Re: Will Radio Engineering be QM's worst nightmare?

curiousjohn4@xxxxxxxxx wrote in
news:1119049025.057201.196710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> bz wrote:
>> I beg to differ with you. I have fixed many a loud music lover's HI-FI
>> amp because the load was removed. High voltages occur across output
>> transistors and blow them.
>
> Then your amplifier has inherent resonances.

Audio amps don't have resonances.

> If so then it's a poor
> design. It's current that blows amplifiers, not voltage.

It is voltage spike on the collector that will breakdown the base/collector
junction barrier and destroy the device.

> What are you
> doing, arching 10,000 volts? My example used a one volt amplifier.
> Where's this discussion going anyway? Nowhere it seems.

That depends on where you want it to go.

>> At UHF frequencies, again, you are likely to blow the output transistor
>> stage unless it is specifically designed to work with everything from
>> nominal load to open load.
>
> Never seen it happen.

I used to fix radio/radar equipment for a living.

> What are you doing, turning up a 2500 watt amp
> that's generating so much internal voltage that it arcs? That doesn't
> fit the circuit I described by no means.

I have seen a couple of watts cause arcing when attempting to load a broken
antenna.

>> > I am placing voltage source on it, ~10 uV. Do the math and
>> > you look at the NEC2 numbers and you'll see that it theoretically
>> > generates less than a single photon.
>>
>> If it generates less than a single photon then you will probably never
>> radiate any photons (other than thermal noise photons which will
>> certainly swamp any possiblility of detecting any you might radiate)
>
> Okay, welcome to the discussion. That is my question after all.

> Thermal noise can be overcome with drop in temperature. I read they
> use that technique in astronomy when detecting probes that are far out
> in our solar system. Some of the probes radiate surprisining small
> amount of power on a wide beam antenna so they need extremely sensitive
> radio detection methods.

Right.

>> > You can if you use multiple samples and feed it through software, but
>> > that's still not the point.
>>
>> Only if you know when the photons are going to be emitted.
>
> I agree.

>> With power too low to create photons from the driving power, you are
>> going to have to wait for a thermal phonon to come by at the right time
>> to add to the applied voltage. That will be be so random that you won't
>> be able to tell it from the background noise unless you are pulsing
>> your transmitter.
>
> Are you still talking about multiple samples.

Yes. Ham radio operators bounce VHF and UHF radio signals off of the moon.
We are limited in how much power we can radiate. 1000 watts input to the
transmitter used to be the rule. That has been relaxed a bit but that is
beside the point.

The path losses are quite high. It takes a good antenna and receiver to dig
the signal out of the noise.

Your signals are going to be much weaker and you won't even know when they
might be emitted.

And if you cool your transmitting antenna too much, I doubt that you will
EVER get a photon emitted.

> The more samples you
> take of noise then less the noise signal becomes.

signal to noise ratio IF you have a signal.

> Double the samples
> and you decress the noise by half.

You increase the signal to noise ratio IF you have a signal.

> As you know that's because the
> noise has a plus and minus amplitude.

NO. Because the noise occurs at random times.

Cancellation does NOT depend on polarity of the noise. Some noise does not
have negative values.

> Since the noise is random it
> nulls out. When you know the timing of the incoming signal then you
> know when to add.

Not quite, but close.

> It is a sure method if you have the time to sample.

IF you have a signal that occurs at a known time.

> The software adds each signal to the previous total. For large samples
> you would probably use a double float variable array. When finished
> the program divides the each total sample by the sample amount, which
> gives you an accurate value. I am a computer programmer so I know that
> much.

Great. I have been programming computers since 1964. I have worked with
instruments that do what you have been trying to describe.

>> If you are trying to say that QM is violated because you radiate 900
>> MHz photons when the drive is too low to do so, I think you are going
>> to end up falsifying your own theory.
>
> Oh heaven forbid anyone challenge QM! :-)

Please do challenge QM and any other theory. That is how science advances.


>> > If you are concerned about thermal noise
>> > then you can use near zero K temperatures.
>>
>> You want your transmitter, your receiver, your antennas, and everything
>> around to all be near zero K?
>
> You're the one talking about a receiver. I am talking about
> transmitted photons. If you have too much noise and you want to
> analyze each cycle then yes you'll need to drop the temperature. Near
> zero K is no big deal BTW. Are we going to argue about that one also?

Depends on how near you ant to get. :)
We use a lot of liquid He in this building to keep things near zero K, so I
have some idea it can be done. :)

>> OK, you can probably build a low temp chamber and do your testing in
>> it.
>>
>> You might even detect single photons at 900 MHz.
>>
>> That would be worth a paper but I doubt you will invalidate QM.
>
> I am only searching for theory options.

Theory options?

> So far I've seen two types.
> One is that there will be no radiation resistance.

Radiation resistance? Not quite sure how you hope to connect it to your off
resonance piece of wire.

> Another is that
> there will only be radiation resistance once every x cycles.

I suspect you mean more like radiation conductance rather than resistance.

And I suspect that x would be a random number

> Personally I would love to see this on a scope on a low temp chamber.

> What would you expect to see on the scope?
Two scopes on at the base of your 'transmitting antenna'.

I would expect to see a flat line that jiggles slightly when you key your
transmitter.

At the receiver I would expect to see a flat line that jiggles much less
often.

> Draw us a mental picture
> what the received signal would look like? If nothing, then what would
> a single photon signal look like?

A single photon would be about 3.279 inches in length, 'zero' in width with
an e-field and an m-field orthogonal to each other.

It would weigh about 6.6e-39 gm or 7.28e-12 m_e, (electron rest mass).

> Would the voltage be in large
> quantum steps and appear like a square wave? Would the sin wave be
> nice rounded like a typical sine wave? Remember, we're talking about a
> single photon.

A single photon is going to have a hard time making the electrons in a wire
stir very much.

You might note that we needed 2.33e12 photons per cycle at 5 mW. Looks like
we need quite a few photons to move an electron.





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Will Radio Engineering be QMs worst nightmare?
    ... not voltage. ... > radiate any photons (other than thermal noise photons which will certainly ... Thermal noise can be overcome with drop in temperature. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Another ISO question...
    ... the ISO ... photons the sensor captures. ... the noise in the two signals in the above example ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Digicams With MF Film Quality
    ... infinite signal to noise. ... The problem is that photons arrive in a random ... Thus in a given time interval (the exposure time ... two signals, you get ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Another ISO question...
    ... the ISO ... photons the sensor captures. ... the noise in the two signals in the above example ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: help with navtex/medium wave receiver sensitivity and decoding
    ... the system is too high to pick up anything but the strongest navtex ... above the background noise, and navtex signals are much lower power. ... antenna such as yours it should still dominate. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)