed 300,000 Km/s.

They are NOT attempting to exceed 3 X 10E8 meters/second!

Einstein (who is greatly over rated in my opinion) got a lot of stuff
right,

For the purpose of this discussion he got EVERYTHING right and his
theories have been proven time and time again.

but there are some pretty huge gaps in the theory, particularly where
values tend towards infinity. Hence the inability to deal with gravity, a
failure of the theory in dealing with black holes and an inability to
deal with super luminal velocities. Richard Feynman was a far better
theoretical physicist who actually invented ways of reconciling and
sidestepping some of the paradoxes inherent in Einstein's equations.

A black hole is not a paradox. It is simply enough mass such that its
escape velocity from its huge gravitational filed is greater than the
speed of light. What is so paradoxical about that? The only paradoxes that
arise in Einstein's equations occur when people make assumptions that
certain universal constants like the speed of light can become variables
and then the ridiculous paradoxes start to occur. If we try to change the
constant pi, wouldn't we get a lot of unrealistic calculations? Changing
the value of c is the same as trying to change pi.


Just as Einstein refined Newton's ideas, future physicists will regard
Einstein's theories the way we regard Newton's; a good approximation for
everyday use, but not a true description of the processes.

Maybe in 100 years or so. We are not even close to such a refinement right
now. Maybe we never will be.

How on earth did NASA get astronauts to the moon using just Newtonian
mechanics? The mind boggles. :-)

The moon is only 450,000 miles away. All velocities, distances and times
involved in a trip to the moon, or Mars, are as Newtonian as a trip on a
jet from London to New York. :-)


Last time I checked the moon was somewhat nearer to 250,000 miles away :-)

For an observer travelling at the speed of light, all distances effectively
disappear and become equal. For that observer it appears to take the same
time to travel to Alpha Centuri or to the Andromeda Galaxy. In fact the
observer would have no sensation of time whatsoever. From our external view
point, the respective journeys would take four years and several million
years. This is one of the crucial failures when interpreting Einstein's
theory. Time for something or someone travelling at the speed of light
ceases to exist as does the concept of distance. In order for the theory of
relativity to work it is necessary to have some constant against which to
guage the effects. The speed of light in a vacuum is a very reliable and
convenient constant. It does vary considerably in other mediums though which
implies it is not the gold standard of velocity measurement, just the best
we have at the moment. In fact, the theory of relativity implies that there
cannot ever be an absolute standard against which to measure anything.

My interpretation is that the speed of light is not some insurmountable
barrier, just a point at which conventional theory hits a brick wall and is
unable to deal with what lies beyond. The same was true of aerodynamic
theory up to the 1940's with respect to the sound barrier, even though
projectiles fired from rifles and large artillery pieces were known to
exceed the speed of sound. Once Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier,
aerodynamic theory had to be expanded. It didn't mean that everything that
went before was wrong, just that it could not be used to make predictions
for flight at speeds greater than the speed of sound.

The speed of light in a vacuum is currently the constant at which present
theory breaks down and yet particles have been observed travelling in a
manner that can only be explained if it is assumed they have moved from one
point to another at speeds greater than the speed of light.

It may well be that wave-particle duality breaks down at the speed of light
and that only a particle can exceed light speed. The absence of waves means
that it's presence cannot be detected and it effectively drops out of our
perception until the speed drops back to sub-light velocities.

Mike G0ULI