FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5 [65 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:27:56 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:er9b929c7a55e15nc69pbscc72h6pmkuv5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:46:58 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m1b892hrhs0pt28rs7q9op3ks8o42ivmfu@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:06:36 GMT, srp <srp2@globetrotter.net
wrote:

Tom Roberts a écrit :
GSS wrote:
Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of
Vacuum
represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties
of
the
physical space or vacuum.

No they don't. In modern physics they are merely units
conversion
factors which can be set to 1 by an appropriate choice of units.
Actually permeability is often set to 1/4pi....


Tom Roberts

To my knowledge, in SI, eps_0 can be set to 1/(4 pi c^2 10^-7)

André Michaud

Why do you say that Andre?

André and I had a big discussion about this recently. Guess you
missed
it. Basically André is creating a new unit system based on SI that
is
somewhat interesting.

To denominate eps0 in terms of c^-2 , I
have in Eq. 5-35 of my book
eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 = 8.8e-12 Farad/meter
where L is the electron-positron cell size 3.54e-14m
which comes down to
e^2/eps0*L = mc^2.
Is that of any use?
JP

L = e^2/(eps0 mc^2)

alpha = e^2/(4pi eps0 hbar c)

So your L is 2*alpha*lambda_C, lambda_C being electron compton
wavelength. I think it is too small for "our world" and too big for
Uspace. Your mistake is in using e^2 instead of 4pi*eps0*hbar*c,
quantum "vacuum" charge. L should just be,

To be sure, the expression above was not used to compute L, merely on
expression among several, to accommodate Andre's c^-2.(JP)

L = hbar/m_e*c = lambda_C/2pi

for the cell size wrt our spacetime.

Your cell size is in real vacuum, but it's compressed by alpha in
pair-space. (Your mistake is that nothing can really happen in a
vacuum).

No, in the "other" 3-brane it could be "compressed" by a factor of 10^20
order due to "warped geometry" between the two 3-branes. We can only
say what things are wrt our 3-brane. The other one is always beyond our
event horizon other than virtual pairs.

I forget how you derived your L, but here's how I derived mine, from
first principles, as usual. (Eq. 3-4 to 3-6 in my book or Eq. 5-7 on
my website Permittivity paper).

Unfortunately, it is not from "first principles" since you are only
considering e+e- virtual pairs.

I am starting at the bottom: How can the empty vacuum exhibit exactly
the coefficient that is the energy-storing epsilon0? And I came out
with the exact answer: by having uncreated, elastically joined, pairs
spaced 3.5e-14m with a spring coefficient K of 2.6e14N/m. (See Sec. 17
& 21of my permittivity paper on the website).

Our universe was formed by streams of electrons taken out of this
pairspace at light speed and after 10 billion years the cooking has
produced what you like, pions. Every particle you know has its
duplicate as an antiparticle in pairspace.

Everything our empty universe has its dual in pairspace minus the
electrons taken, the places marked by the positrons left behind. The
stealing of electrons produced the pressure gradients that make
gravity in pair-space. That's where the real physics is, not in the
void of the vacuum. C'mon!
Quote:

The capacity of the cube holding the pair is given by
C = L*eps0 (= eps0 * L^2/L)
A critical voltage Vc will pull both charges to the "walls"
and the resulting capacitive charge displaced is 2 e:
Vc*eps0*L = 2e
L = 2e/Vc*eps0
Vc is 1.022 MV defining the energy needed to free the two charges in
pair production. Each charge is dragged through Vc/2, total W = 1.022
MeV.

How do you explain pion production from the vacuum? You are leaving out
a vast amount of other particles which when all combined happens to add
up to the sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) for "vacuum" charge. Not 2e. The
sqrt(alpha) is simply the ratio between electronic charge and the total
of "vacuum" charge.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
Back to top
srp
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 198

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

John C. Polasek a écrit :
Quote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:19:06 GMT, srp <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote:

John C. Polasek a écrit :
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:46:58 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m1b892hrhs0pt28rs7q9op3ks8o42ivmfu@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:06:36 GMT, srp <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote:

Tom Roberts a écrit :
GSS wrote:
Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of Vacuum
represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties of
the
physical space or vacuum.
No they don't. In modern physics they are merely units conversion
factors which can be set to 1 by an appropriate choice of units.
Actually permeability is often set to 1/4pi....


Tom Roberts
To my knowledge, in SI, eps_0 can be set to 1/(4 pi c^2 10^-7)

André Michaud
Why do you say that Andre?
André and I had a big discussion about this recently. Guess you missed
it. Basically André is creating a new unit system based on SI that is
somewhat interesting.

To denominate eps0 in terms of c^-2 , I
have in Eq. 5-35 of my book
eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 = 8.8e-12 Farad/meter
where L is the electron-positron cell size 3.54e-14m
which comes down to
e^2/eps0*L = mc^2.
Is that of any use?
JP
L = e^2/(eps0 mc^2)

alpha = e^2/(4pi eps0 hbar c)

So your L is 2*alpha*lambda_C, lambda_C being electron compton
wavelength. I think it is too small for "our world" and too big for
Uspace. Your mistake is in using e^2 instead of 4pi*eps0*hbar*c,
quantum "vacuum" charge. L should just be,
To be sure, the expression above was not used to compute L, merely on
expression among several, to accommodate Andre's c^-2.(JP)

L = hbar/m_e*c = lambda_C/2pi

for the cell size wrt our spacetime.
Your cell size is in real vacuum, but it's compressed by alpha in
pair-space. (Your mistake is that nothing can really happen in a
vacuum).
I find it quite interesting John that you identified that alpha
"compressing cell size" out of normal space.

I derived the exact same constraint in my model as out of normal
space, which is that alpha compresses the amplitude orthogonally
to the direction of motion in normal space.

In my model, for any given localized electromagnetic particle,
(lambda alpha) /2 pi is the maximum transverse extent of to and fro
travel of its energy transversally to the direction of motion in
vacuum.

The general equation for a photon in my model is

E= hc/(2 lambda) + e^2/2C cos^2(wt) + Li^2/2 sin^2(wt)

C = capacitance of the particle
L = inductance
i = displacement current
hc/(2 lambda) = energy propelling the other half at c

I don't know if you can justify the equation, because the first term
hc/(2 lambda) is 1/2h*f*137 where w = 2pi*f is the oscillation
frequency. It seems you have taken hnu and multiplied it by 137/2.

Presently, in my model, hc combines to be what I symbolized by
capital H, in fact, in my model, h is derived from H.

H = electromagnetic transverse acceleration constant.

H = lambda E = e^2/(2 eps0 alpha)

Derived from re-definition of energy from Marmet's paper.

It is the transverse amplitude based counterpart of time based
Planck's h constant. This is why it is used with the wavelength
instead of the frequency.

A pity you seemed to have missed the conversation Fred and I had
on all aspects of this.

Quote:
Also how would you derive the capacitance of the photon, when
capacitance is a lump parameter of coulombs per volt difference.

Same remark, I discussed all of this with Freddyfizzx some time ago.

Summarily, for any photon, in my model,

C = eps_0 2 lambda alpha

L = (mu_0 lambda alpha)/(8 pi^2)

i = sqrt(E/L)

where E is the photon's total energy.

Quote:
In my theory a photon would be a ripple running at light speed through
pair-space, (in which sqrt(Y/rho) = c, with Y = Youngs modulus & rho,
mass density).

In my model, a photon is a localized quantum of energy amounting to
half the photon's energy LC oscillating between electrostatic and
magnetostatic spaces at the photon's frequency, while being propelled
in normal space by the other half of its total complement of energy.

Quote:
The (still uncreated) pairs in pair-space are what gives it
permittivity eps0.

As mentionned, in the most detailed equation set (transverse
acceleration based), eps0 and mu0 are not required anymore.

André Michaud
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e756n2$4i4$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
| news:CEglg.453474$xt.49975@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:e73puc$jio$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
| > |
| > | "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
| > | news:988lg.195431$8W1.135620@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > | >
| > | > "Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:e72gvg$1d9n$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
| > | >
| > | > | The values for the permittivity and permeability of space
| > | > | follow naturally from the selection of the values
| > | > | for the "C" and "Z" of space.
| > | >
| > | > Light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA, so c = 0/0.
| > | > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif
| > | > Electrons travel from cathode to anode in the space enclosed
| > | > by TV tubes, z = 0.
| > | > Division by zero is undefined, you can achieve any values
| > | > you wish.
| >
| > | 1. Don't create a strawman
| > | by attributing Einstein's mistakes to me.
| >
| > It is your claim "values for the permittivity and permeability of space
| > follow naturally from the selection of the values for the "C" and "Z"
| > of space", is it not?
| > Don't make claims you cannot support, Potter.
| >
| > | 2. Arbitrary constants:
| > | C - The "speed of light constant".
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
| > Do you mean the red C or the blue C, Potter?
| >
| > | Z - The impedance of space constant.
| >
| > Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
| > of nothing", Potter.
| >
| > | 5. The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero.
| >
| > You don't seem to know the difference between AC and DC, Potter.
| > The effective resistance, known as impedance, is found from
| > Ohms's law R = E/I, Potter, and for a capacitor is frequency dependent.
| > A DC circuit as in a TV tube has a frequency of zero, Potter.
| > It's a short circuit, Potter, not a 377 ohm resistor.
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
| >
| > | Google "plate resistance" and "space charge".
| >
| > I've no intention of doing your homework for you, Potter, or
| > tackling your Aunt Sallies. You can tell me what your theories
| > are when I have adequate definitions of what the hell you are
| > babbling about.
|
| As can be seen
| "Sorcerer" uses several "logical fallacies" in his response to my post:
| creating a strawman, childishly attacking the messenger
| rather than addressing the message in a rational, intelligent way,
| obfuscation, equivocation, etc.


As can be seen, Potter doesn't address the issues I raised.
Instead he creates a strawman, childishly attacking the messenger
rather than addressing the message in a rational, intelligent way,
obfuscation, equivocation, etc.

It is your claim "values for the permittivity and permeability of space
follow naturally from the selection of the values for the "C" and "Z"
of space", is it not?
Don't make claims you cannot support, Potter.
Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
of nothing", Potter.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Do you mean the red C or the blue C, Potter?

You don't seem to know the difference between AC and DC, Potter.
The effective resistance, known as impedance, is found from
Ohms's law R = E/I, Potter, and for a capacitor is frequency dependent.
A DC circuit as in a TV tube has a frequency of zero, Potter.
It's a short circuit, Potter, not a 377 ohm resistor.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm


But to address the points he did address:

No you haven't, liar. Get back after you do.
Androcles
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e756n2$4i4$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
| It is pretty clear that the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c",
| is arbitrarily set to equate a "time interval"
| (A time interval is the basic measure of a vacuum.)

It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.


| to the distance between two points on some physical object
| such as a King's body part.
|
| And as can be seen,
| if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
| and the impedance of space Z0 is the same everywhere,
| and in every direction,
| then Z0 is an "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

What do you mean by "as can be seen, if", Potter?
How is anyone supposed to see an if?
As can be seen, if Potter is a lunatic then Potter is a
babblemouth, as can be seen.


|
| And if

Another if...?


| space is homogeneous and isotropic,
| and the permittivity of space e0 is the same everywhere,
| and in every direction then e0 is a "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

It is zero, Potter, as can be seen. Perhaps you are another crackpot
aetherialist.

|
| And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,

And yet another "if"?



| and the permeability of space mu0 is the same everywhere,
| and in every direction then mu0 is a "PERMEABILITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

As can be seen, it is zero, Potter. The aether was blown away over 100 years
ago,
and it's properties die with it.
|
| The bottom lines are:
|
| 1. Space is a time interval.

You don't know the difference between a yardstick and a clock, Potter.



|
| 2. The SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
| is used to equate pure space (Time intervals)
| to the SPACE between two points on a physical object.
|
| length = time interval * c

Oh brother... x = vt. What will they think of next?


|
| 3. The "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT"
| which is defined by the arbitrary constants
| the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
| and the "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT",
| is used to equate pure space
| to the CAPACITANCE between two points on a physical object.

You wouldn't know a capacitor if it leapt off your motherboard
and bit you, Potter.

Go away, you are a hopeless boor.
Androcles


|
| Note that the amount of "space" (Time interval) within a physical object
| is almost always greater than a parallel sample of a vacuum.
|
| In other words,
| an event propagated through a vacuum space
| generally has a shorter time interval
| than an event propagated through a physical object
| parallel to the vacuum space.
|
| I suggest that "Sorcerer" or anyone who wants to comprehend
| the real nature of space, the speed of light, impedance, etc.
| should visit my web site, and read the short article
| "Uniting the four forces",
| as the article explains this in a few graphic steps,
| far more clearly than can be done using ASCII characters
| in a news group.
|
| --
| Tom Potter
| http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
| http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
| http://no-turtles.com
| http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
| http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
| http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
| http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
|
|
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:49 am    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:44:00 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:CEglg.453474$xt.49975@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e73puc$jio$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...

Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
of nothing", Potter.

| 5. The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero.

You don't seem to know the difference between AC and DC, Potter.
The effective resistance, known as impedance, is found from
Ohms's law R = E/I, Potter, and for a capacitor is frequency dependent.
A DC circuit as in a TV tube has a frequency of zero, Potter.
It's a short circuit, Potter, not a 377 ohm resistor.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm

| Google "plate resistance" and "space charge".

I've no intention of doing your homework for you, Potter, or
tackling your Aunt Sallies. You can tell me what your theories
are when I have adequate definitions of what the hell you are
babbling about.

As can be seen
"Sorcerer" uses several "logical fallacies" in his response to my post:
creating a strawman, childishly attacking the messenger
rather than addressing the message in a rational, intelligent way,
obfuscation, equivocation, etc.

But to address the points he did address:

1. "plate resistance" and "space charge" have a resistive component.
Note that the plates (And elements) of vacuum tubes do heat up,
and sometimes get red hot.
Capacitances and inductances DO NOT dissipate energy.

Vacuum tubes also have interelectrode capacitances,
and a tiny amount of inductance.

2. Note that "Sorcerer" calls space "nothing"
when it is clear that a "space" is proportional to a "time interval".

What sort of idiotic claim is this?

Quote:

3. Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
"Don't make claims you cannot support, Potter."

It is pretty clear that the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c",
is arbitrarily set to equate a "time interval"
(A time interval is the basic measure of a vacuum.)
to the distance between two points on some physical object
such as a King's body part.

Bullshit.
You are merely replacing 'distance' by the time it would take for light to
travel from A to B if it moved at c.

Absolute spatial intervals are defined by rigid rods. They can be taken
anywhere, anyhow and will maintain their original definition of the interval.

Quote:
And as can be seen,
if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
and the impedance of space Z0 is the same everywhere,
and in every direction,
then Z0 is an "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

How do you measure it without disturbing what you are trying to measure?

You cannot.

How do you know that differently moviung observers will get the same answer at
the same point in space?

You don't...

Quote:
And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
and the permittivity of space e0 is the same everywhere,
and in every direction then e0 is a "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

It has the value of zero in completely empty space.

Quote:
And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
and the permeability of space mu0 is the same everywhere,
and in every direction then mu0 is a "PERMEABILITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

It also has the value of zero in completely empty space.

Space is NOT empty if an electric or magnetic field permeates it.

Quote:
The bottom lines are:

1. Space is a time interval.

Crap.

Quote:

2. The SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
is used to equate pure space (Time intervals)
to the SPACE between two points on a physical object.

It possibly could be .....but why bother when one can use numbers of rigid
rods?

Quote:
length = time interval * c

Why bother with that silly roundabout impractical definition?

Length = number of aligned metre rods.

Quote:

3. The "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT"
which is defined by the arbitrary constants
the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
and the "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT",
is used to equate pure space
to the CAPACITANCE between two points on a physical object.

Your so-called 'vacuum constant' happens to be the speed of light wrt its
source...nothing else.

Quote:

Note that the amount of "space" (Time interval) within a physical object
is almost always greater than a parallel sample of a vacuum.

In other words,
an event propagated through a vacuum space
generally has a shorter time interval
than an event propagated through a physical object
parallel to the vacuum space.

Only a madman would reason this way.

Quote:
I suggest that "Sorcerer" or anyone who wants to comprehend
the real nature of space, the speed of light, impedance, etc.
should visit my web site, and read the short article
"Uniting the four forces",
as the article explains this in a few graphic steps,
far more clearly than can be done using ASCII characters
in a news group.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
tdp1001@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:12 am    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:vLBlg.199640$8W1.33823@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Quote:

"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e756n2$4i4$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
| It is pretty clear that the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c",
| is arbitrarily set to equate a "time interval"
| (A time interval is the basic measure of a vacuum.)

It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.

| to the distance between two points on some physical object
| such as a King's body part.
|
| And as can be seen,
| if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
| and the impedance of space Z0 is the same everywhere,
| and in every direction,
| then Z0 is an "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

What do you mean by "as can be seen, if", Potter?
How is anyone supposed to see an if?
As can be seen, if Potter is a lunatic then Potter is a
babblemouth, as can be seen.

| And if

Another if...?

| space is homogeneous and isotropic,
| and the permittivity of space e0 is the same everywhere,
| and in every direction then e0 is a "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

It is zero, Potter, as can be seen. Perhaps you are another crackpot
aetherialist.

| And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,

And yet another "if"?

| and the permeability of space mu0 is the same everywhere,
| and in every direction then mu0 is a "PERMEABILITY OF A VACUUM
CONSTANT".

As can be seen, it is zero, Potter. The aether was blown away over 100
years
ago,
and it's properties die with it.
|
| The bottom lines are:
|
| 1. Space is a time interval.

You don't know the difference between a yardstick and a clock, Potter.

| 2. The SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
| is used to equate pure space (Time intervals)
| to the SPACE between two points on a physical object.
|
| length = time interval * c

Oh brother... x = vt. What will they think of next?

| 3. The "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT"
| which is defined by the arbitrary constants
| the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
| and the "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT",
| is used to equate pure space
| to the CAPACITANCE between two points on a physical object.

You wouldn't know a capacitor if it leapt off your motherboard
and bit you, Potter.

Go away, you are a hopeless boor.
Androcles

| Note that the amount of "space" (Time interval) within a physical object
| is almost always greater than a parallel sample of a vacuum.
|
| In other words,
| an event propagated through a vacuum space
| generally has a shorter time interval
| than an event propagated through a physical object
| parallel to the vacuum space.
|
| I suggest that "Sorcerer" or anyone who wants to comprehend
| the real nature of space, the speed of light, impedance, etc.
| should visit my web site, and read the short article
| "Uniting the four forces",
| as the article explains this in a few graphic steps,
| far more clearly than can be done using ASCII characters
| in a news group.

Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
Quote:
It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.

"c", the "speed of light constant" is just that, a constant.
It is not a speed.

As I pointed out,
when you use the same clock ticks
to quantize the time interval between a cause and an effect,
and the time period between the same cause and effect,
you will always come up with the same number,
no matter when and where you quantize it.

All this "same number" does is relate
time periods to time intervals.

You can set "c" to ANY number you like,
and all that it does is express distances in
some other unit.

I might point out that the physical constants
c, G, permittivity of space, permeability of space,
and the impedance of space are just that, constants,
and that these constants apply to a certain set of conditions,
namely so-called space, which I called a VACUUM
in order to make the point that other bodies were not involved,
other than the bodies associated with some measured caused,
and its' related measured effect.

Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
"You don't know the difference between a yardstick and a clock, Potter."
I might point out that Einstein's "rigid rods" and "Sorcerer's" "yardsticks"
are nasty temperature sensitive, pressure sensitive, contamination
sensitive,
bending sensitive, acceleration sensitive beasts,
and that precision clocks can measure distances and lengths
far, far, far more accurately and reliabilbly that his "yardsticks",
or Einstein's "rigid rods".

"Sorcerer's" main arguments seem to be:
"Potter is a lunatic"
"Potter is a babblemouth"
"Perhaps you are another crackpot aetherialist."
"You wouldn't know a capacitor if it leapt off your motherboard and bit you,
Potter."
"Go away, you are a hopeless boor."

All heady stuff.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
Back to top
tdp1001@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:12 am    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:7ege929lfmngovvfunes2ponehob9fb57l@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:44:00 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com
wrote:

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:CEglg.453474$xt.49975@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e73puc$jio$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...

Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
of nothing", Potter.

| 5. The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero.

You don't seem to know the difference between AC and DC, Potter.
The effective resistance, known as impedance, is found from
Ohms's law R = E/I, Potter, and for a capacitor is frequency dependent.
A DC circuit as in a TV tube has a frequency of zero, Potter.
It's a short circuit, Potter, not a 377 ohm resistor.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm

| Google "plate resistance" and "space charge".

I've no intention of doing your homework for you, Potter, or
tackling your Aunt Sallies. You can tell me what your theories
are when I have adequate definitions of what the hell you are
babbling about.

As can be seen
"Sorcerer" uses several "logical fallacies" in his response to my post:
creating a strawman, childishly attacking the messenger
rather than addressing the message in a rational, intelligent way,
obfuscation, equivocation, etc.

But to address the points he did address:

1. "plate resistance" and "space charge" have a resistive component.
Note that the plates (And elements) of vacuum tubes do heat up,
and sometimes get red hot.
Capacitances and inductances DO NOT dissipate energy.

Vacuum tubes also have interelectrode capacitances,
and a tiny amount of inductance.

2. Note that "Sorcerer" calls space "nothing"
when it is clear that a "space" is proportional to a "time interval".

What sort of idiotic claim is this?

3. Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
"Don't make claims you cannot support, Potter."

It is pretty clear that the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c",
is arbitrarily set to equate a "time interval"
(A time interval is the basic measure of a vacuum.)
to the distance between two points on some physical object
such as a King's body part.

Bullshit.
You are merely replacing 'distance' by the time it would take for light to
travel from A to B if it moved at c.

Absolute spatial intervals are defined by rigid rods. They can be taken
anywhere, anyhow and will maintain their original definition of the
interval.

And as can be seen,
if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
and the impedance of space Z0 is the same everywhere,
and in every direction,
then Z0 is an "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

How do you measure it without disturbing what you are trying to measure?

You cannot.

How do you know that differently moviung observers will get the same
answer at
the same point in space?

You don't...

And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
and the permittivity of space e0 is the same everywhere,
and in every direction then e0 is a "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

It has the value of zero in completely empty space.

And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
and the permeability of space mu0 is the same everywhere,
and in every direction then mu0 is a "PERMEABILITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".

It also has the value of zero in completely empty space.

Space is NOT empty if an electric or magnetic field permeates it.

The bottom lines are:

1. Space is a time interval.

Crap.

2. The SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
is used to equate pure space (Time intervals)
to the SPACE between two points on a physical object.

It possibly could be .....but why bother when one can use numbers of rigid
rods?

length = time interval * c

Why bother with that silly roundabout impractical definition?

Length = number of aligned metre rods.

3. The "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT"
which is defined by the arbitrary constants
the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
and the "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT",
is used to equate pure space
to the CAPACITANCE between two points on a physical object.

Your so-called 'vacuum constant' happens to be the speed of light wrt its
source...nothing else.

Note that the amount of "space" (Time interval) within a physical object
is almost always greater than a parallel sample of a vacuum.

In other words,
an event propagated through a vacuum space
generally has a shorter time interval
than an event propagated through a physical object
parallel to the vacuum space.

Only a madman would reason this way.

I suggest that "Sorcerer" or anyone who wants to comprehend
the real nature of space, the speed of light, impedance, etc.
should visit my web site, and read the short article
"Uniting the four forces",
as the article explains this in a few graphic steps,
far more clearly than can be done using ASCII characters
in a news group.

It is interesting to see that "Henri Wilson"
does not know that time intervals are a more fundamental
and reliable measure of space than "rigid rods".

Einstein's "rigid rods" are nasty, bending sensitive, temperature sensitive,
acceleration sensitive, contamination sensitive, pressure sensitive, beasts.

Regarding "Henri Wilson" question"
"How do you measure it <Z0> without disturbing what you are trying to
measure?"

I suggest that "Henri Wilson" do a Google search on "Schrdinger's cat",
and he will learn that it is impossible to observe <measure> anything
without affecting it.
Observers become part of the systems they are observing.

"Henri Wilson's" main arguments seem to be:
"What sort of idiotic claim is this?"
"Crap."
"You don't..."
"You cannot."
"Only a madman would reason this way."

Pretty heady stuff, eh?

"Henri Wilson" does seem to comprehend
(As he makes this point several time.)
that in a completely empty universe,
no properties would exist.

In a completely empty universe,
there would be no sentient beings around
to come up with the concept of physical properties and constants.

"Henri Wilson" does seem to make a mistake when he asserts that
constants and properties that don't exist have a value of "zero".

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
"Only a madman would reason this way." Wink)
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:36 am    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e77pk6$31kb$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...

| Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
| > It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
| > other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.
|
| "c", the "speed of light constant" is just that, a constant.
| It is not a speed.

I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF

I hereby nominate
Tom Potter
as the

**Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**

Any seconds??????????????????????

It's gonna a close contest, might even come down to the Florida vote
to decide it.
Androcles
Back to top
Jan Panteltje
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 295

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:20 am    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:49:05 GMT) it happened HW@..(Henri Wilson)
wrote in <7ege929lfmngovvfunes2ponehob9fb57l@4ax.com>:

Quote:
Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
of nothing", Potter.

| 5. The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero.

Indeed


Quote:
You don't seem to know the difference between AC and DC, Potter.
The effective resistance, known as impedance, is found from
Ohms's law R = E/I, Potter, and for a capacitor is frequency dependent.
A DC circuit as in a TV tube has a frequency of zero, Potter.
It's a short circuit, Potter, not a 377 ohm resistor.

Total and utterly bulshit.
A normal CRT (color) has 3 electron guns, with each about .5 mA (500 ua)
max current (normal operation), so a total of 1.5mA electron current to the
high voltage connection from the cathode*S*.
The high voltage is 25kV, so the impedance seen would be 25000 / .0015 =
16 666 666 Ohm, or 16 MOhm. (mega ohm).

As the electron beam is constantly modulated by the luminance, or in case of
color the RGB signals, the curent varies constantly.
So it makes no sense / has no practical use to speak of an impedance.
[The] Electronics is only concerned with keeping the high voltage stable
as the laod varies.
A changing high voltage would give a changing picture size for the same
deflection power (magnetic field).
Feedback circuits are used for stabilization.
In the very very old tube color sets, a parallel stabilizer tube was used
(PD100), it had a lot of roentgen radiation too...

Not going to read the rest.

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Man human species, how did it ever get this far.
OK it took some millions of years.
In the lifetime of the current bunch we should have no expectations.
But some did miracles in the previous century.
So maybe there is still hope.

eeh, maybe not.
Sam would say: yes/no that makes 50 percent.
No Sam would not say that..... Ok let Sam peak for himself.
Back to top
tdp1001@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:wHMlg.200890$8W1.199056@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Quote:

"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e77pk6$31kb$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...

| Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
| > It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
| > other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.
|
| "c", the "speed of light constant" is just that, a constant.
| It is not a speed.

I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF

I hereby nominate
Tom Potter
as the

**Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**

Any seconds??????????????????????

It's gonna a close contest, might even come down to the Florida vote
to decide it.

It is interesting to see that the best that "Sorcerer"
can respond to my positions
(Tubes have plate resistance.
c is a constant, not a velocity.
Space has a characteristic impedance.,etc.)
is:

"I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense."
"I hereby nominate
Tom Potter
as the **Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**"

Great arguments "Sorcerer"!

I'll keep these arguments in mind,
and I'll use them when I am unable to make my case
in a rational, logical and intelligent way.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
Back to top
tdp1001@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpeatmje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e78i65$4o8$1@news.datemas.de...
Quote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:49:05 GMT) it happened HW@..(Henri
Wilson)
wrote in <7ege929lfmngovvfunes2ponehob9fb57l@4ax.com>:

Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
of nothing", Potter.

| 5. The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero.

Indeed

You don't seem to know the difference between AC and DC, Potter.
The effective resistance, known as impedance, is found from
Ohms's law R = E/I, Potter, and for a capacitor is frequency dependent.
A DC circuit as in a TV tube has a frequency of zero, Potter.
It's a short circuit, Potter, not a 377 ohm resistor.

Total and utterly bulshit.
A normal CRT (color) has 3 electron guns, with each about .5 mA (500 ua)
max current (normal operation), so a total of 1.5mA electron current to
the
high voltage connection from the cathode*S*.
The high voltage is 25kV, so the impedance seen would be 25000 / .0015 =
16 666 666 Ohm, or 16 MOhm. (mega ohm).

As the electron beam is constantly modulated by the luminance, or in case
of
color the RGB signals, the curent varies constantly.
So it makes no sense / has no practical use to speak of an impedance.
[The] Electronics is only concerned with keeping the high voltage stable
as the laod varies.
A changing high voltage would give a changing picture size for the same
deflection power (magnetic field).
Feedback circuits are used for stabilization.
In the very very old tube color sets, a parallel stabilizer tube was used
(PD100), it had a lot of roentgen radiation too...

Not going to read the rest.

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Man human species, how did it ever get this far.
OK it took some millions of years.
In the lifetime of the current bunch we should have no expectations.
But some did miracles in the previous century.
So maybe there is still hope.

Thanks to "Jan Panteltje" for supporting my position that:
"The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero."

and that tubes have "plate resistance".

But regarding "Jan Panteltje's" comment:
"So it makes no sense / has no practical use to speak of an impedance.
[The] Electronics is only concerned with keeping the high voltage stable
as the laod varies."

If the load varies, and the voltage stays constant,
the impedance varies.

impedance = voltage / current

Regarding "Jan Panteltje's" comment:
"how did it <Mankind> ever get this far.
OK it took some millions of years."

A better measure might be necessity
and man-years, rather than years.

For the first million years,
there weren't that many people around,
and of course, technology builds on technology.

It was not possible to make GPS and cellular phone systems
for almost fifty years after the German/American actress Hedy Lamar
invented spread spectrum modulation,

and after Edison invented the diode,
DeForrest stuck in a control grid and invented the triode,
then someone found that the cats whisker crystal was a diode
and the Bell Labs gang stuck a "control grid" in the crystal
and made the point contact transistor,
and then Texas Instruments and Fairchild
learned how to deposit "control grids" on crystals to form field effect
transistors
and added many active and inactive components to form integrated circuits
and then Intel put reprogrammable logic "integrated circuits" on a crystal
to make the microprocessor, etc.

Of course, the great advances in the next few years
will be in energy conservation, information systems mashups,
human engineered, graphics/sound software,
mobile access to and from data bases,
DNA technology for health, plant and animal engineering,
history construction, crime prevention, etc.

It's a shame to waste time, money, and minds
speculating about time travel, worm holes, gravitons, etc.
when the time and money could be better spent elsewhere.

As "Jan Panteltje" said:
"maybe there is still hope."

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e78ttj$vct$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
| news:wHMlg.200890$8W1.199056@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:e77pk6$31kb$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
| >
| > | Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
| > | > It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
| > | > other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.
| > |
| > | "c", the "speed of light constant" is just that, a constant.
| > | It is not a speed.
| >
| > I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
| >
| > I hereby nominate
| > Tom Potter
| > as the
| >
| > **Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**
| >
| > Any seconds??????????????????????
| >
| > It's gonna a close contest, might even come down to the Florida vote
| > to decide it.
|
| It is interesting to see that the best that "Sorcerer"
| can respond to my positions
| (Tubes have plate resistance.

You've never heard of superconductors, Potter?
It's cold on the Moon and I wouldn't a need a glass tube
to paint a picture, either. I can design a TV for a lunar environment
without the tube, and I'm not talking about plasma or LCD display.
The tube fullfills three functions, one is to keep air out and the other
two are to provide a fixed distance between cathode, anode, field and
frame coils.
I can use glass rods for the latter and I don't need to consider the
first. Electrons go right through a vacuum as if it were not there,
which it isn't.

| c is a constant, not a velocity.

c= 0/0, that's not a constant, that's undefined.


| Space has a characteristic impedance.,etc.)
| is:
|
| "I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense."
| "I hereby nominate
| Tom Potter
| as the **Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**"
|
| Great arguments "Sorcerer"!

I know, I thought it would impress you (given the source I took it from).

|
| I'll keep these arguments in mind,
| and I'll use them when I am unable to make my case
| in a rational, logical and intelligent way.

You haven't make your case in a rational, logical and intelligent way,
but I'll gladly give you the opportunity.
Begin by proving c is dependent/independent of the source, we'll
worry about the medium (or lack off) and its properties later, but as I
recall,
MMX showed space didn't have any properties. Mu0 and epsilon0
are properties of aether, Potter, and it doesn't exist.
Androcles.
Back to top
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:08:03 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:

Quote:

"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e78ttj$vct$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
| news:wHMlg.200890$8W1.199056@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
|
| > "Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:e77pk6$31kb$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
|
| > | Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
| > | > It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
| > | > other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.
| > |
| > | "c", the "speed of light constant" is just that, a constant.
| > | It is not a speed.
|
| > I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense
|
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
|
| > I hereby nominate
| > Tom Potter
| > as the
|
| > **Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**
|
| > Any seconds??????????????????????
|
| > It's gonna a close contest, might even come down to the Florida vote
| > to decide it.
|
| It is interesting to see that the best that "Sorcerer"
| can respond to my positions
| (Tubes have plate resistance.

You've never heard of superconductors, Potter?
It's cold on the Moon and I wouldn't a need a glass tube
to paint a picture, either. I can design a TV for a lunar environment
without the tube, and I'm not talking about plasma or LCD display.
The tube fullfills three functions, one is to keep air out and the other
two are to provide a fixed distance between cathode, anode, field and
frame coils.
I can use glass rods for the latter and I don't need to consider the
first. Electrons go right through a vacuum as if it were not there,
which it isn't.

| c is a constant, not a velocity.

c= 0/0, that's not a constant, that's undefined.


| Space has a characteristic impedance.,etc.)
| is:
|
| "I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense."
| "I hereby nominate
| Tom Potter
| as the **Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**"
|
| Great arguments "Sorcerer"!

I know, I thought it would impress you (given the source I took it from).

|
| I'll keep these arguments in mind,
| and I'll use them when I am unable to make my case
| in a rational, logical and intelligent way.

You haven't make your case in a rational, logical and intelligent way,
but I'll gladly give you the opportunity.
Begin by proving c is dependent/independent of the source, we'll
worry about the medium (or lack off) and its properties later, but as I
recall,
MMX showed space didn't have any properties. Mu0 and epsilon0
are properties of aether, Potter, and it doesn't exist.
Androcles.

I havent followed all this but I believe you all started with an

argument about the Z of space.
Z = 377 ohms means in a far field radio signal you can calculate the H
field from the E field by
H = E/Z or volts/meter divided by ohms = amp turns/meter = H
It is a very real parameter and has nothing to do with resistive or
cathode ray ohms!

JP
Back to top
Jan Panteltje
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 295

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:20:25 +0800) it happened "Tom Potter"
<tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in <e7908u$115o$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw>:

Quote:
Thanks to "Jan Panteltje" for supporting my position that:
"The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero."

and that tubes have "plate resistance".
Yep, and i still learned about triodes with low Ri and penthodes

with high Ri (current source) in my school days.


Quote:
But regarding "Jan Panteltje's" comment:
"So it makes no sense / has no practical use to speak of an impedance.
[The] Electronics is only concerned with keeping the high voltage stable
as the laod varies."

If the load varies, and the voltage stays constant,
the impedance varies.

impedance = voltage / current

Yes you are right, but the man was relating to CRTs, and CRTs is what
I played a lot with, designed my first TV in 1968.
I have would those deflection coils, and transformers, all good old times,
people should know about electrostatic and magnetic deflection [of electron
beams = charged particles] hands on makes all the difference.
Design issues are quite tight for a TV CRT actually, you are limited by
what the HV rectifier / multiplier can do as current, the CRT characteristics,
and those are pretty much a known.. so that leaves only to be able to
create the 25kV and supply the current, and make that 25kV stable (and
filtering).
You have E background, so do I, many here do not and just RelaTitvit along...
Wink
E designers almost never enter stupid fights like we see here, learn
from the others designs, make things that ***have to**** work.

Nobody buys a TV that only shows 2 light dots, but look how they are selling
strings, LIGO, ITER, and all those other things you mentioned.

Regards
Jan
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum Reply with quote

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gseg92h01i1qg7v12j39d3nfvrffq45c2h@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:08:03 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >news:e78ttj$vct$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
| >|
| >| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
| >| news:wHMlg.200890$8W1.199056@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >| >
| >| > "Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >| > news:e77pk6$31kb$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
| >| >
| >| > | Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
| >| > | > It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
| >| > | > other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.
| >| > |
| >| > | "c", the "speed of light constant" is just that, a constant.
| >| > | It is not a speed.
| >| >
| >| > I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense
| >| >
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
| >| >
| >| > I hereby nominate
| >| > Tom Potter
| >| > as the
| >| >
| >| > **Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**
| >| >
| >| > Any seconds??????????????????????
| >| >
| >| > It's gonna a close contest, might even come down to the Florida vote
| >| > to decide it.
| >|
| >| It is interesting to see that the best that "Sorcerer"
| >| can respond to my positions
| >| (Tubes have plate resistance.
| >
| >You've never heard of superconductors, Potter?
| >It's cold on the Moon and I wouldn't a need a glass tube
| >to paint a picture, either. I can design a TV for a lunar environment
| >without the tube, and I'm not talking about plasma or LCD display.
| >The tube fullfills three functions, one is to keep air out and the other
| >two are to provide a fixed distance between cathode, anode, field and
| >frame coils.
| >I can use glass rods for the latter and I don't need to consider the
| >first. Electrons go right through a vacuum as if it were not there,
| >which it isn't.
| >
| >| c is a constant, not a velocity.
| >
| >c= 0/0, that's not a constant, that's undefined.
| >
| >
| >| Space has a characteristic impedance.,etc.)
| >| is:
| >|
| >| "I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense."
| >| "I hereby nominate
| >| Tom Potter
| >| as the **Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**"
| >|
| >| Great arguments "Sorcerer"!
| >
| >I know, I thought it would impress you (given the source I took it from).
| >
| >|
| >| I'll keep these arguments in mind,
| >| and I'll use them when I am unable to make my case
| >| in a rational, logical and intelligent way.
| >
| >You haven't make your case in a rational, logical and intelligent way,
| >but I'll gladly give you the opportunity.
| >Begin by proving c is dependent/independent of the source, we'll
| >worry about the medium (or lack off) and its properties later, but as I
| >recall,
| >MMX showed space didn't have any properties. Mu0 and epsilon0
| >are properties of aether, Potter, and it doesn't exist.
| >Androcles.
| >
| I havent followed all this but I believe you all started with an
| argument about the Z of space.
| Z = 377 ohms means in a far field radio signal you can calculate the H
| field from the E field by
| H = E/Z or volts/meter divided by ohms = amp turns/meter = H
| It is a very real parameter and has nothing to do with resistive or
| cathode ray ohms!
|
| JP

It is news to me that there were any ampere turns in space to be counted,
my antenna doesn't have any turns and neither do my eyeballs.
Androcles
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5 [65 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:12 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts troubles in determination of specific surface area(air pe... eos Chem 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:05 am
No new posts troubles in determination of specific surface area(air pe... eos Chem 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:02 am
No new posts Point Defects in Emergent Vacuum ODLRO Geometrodynamics Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:52 pm
No new posts Easy Vacuum question inkexit@yahoo.com Physics 2 Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:07 pm
No new posts Theoretical Estimation of Chemical Reaction Rate Constants Squark Research 12 Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:57 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1758s ][ Queries: 16 (0.1289s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]