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

curiousjohn4@xxxxxxxxx wrote in
news:1119060727.405732.272480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> bz wrote:
>> > Then your amplifier has inherent resonances.
>>
>> Audio amps don't have resonances.
>
> And audio amps don't blow up when the speakers are unplugged, but may
> blow when shorted.

I have seen it happen.

>> > Never seen it happen.
>>
>> I used to fix radio/radar equipment for a living.
>
> Yes, it's mistakes by people that blow amps, not unloaded outputs.
> Sounds more like a myth.

You are laboring under a mythconception.

Do the math. See what kind of voltage gets produced by 150 watts applied to
an infinite resistance.

> In the tens of 1000's of times I've done,

Tens of thousands? Where would you have the opportunity to operate an
amplifier without a load ten thousand times?

> there has never been a blow up, never. That's because I understand the
> electronics and don't short stuff. We'll just have to disagree on this
> one.

Shorting most amps is LESS likely to blow the output than open circuiting.
Of course it does depend on how failsafe the design is.

>> > 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.
>
> Yes, that's because of the cable length. You can get tremendous back
> reflections. My proposed simple circuit has no such lengthy cables.
> Again, once a person understands what is happening then the mysteries,
> myths, and misunderstanding vanish.
>
>
>> > 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.
>
> But a lot of hams would still buy 2500 watt amps and crank them up
> every now and them when they felt like flexing their muscles.

Sounds more like you are talking about CBers. The hams I know are very
careful to stay legal.

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

Anywhere for EME[earth-moon-earth] path.

>> Your signals are going to be much weaker and you won't even know when
>> they might be emitted.
>
> Lol, I really didn't even want to prose how to receive them. I know
> it's possible but would probably take lots of $ and time.
>
>
>> And if you cool your transmitting antenna too much, I doubt that you
>> will EVER get a photon emitted.
>
> Whys that? I would think that it's easier for current to flow when
> thermal vibrations are lowered.

because it is ONLY by adding thermal noise to the small AC voltage you
propose to apply that one could hope to have enough energy to generate a
photon.

I suppose that you might have a standing wave that slowly builds in
amplitude until there is enough energy to kick out a photon. Kind of a
reverse relaxation oscillator.

>> > The more samples you
>> > take of noise then less the noise signal becomes.
>>
>> signal to noise ratio IF you have a signal.
>
> That's not what multiple samples are about. It's a known fact that
> if you know the when the signal will arrive and the phase and such then
> you can sample out any noise regardless. The desired signal could be 1
> millionth of the bit on the ADC and the noise could be near saturation
> and with enough samples you could get a near perfect signal without
> hardly any noise. That's the power of software, and time.

But you must have the signal at a known time. If the emission time varies
(and it probably would because it would depend on the coincidence of a
voltage loop and a thermal phonon.) then the signal will NOT be enhanced.

>> > Double the samples
>> > and you decress the noise by half.
>>
>> You increase the signal to noise ratio IF you have a signal.
>
> I already described this. Too tired to do it again.



>> > As you know that's because the
>> > noise has a plus and minus amplitude.
>>
>> NO. Because the noise occurs at random times.
>
> It is a fact.

If the signal occurance is random also, you can't tell it from the noise.

>> Cancellation does NOT depend on polarity of the noise. Some noise does
>> not have negative values.
>
> I've worked on ground penetrating radar far to long my friend. Sorry,
> what I am telling you is old hat.

So you agree that the cancellation does not depend on the polarity of the
noise?

>> > 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.
>
> May be one of these days I'll take the time to show you.
>
>
>> > It is a sure method if you have the time to sample.
>>
>> IF you have a signal that occurs at a known time.
>
> I already said that. Why do you agree with me now but when I say "at
> known times" it's suddenly incorrect.

Because I have reason to believe that in your proposed experiment the
signal will not be emitted 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.
>
> I told you it's old hat. I see forums is nothing but a big messy
> process where it takes people lots of time just to get on the same
> page. I'm seeing this time after time. In a lot of cases people end
> up fighting and calling each other cranks and such. You seem mellower
> thank God.

I try to treat everyone with respect and won't bother talking to those that
don't respect theirselves enough to be polite to others.

>> > I am only searching for theory options.
>>
>> Theory options?
>
> Yes, I am not so arrogant as think I have the answers. I've learned
> too much in life that that all things change and there's no limit.
> What will theories be from a science that has evolved for millions of
> years. We couldn't even imagine it. It would probably be like asking
> a dog to do calculus. Humanity can be so arrogant.

Perfectly human beings are prone to arrogance.

>> > 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.
>
> Lol, no you silly. Radiation resistance isn't something you connect.
> It is resistance that results from di/dt. It is not inductance.

By connect I meant 'relate'.

>> > Another is that
>> > there will only be radiation resistance once every x cycles.
>>
>> I suspect you mean more like radiation conductance rather than
>> resistance.
>
> Lol, you're cracking me up. No, read up on radiation resistance. For
> example, when an antenna is 50 ohms, that resistance is from radiation
> resistance.

I understand radiation resistance and antenna. At the voltages you are
talking about, i and e and Z_radiation cease to have meaning.

>> And I suspect that x would be a random number
>
> Yes, if the theory is true. That's probability for you.
>
>
>> > 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.
>
> Jiggles, lol. Jiggle as in spikes? And each spike would be when a
> photon is emitted?

No. The jiggles are due to your pushing some electrons around and producing
some voltage drop across your 1 ohm resistor.


>> At the receiver I would expect to see a flat line that jiggles much
>> less often.
>
> Hmm, I would expect the receiver and transmitter to see the same
> signal, just different levels is all.

The receiver is only going to see a signal if a photon is detected.

If you were emitting 1 photon per second, the chance of the photon being in
the direction of your receiving antenna is going to be small. Not all
photons sent directly at the receiving antenna are going to be absorbed by
it.

I would imagine that less than 1 in 1000 emitted photons would be received
[that is just a wild guess].

That means that you will wait 1000 seconds before your receiver sees a
photon.

> The more I think about this the
> more I think we would see a nice uniform sine wave.

You assume a very good scope. You are looking across the 1 ohm resistor.

I predict that sometime (on the average of once per second), you will see a
DROP in voltage as a photon is emitted.

I predict that you wont see a sine wave, you will see a sine wave
superimposed on thermal noise.

If your stuff is so cold that there is no thermal noise, you will never
emit a photon{unless the standing waves build up as I suggested they might,
in which case you will see kind of a reverse image of spark gap damped
oscillation}

> Wouldn't that be a
> blast and dagger in the side of QM?

Not hardly. QM predictions would still be useful.

> I doubt it would phase the QM
> community. I used to have some fun with the scientists at work. I
> would make up junk that was not true and then ask them to explain this
> to me. It was hilarious how they always sat back in their chair, and
> with their authorities voice, "Oh well yes, that is easy to explain
> simply by the laws of asdfasdf." God bless them.

Perhaps they knew you were making up stuff and they were kidding you back
by acting like they took you seriously. Perhaps they were giving you the
benefit of the doubt.

>> > 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.
>
> How would the photon be 0 width?

How would you define the width of a photon? I was defining it on the basis
of the measured wavelength of the energy package. If you are talking about
E field and M field, they extend orthogonally to the direction of travel
and to each other and have magnitude but they don't have a 'size'.

> Did you read my experiment with the
> x-rays and M material?

Nope. Fact or fiction?

>> > 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.
>
> Yes, but we've been through that. Cool the unit down.

Then it will have even a harder time. In one case you have the thermal
energy that could help you, in the other case you have none.

>> 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.
>
> I don't see it that way. Free electrons in metal move at various
> speeds. If the field is weaker then it will accelerate the electron
> less. That's how I see it.

The EMF modulates the electron drift. The drift velocity depends on
temperature. The EMF modulates the NUMBER of electrons drifting in one
direction vs the other direction.

There is little evidence the the VELOCITY of any electron in the wire
changes at all.

The AVERAGE velocity changes because the drift is shifted.

--
bz N5BZ http://chemistry.lsu.edu/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
Quantcast