On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:03:29 +0200, "Mathew Orman"
wrote:
What causes a measurable voltage? What moves in an electric
circuit? How does it do work?

- Randy

He
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question501.htm

1. Did you have to quote my entire post in order to make this one-line
response?

2. Did you notice that the URL you provided did not address the
question? Seymour contends that whatever is happening in a photocell
under the action of light to create a measurable voltage, it does not
involve electrons being freed and moving. Your quoted never addresses
the point of what is flowing in an electric circuit.

- Randy

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:33:38 -0500, "Seymour Grass"
wrote:

| Define efficiency of a diode as you are using it
| here.

This will be addressed in context with other points further down.

"No". Noted.

| FROM THE BEGINNING
| It was Planck's constant which proved his case that, generally speaking,
| when a photosensitive element is exposed to light,
|
| Did Planck say something about photosensitive elements?

This is exactly what I don't have time for, willful extrapolations of
meaning that are not intended

I see. I'm supposed to gather your intent, to read what you INTENDED
rather than what you WROTE. Sorry, my telepathy is malfunctioning
today. You wrote that it was Planck's constant which proved his case
about photoelectricity. If "his" isn't Planck in this sentence,
without my telepathic powers I am unable to discern who it is.

--as if you were really so stupid as to think
that's what my words mean.

Oh well, guess I'm just stupid then.

What a fool I should be to waste even one second
trying to untangle the mess the likes of you make of an otherwise clear
meaning.

Really? Otherwise clear? A pronoun appears here. It requires an
antecedent. The only one in sight is "Planck".

| Or
| what the hell is this sentence supposed to be saying?

Work on it.

Interpretation stands.

| an excitation occurs
| which causes an electron in the outer shell of the atom to transmute
from a
| condition of higher energy to a lower.
|
| From lower to higher.

There lies your confusion and that of all current understanding in physics:
you think you can have your Planck's constant cake and eat it too, with your
photon spoon--but you can't. Here's the way Planck's quantum theory is
described in my textbook . . .

Read your own sentence once again. This phrase is preceded by "his
case that..." Therefore you are saying, as I read the English
language, that the excitation from higher to lower is SOMEBODY'S case
(whoever "his" refers to).

The rest frankly ignored. This was only the first of a long chain of
garble. Either we can straighten it out or not.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
om...

| There is nothing physically wiggling from side to side.

Come off it, dude. This kind of literalism in retort to an analogy is
another example of "egregious misstatement", as was your whole thing on the
subject of rays where, meanings are imputed to my words and understandings
which are not there.

|
| Whenever something is being consumed by heat, it draws fuel and oxygen
to
| itself. Any campfire warms the air around the fire-ring not because
some
| storm of heat-rays and waves are coming out of the fire
|
| You don't think there's heat coming from it? No IR radiation?
| What is an IR-sensitive camera picking up then?

Infra-red radiation, which is propagated same as all electro-magnetic force,
just as it's been, from a different perspective, described here.

| , but because the
| thermal vortex is sucking everything around the ring into the fire
|
| "Thermal vortex"?

You are apt to run across a quite few such unheard of usages to describe
these previously unconsidered perspectives.

| Really, really confused on several issues again:
| - there IS a physical motion of the air. It's called convection.

Look: tell me something I don't know, willya? Every discussion of EM
radiation is done in terms of the understanding that the context is *in
vacuo*. You need to stop confusing an illustrative analogy with the reality
under discussion which is always a universal context in what E calls
"Gallileian space". We aren't talking about the motion of the air, but what
would be there in absence of air, or what is there as the cause behind that
air being put in motion in the first place. All your talk about air and
smoke is just that, smoke and hot-air. So we snip down to something more
substantial . . .

| What causes a measurable voltage?

Now, at last you've asked an interesting and salient question, but it's the
same question I had saved up for y'all . . .

As the result of my work with an experimental solar cell today that was
constructed of materials that are all available from your wife or mine, in
their cupboards, plus a couple sheets of glass that you or I might have out
in the storage shed.

I finally arrived upon a combination of materials which resulted in my
getting a reading on a voltmeter. I did not get anything in the way of a DC
current, but AC only. By way of controlling the experiment, I took readings
while the sun was high around noon, and then again, after the sun had set.
The latter readings were *zilch*, nothing.

The experimental design was this: replace the sandwich of an N-type and
P-type semiconductor wafer with a material that is neither the one nor the
other, but made of the same material, namely, in this case *aluminum*.

There is one sheet of aluminum foil scotch-taped to the underside of a pane
of glass. That is then entirely wrapped in a thin polymer film of sandwich
wrap. Over that plate is placed another pane of glass upon the top of which
is taped an "H" of aluminum strips, and that is wrapped in the same type of
polymer jacket. There is no contact between the aluminum elements, there is
contact only between the two thin polymer films. When these are placed
together with the "H" plate on top it is exposed to full sunlight.

The lower layer with the full sheet of aluminum receives light and reflects
it through the polymer film and glass to the "H" collector which is raised
above the lower plate by two thicknesses of window pane, plus the polymer
film. When the probes of the voltmeter are put each in contact, one with
the lower aluminum sheet, and the other with the "H" collector, an initial
AC voltage surge is registered on the scale, going so high at one point to
0.079 AC volts but with a mean reading of around .031.

The aim of this experiment, if it should seem to be successful is to show
that electricity can be generated from the sun with no reliance whatsoever
upon the concepts associated with the design of semiconductor diodes.

Since there was, with the thin polymer film always the possibility of
picking up mechanically generated static electricity merely resident in that
material, I made sure to do a control reading after the sun was down. No
reading was gained after the sun was down.

Even so, it seems rather obvious that because this AC voltage was read on
the meter only as an initial surge, by removing the probe and putting it
back down to get the reading, then what I was getting may well have been
merely some form of static electricity that was not light-generated but
manifest as a function of heat in the polymer molecules, setting them into
increased motion and producing an AC charge -- what do you think?

| What moves in an electric
| circuit? How does it do work?

Yes, that is the question. Suppose we start at the beginning with
electrostatic energy?

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 03:11:00 -0500, "Seymour Grass"
wrote:


"Randy Poe" wrote in message
. com...

| There is nothing physically wiggling from side to side.

Come off it, dude. This kind of literalism in retort to an analogy

An analogy? You talked about how the wiggles are too fine to see, and
about how when looking edge-on the wave appears as a ray. If this was
an "analogy", then what is "too small to see head on" an analogy of?
What are you actually describing? If "looking head on" doesn't mean
"looking" and doesn't mean "head on", what does it mean?


| Whenever something is being consumed by heat, it draws fuel and oxygen
to
| itself. Any campfire warms the air around the fire-ring not because
some
| storm of heat-rays and waves are coming out of the fire
|
| You don't think there's heat coming from it? No IR radiation?
| What is an IR-sensitive camera picking up then?

Infra-red radiation, which is propagated same as all electro-magnetic force,
just as it's been, from a different perspective, described here.

So you agree with me that EM radiation is coming FROM the fire TO the
camera. And also say, from your "different perspective", that no waves
are coming out of the fire. I guess I'm being stupid again, because I
fail to see how you can simultaneously believe that IR waves are
coming out of the fire and that no waves are coming out of the fire.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 03:11:00 -0500, "Seymour Grass"
| wrote:
| An analogy?

An analogy. Moving on . . .

| | You don't think there's heat coming from it? No IR radiation?
| | What is an IR-sensitive camera picking up then?
|
| Infra-red radiation, which is propagated same as all electro-magnetic
force,
| just as it's been, from a different perspective, described here.
|
| So you agree with me that EM radiation is coming FROM the fire TO the
| camera.

The power of your ability to get another guy's meanings going in reverse
motion is almost as remarkable as my wife's Electrolux as the dust
'radiates' from the floor into the machine.

Yes, you sir are the most perfect analogy of *negative propagation*, whether
of ideas or electro-motive force.

Thanks for the analogies.

--
JP

Reinventing the Solar Wheel
--
This is the result of my work with an experimental solar cell constructed of
materials that are all available from your wife or mine, in their cupboards,
plus a couple sheets of glass that you or I might have out in the storage
shed.

I finally arrived upon a combination of materials which produced a reading
on my voltmeter. I did not get anything in the way of a DC current, but AC
only. By way of controlling the experiment, I took readings while the sun
was high around noon, and then again, after the sun had set. The latter
readings were *zilch*, nothing.

The experimental design was this: replace the sandwich of an N-type and
P-type semiconductor wafer with a material that is neither the one nor the
other, but made of the same material, namely, in this case *aluminum*.

There is one sheet of aluminum foil scotch-taped to the underside of a pane
of glass. That is then entirely wrapped in a thin polymer film of sandwich
wrap. Over that plate is placed another pane of glass upon the top of which
is taped an "H" of aluminum strips, and that is wrapped in the same type of
polymer jacket. There is no contact between the aluminum elements, there is
contact only between the two thin polymer films. When these are placed
together with the "H" plate on top it is exposed to full sunlight.

The lower layer with the full sheet of aluminum receives light and reflects
it through the polymer film and glass to the "H" collector which is raised
above the lower plate by two thicknesses of window pane, plus the polymer
film. When the probes of the voltmeter are put each in contact, one with
the lower aluminum sheet, and the other with the "H" collector, an initial
AC voltage surge is registered on the scale, going so high at one point to
0.079 AC volts but with a mean reading of around .031.

The aim of this experiment, if it should seem to be successful is to show
that electricity can be generated from the sun with no reliance whatsoever
upon the concepts associated with the design of semiconductor diodes.

Since there was, with the thin polymer film always the possibility of
picking up mechanically generated static electricity merely resident in that
material, I made sure to do a control reading after the sun was down. No
reading was gained after the sun was down.

Even so, it seems rather obvious that because this AC voltage was read on
the meter only as an initial surge after removing the probe and putting it
back down to get the reading, what I was getting may well have been merely
some form of static electricity that was not light-generated but manifest as
a function of heat in the polymer molecules, setting them into increased
motion and producing a static charge that just happens to register on an AC
voltmeter. Since electrostatic charge is defined as pure voltage in absence
of current that would seem to explain why the DC voltmeter had no reading.
The AC meter's reading was an indication not of charge but of discharge, a
momentary graphic indication of positive charge meeting negative, the
lightning burst of an electro-static voltage. It's easy to see a plain
distinction then between electrostatic, AC and DC voltage. AC and DC
currents are charges conserved in a perpetual state of motion toward
discharge by an electromagnetic field. My "solar cell" is lacking the field
which is present in the standard doped silicon cell.

An interesting discussion of this subject . . .

http://www.amasci.com/elect/elefaq1.html#g1

|--
JP

"Seymour Grass" wrote in message ...
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 03:11:00 -0500, "Seymour Grass"
| wrote:
| An analogy?

An analogy. Moving on . . .

| | You don't think there's heat coming from it? No IR radiation?
| | What is an IR-sensitive camera picking up then?
|
| Infra-red radiation, which is propagated same as all electro-magnetic
force,
| just as it's been, from a different perspective, described here.
|
| So you agree with me that EM radiation is coming FROM the fire TO the
| camera.

The power of your ability to get another guy's meanings going in reverse
motion is almost as remarkable as my wife's Electrolux as the dust
'radiates' from the floor into the machine.

Uh-huh. Or maybe, now I know this is wildly improbable and you
consider it less likely than being hit by a meteorite... maybe
you haven't expressed your ideas clearly.

Consider: Has anybody here "gotten it"?

- Randy

From: "Seymour Grass"
Subject: Quantum Cowpokes
Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 5:57 PM


"Mathew Orman" wrote in message
...
| Ok,
| so in short you are suggesting that electrons have no mass property.
| Well than there is a question of orbiting electrons.
| If no mass than what force field keeps electrons in orbit?

Consider a view of the "electron" as being indistinguishable in form and
function from the orbit or 'shell' it is supposed to inhabit. Okay, so it
is not a particle but a circular field component. If this view may be seen
as accounting for certain paradoxes of Heisenberg's *uncertainty* as to the
whereabouts and/or velocity of that "electron", then it may be thought that
the force which keeps this *negative field element*, the electron shell in
place is self-evident: the proton component keeps it there.

| How would an orbiting electron have kinetic energy if it has no mass
| property?

What if it has two energy states, both potential and kinetic, i.e. so long
as the atom is stable in the molecular mass of some element it's all
potential, but no sooner is the atom irradiated by light than the electronic
potential of that valence shell discharges as a kinetic quantum of
electro-motive force.


| How can magnetic field deflect electrons in CRT.

With an astonishing elegance of precision since what's being deflected is
not, I suggest, an ungainly stream of material projectiles but a finely
tuned beam of field elements--a cathode ray.

| Why do we need such high voltage of 25kV to accelerate electrons in CRT?

Perhaps the issue is more one of focus than of acceleration: here we have a
beam being shot, so we tend to think, from cathode to the anode-charged
screen grid. But now its come time to stop and think of what that means.
The anode is positive, the cathode negative. The definition of the term
*negative* is not 'forward going'. Current that is negative does not exert
its force in a positive, forward-going direction. A negative force would
exert a power of attraction upon the positive or forward-going element.

We have that screen grid being juiced with 25kv of positive forward-going
potential given the presence of a negative going potential as is found in
the cathode gun. While the cathode is often referred to as a "gun" it is of
course not one any man would want to hold in his hand since the bullets are
shooting from the target into the muzzle, right at the "shooter" himself.

All the work of focusing and aligning the light image developed by the
phosphor dots in front of the screen grid is done not there anywhere near
the screen grid, but way back at the place where the bulb of the tube
narrows to the stem.
That's why there must be that 25kv animating the target, to provide
sufficient potential to make of the whole target (the picture-tube screen) a
field that extends toward the negative cathode (in forward going direction)
even so far as to the neck of the tube where that field may there be shaped,
regulated and focused by the electro-magnet of the "yoke".

The cathodes are heated by a tiny AC filament so small it couldn't
illuminate a mouse hole--and yet the impression it presents is that of a
powerful gun shooting electrons from cathode to anode. Not. Rather, the main
thing there in that CRT cathode is the mere necessary negative (B-)
potential to produce in conjunction with the 25kv anode potential, the huge
field which is itself transformed to a picture by the video, the scanning
information given to the coil of the yoke--as to whether the triode of which
that cathode is part receives a portion of that information I just don't
recall--but since nothing moves back there in the gun, the scanning has to
be regulated by the electromagnetic potentials in the yoke coil.

What could be a better illustration of the "negative propagation" of light?
Interesting it is to realize that despite the 25kv of high-voltage generated
in the fly-back transformer, that by itself is not light, it isn't even so
much as infra-red radiation (of light) in the form of heat--and heat, just
heat is of course, invisible light, as any infra-red camera shows.

But if you move the blade of a screw driver anywhere near that fly-back, you
will see a spark verging on the ultra-violet, as you get a shock (if you got
it near that anode port on the CRT) to knock you upside the wall on a jolt
that came to you right through the supposedly insulated handle of your
screwdriver which turned out to be a semi-conductor little did you know--but
it is not *light* until that happens. It is not light on the computer
monitor until a like thing happens which is the carefully engineered
permission for a highly controlled 28" (or better) spark to leap the gap
from anode fed screen grid clear across that glassed in void to the
cathode--and you hear that spark every time you turn on the TV.

How can it be done without a stream of electrons? Well, I suggest it's
quite simply a case of organized diffraction applied by one electromagnetic
field to another, by a field coil to a ray field--and yes, I would suggest
that the ray should be seen as a field, a field that does not depend on any
mass particle to exist.


| If electrons have no mass than they should accelerate instantaneously.

So it might seem, but if it's true that electrons are without mass then
immediately the category of all things that are without mass must come to
mind, and that would appear to be a category of just one--light, alone.
Therefore, if it be blasphemously suggested that electrons are already a
form of light, then that shakes loose a whole avalanche of objections based
on present research being done with particle accelerators, laboratory
observations which purport to clock the speed of electron transits. But is
that really what is being so measured? How can a scientist be certain that
what is detectable on his instruments is truly an electron and not some
flying chunk of a broken molecule or even a single atom thrown out of
balance by a broken molecular bond?

Leaving that aside for the moment . . .


| If electrons have no mass than why does the electron stream cutting gun
| is able to slice trough 15 cm thick steel plate?

Why does mere light in a ruby focused laser accomplish its wonder with no
electrons at all, or why can x-radiation penetrate to the core of my teeth
and bones, or why does my micro-wave cook me up a pretty good hotdog? Why
can I get something so powerful as the Grateful Dead cutting pretty jewels
of musical designs into my happy head over thousands of miles carried not by
"electrons" in the air, but through mere empty space on a wave?

I don't know what they're doing with those accelerators, and I frankly
wonder if what they think they 'know' is really anything at all except
incredibly expensive theoretical guesswork founded on no "evidence" harder
than mere mathematical speculations of probability. But my ignorance as to
that field is equally so immense as my lack of interest in it, so I should
not speak in terms of ignorance about anything, even though such ignorance,
I think, has a foundation in reason: if I can find no use for something,
neither can I find an interest in it and therefore I will know little or
nothing about it. It seems to me that if something should appear to be for
all practical purposes useless and doomed to failure in attempts to
accelerate a lot of merely probable entities that refuse to be accelerated.
So what indeed are we really looking at if only perhaps strong evidence for
the above speculation that these "particles" can't be accelerated because
they are already going at the speed of light, as light itself--they can't be
accelerated not because they are mass, but because they are not mass, not
the finite particles they are desired to be, these quarks and snarks and
quirks and perks that are so good for getting government grants, these
gravitons, muons, peons, cat-up-a-treeons, etc.

I fully realize that I may just be whistling in the dark as to all that and
I'm ready to take my knocks if so. Meanwhile, I've always been fascinated
by the science of physics, and have enjoyed keeping up on what's new in the
progress of discovery, but when particle physics became all the rage, as I
would read the articles coming out on it, you know just picking up a copy of
S.A. at the news-stand, the more I saw of it, the stronger grew my
impression that there was a lot more speculation and willful interpretation
of data going into it than good hard-headed science it seems to me should
require. I mean, as I read about it, I became very quickly bored which is
something I never experienced while going about the project of informing
myself on the discoveries of Galileo, Newton, Farraday, Lorentz, Planck,
Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg. Much of it was over my head of course, when
it went into Newton's geometrical studies, the field equations of Maxwell,
the Gaussian coordinates, but the elegance of it was obvious even to my lack
of comprehension, and boredom it wasn't.