|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Radio doesn't, whereas TV waves do
Your definition is weak.
How do you think Nasa communicated with Apollo astronauts? Would you categorize that as "TV"?
As an example although an FM radio transmission tends to bounce on the atmosphere it can escape.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Nope. If that was true, all mass from a supernova would reach us as the same speed.
"mass" is not electromagnetic. A supernova emits all kinds of things that are not electromagnetic.
Second space is not an absolute vacuum. As I said it is not possible, not anywhere, to have a absolute vacuum. Actual outer space is full of all sorts of stuff which impacts anything moving through it.
Given a fixed, contained, uniform medium electromagnetic waves travel through that medium at a speed that reflects the medium. It will be slower than the absolute limit of the speed of light because the medium will have something in it.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: No proton ever pretends to be a wave?
A proton is not "light". A proton is matter. It has mass. It is a particle. A traveling proton (and other particles) can exhibit wave like behavior.
Ocean waves are of course matter but they too exhibit wave like behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Your definition is weak.
You overestimate me; it ain't my idea. We got told that radio is subject to gravity, and TV waves would be different?
jschell wrote: Ocean waves are of course matter but they too exhibit wave like behavior.
Methinks different kind of wave 
Don't get angry over my lack of knowledge.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: it ain't my idea. We got told that radio is subject to gravity, and TV waves would be different?
Gravity does impact them. But the impact of that is trivial in comparison to other things.
TV/Radio get reflected by things like the earths magnetic field, water and other solids in the air, etc. Probably most significant factor is the ionosphere.
You might want to google for the following and briefly read what it says. Briefly because it gets really deep really fast otherwise.
pulsar gravity lensing
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Methinks different kind of wave
Yes and no. Ocean waves exhibit behavior (that very specific word) which has analogs for waves seen elsewhere.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Don't get angry over my lack of knowledge
About the only time I get angry is when I stub my toe on the coffee table.
For social sites any negative emotion is usually boredom or confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: TV/Radio get reflected by things like the earths magnetic field
Radio does not leave earth, TV waves do. Don't take my word for it, it is just something they explained over 30 years ago.
jschell wrote: Yes and no. Ocean waves exhibit behavior (that very specific word) which has analogs for waves seen elsewhere.
While visually, water may have a wave, that is quite different from light.
jschell wrote: About the only time I get angry is when I stub my toe on the coffee table.
Lego's here. Go to the toilet at night, step on it, fall down and curse like a sailor.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Radio does not leave earth
Yes they do. And they knew both that it did and the impacts of atmosphere long before 30 years ago. As I already noted
- They used radio for the Apollo missions. Thus it did leave the atmosphere. Satellites have also directly used it.
- Again read the links from the google that I suggested.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: water may have a wave,
Best I can see you are confusing material with behavior. I can model the behavior of ocean waves on a computer.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Lego's here.
Fortunately I learned about that early on so it only happened to me once. My real wake up call on that was when a friend ended up in the hospital with stiches because he stepped (technically jumped) on to a toy left out.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: - They used radio for the Apollo missions. Thus it did leave the atmosphere
Now, not to pedantic, but they did not. Waves require a medium, there's no radio waves in a vacuum. They need to pinpoint voyager, which gives a hint on the sort of communication. Waves need no pinpointing.
jschell wrote: Best I can see you are confusing material with behavior. I can model the behavior of ocean waves on a computer.
You seem to think that there's something that can carry a wave in a vacuum. No radio signal ever left earth, our first signal into space was television.
jschell wrote: Fortunately I learned about that early on so it only happened to me once. My real wake up call on that was when a friend ended up in the hospital with stiches because he stepped (technically jumped) on to a toy left out.
I've been given a speech about them being 3d puzzles and it is my fault for not turning on the light.
I got scolded for being an idiot 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
That will be why old British wireless sets had the "light programme" on their tuning dials 
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Just one small thing; it uses trillions of nuclear explosions to do so. So yes, if you can generate that amount of heat, you may loose lose a bit due to radiation
The source of the energy is irrelevant. Anything above a temperature of absolute zero (that is everything) will radiate energy and it's "temperature" will drop, ultimately to infinitesimally above absolute zero. It's why the universe is expected to eventually be uniformly cold and dark.
|
|
|
|
|
"Expected", is the correct term. It would mean that there's energy somewhere in a vacuum, innit? Wasn't that how this all started?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like a thin radiator.
My garage is a cold universe in the middle of winter.
Besides "block heaters", we used to have "car heaters" you would bolt under the dash and plug into a spare outlet. Then there were the "frost shields" you stuck on the windows for a hole to look out from. In warmer climates they would ask about your "bullet shielding" on the windows.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, they are claiming that their patented material emits infrared radiation in the 8-13 micrometer range that avoids the heat trapping molecules of the atmosphere. Basically, the night sky looks like a transparent window glass to these specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. The net effect is to cool the emitting material down. During the day, the material needs to reflect at least 94% of all of the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum to keep the material from heating up and disturbing the cooling effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Or you put a mirror over it during the day. Now, please explain how IR interacts with magnetism?
Yes, you could radiate energy away, by creating something that looks like a sun to nocturnal animals that can actually see IR. That implies loosing energy, not creating power.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Now, please explain how IR interacts with magnetism?
The clue's in the name. IR is InfraRed radiation, which means it's ElectroMagnetic radiation with a frequency lower than the color Red.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't IR light, instead of being magnetic?
I need to do some serious reading to catch back up on the topic 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
IR and visible light are both forms of electromagnetic radiation. The only difference between then is that IR has a lower frequency (and longer wavelength).
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Infrared and visible light, plus radio, UV, microwave, x-ray and gamma radiation are all electromagnetic waves at different frequencies. So they are all also photons with different energies.
|
|
|
|
|
That confuses me, as photons have mass. Also, the concept of light being a magnetic wave is new.
Any good tips on reading-material?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you; added both to list, bought one. 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Photons don't have mass. If they did, they couldn't travel at the speed of light.
|
|
|
|
|
StarNamer@work wrote: Photons don't have mass. If they did, they couldn't travel at the speed of light.
Well, particles have mass. Somewhat more special than neutrinos?
"Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use"
What is the mass of a photon?[^]
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Years ago, I did postgraduate research in Nuclear Physics, hence I use the shorthand most physicists use.
The article you linked puts an upper limit on the rest mass of the photon at 7 x 10^(-17) eV which is about 1.2 x 10^(-49) gm.
Also, I can't recommend any books since this is all just stuff I learned 50 years ago and keep updated by reading the odd article.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, look up thermoelectric. The short explanation is there are certain materials when bonded together have an electrical barrier on the layer between the materials. The hot side is generally where the heat energy causes electrons to break away from atoms of the material and the cold side is where the electrons want to flow to. When the material absorbs enough IR energy the electrons from the hot side have enough energy to cross the barrier and enter the cooler side (they don't have enough energy to cross back over). They gather there and are available to use as an electric current. The Voyager 1 and 2 space craft have been using thermoelectric power for last 45+ years.
I honestly am quite skeptical that there would enough of a difference in the hot and cold side of the system that was represented in the article that showed them using the heat radiated at away to space. It only seemed to be a few degrees C, even given that space is very, very cold. You still need a hot side that supplies enough kinetic energy to rip the electrons from their orbits around the atoms of the material and send them across the barrier to collect on the cold side.
|
|
|
|
|
Converting decaying plutonium?
So, it is using a fuel, not just relying on the cold of space to provide power?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
yes, that is true. However, the cold of space is the other half of the generator. The decaying plutonium provides the heat source and space is the cold side. There is no generation of power from the cold of space. It is the heat sink necessary for the thermoelectric effect. The article title was poorly chosen. The net effect of their patented emitter material was a 5 degree C drop in temperature with the narrow band IR emitter. This is simply not enough of a temperature difference to generate power. It can enhance terrestrial HVac systems though. I believe that is what that Sky... company was using it for.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
