1. Hiya! Um in my chem class we're going over light waves and other such things (Hz, N, /\) But my teacher isn't in school and Im learning from a book (not a very clear one ). Anyway, can someone explain it to me in a simple matter? Just the gonig from waves to joules of energy, the other parts I get.

Thanks,
Gracias

2.

3. E is energy of a wave in J
λ is wavelength of the wave in m
f is the frequency (number of wavelengths per second) in Hz
c is the speed of light in m/s
h is plank's constant (6.63x10^-34)

Because EM radiation has a constant speed, it's wavelength depends solely on the frequency -
c= f x λ

The frequency is wavelengths per second. The wavelength is in metres. Therefore c can be expressed as 1/s x m = m/s

hence the frequency and wavelength are directly proportional.

The energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency. This was proved experimentally. However, plotting the results of the experiments on a graph, as y=mx + c, m does not equal one. The gradient of the graph is, in fact, 6.63x10^-34. this means that, if you increase the frequency by 1Hz, the energy increases by 6.63x10^-34J.

Hence:

E= h x f

or

E = (h x c)/ λ

What else is there that you don't quite understand?

4. Huh, thanks, you've just pretty much summed it up for me.

5. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
E is energy of a wave in J
λ is wavelength of the wave in m
f is the frequency (number of wavelengths per second) in Hz
c is the speed of light in m/s
h is plank's constant (6.63x10^-34)

Because EM radiation has a constant speed, it's wavelength depends solely on the frequency -
c= f x λ

The frequency is wavelengths per second. The wavelength is in metres. Therefore c can be expressed as 1/s x m = m/s

hence the frequency and wavelength are directly proportional.

The energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency. This was proved experimentally. However, plotting the results of the experiments on a graph, as y=mx + c, m does not equal one. The gradient of the graph is, in fact, 6.63x10^-34. this means that, if you increase the frequency by 1Hz, the energy increases by 6.63x10^-34J.

Hence:

E= h x f

or

E = (h x c)/ λ

What else is there that you don't quite understand?
If this fellow needs to comply with some current system, I do not want to mess him up. But this is a little bit off, from the historic background of it.

One real thing you can do with electricity, is show that a higher voltage moves more quickly through a conductor then lower voltage. Pretty much voiding the constant speed thing. Which was originally applied to the communications industry over hard wire.

"E" always meant "Electromotive force" in volts, in electricity, and in radio, and communications.

Now if as I say, I can show an actual speed increase of conductance through a conductor with higher voltage, it would mean that high voltage communications could move much more quickly then lower voltage communication systems.

So if you used a cosmic radiation to communicate with you might find it gets there more quickly.

I do not aim to be different or cause problems all the time. I in fact dislike being strangely different. However I dislike letting things that are not totally accurate keep slipping past me, even more. That is why I bring them up.

This is from the employee training Manuel of the long lines department of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, published October 1928.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

6. no, E can be used for energy too. If it is a specific type of energy then the letter for that type will follow e.g Ep is potential energy.
Other letters have been used multiple times in science e.g S for speed, displacment distance and entropy. Q for charge and enthalpy change.

7. In this case, both me and WM are right.

E is electromotive force. But for a photon, which is exclusively made of electromagnetic forces, it is also the energy.

Energy is just easier to type, and understand.

8. Originally Posted by Nevyn
no, E can be used for energy too. If it is a specific type of energy then the letter for that type will follow e.g Ep is potential energy.
Other letters have been used multiple times in science e.g S for speed, displacment distance and entropy. Q for charge and enthalpy change.
I grew up in a place where we did not accept neutrons until it was Federally mandated to do so. And we still should not have gone along with it, because we knew better. We had the superior technology. We were even told to just go along with it, rather then to make waves. By the newly appointed scientists in charge of science and education decisions. They basically said we would be punished if we did not go along with it.

They even acknowledged to top Universal Scientists that they were aware, that the neutron had not passed the Scientific method standards. But that it would be admitted to the journals of science as a real particle. The new scientists said maybe it will stir up some new technology.

All the really amazing stuff they are still having a lot of trouble with duplicating today, was built without photons, neutron particles, or any subatomic particle other then the electron.

So I do have some problem with all these labels, that hide what was used with total success for many years.

Energy in radio and communications would be given in watts. As any old radio man knows. Watts of output at the antenna.

Watts at the transmitting antenna, may be far less watts, then can be collected by other receiving antennas.

Another thing about frequency that is not totally understood is that, it does not necessarily increase the power output at the output source. It actually takes less power to create the same voltage signal at higher hertz, then lower hertz.

It requires the materials that will be hit with the signal to either make good or poor use of the wave at the given hertz. So much of our stuff is so standardized that we never learn about what makes it work or tick.

On a very moist, hot day, air can disintegrate around a transmitter outputting at high frequency and high voltage. Same power output as on a dry day. But a slightly different substance to conduct through. Moist air turns green when it disintegrates from high frequency and high voltage. Almost like a green neon sign.

I am just explaining why I am not as mainstream as I would like to be.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

9. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by Nevyn
no, E can be used for energy too. If it is a specific type of energy then the letter for that type will follow e.g Ep is potential energy.
Other letters have been used multiple times in science e.g S for speed, displacment distance and entropy. Q for charge and enthalpy change.
I grew up in a place where we did not accept neutrons until it was Federally mandated to do so. And we still should not have gone along with it, because we knew better. We had the superior technology. We were even told to just go along with it, rather then to make waves. By the newly appointed scientists in charge of science and education decisions. They basically said we would be punished if we did not go along with it.

They even acknowledged to top Universal Scientists that they were aware, that the neutron had not passed the Scientific method standards. But that it would be admitted to the journals of science as a real particle. The new scientists said maybe it will stir up some new technology.

All the really amazing stuff they are still having a lot of trouble with duplicating today, was built without photons, neutron particles, or any subatomic particle other then the electron.

So I do have some problem with all these labels, that hide what was used with total success for many years.

Energy in radio and communications would be given in watts. As any old radio man knows. Watts of output at the antenna.

Watts at the transmitting antenna, may be far less watts, then can be collected by other receiving antennas.

Another thing about frequency that is not totally understood is that, it does not necessarily increase the power output at the output source. It actually takes less power to create the same voltage signal at higher hertz, then lower hertz.

It requires the materials that will be hit with the signal to either make good or poor use of the wave at the given hertz. So much of our stuff is so standardized that we never learn about what makes it work or tick.

On a very moist, hot day, air can disintegrate around a transmitter outputting at high frequency and high voltage. Same power output as on a dry day. But a slightly different substance to conduct through. Moist air turns green when it disintegrates from high frequency and high voltage. Almost like a green neon sign.

I am just explaining why I am not as mainstream as I would like to be.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
How old are you? The neutron was discovered in 1932....

Secondly, and more importantly:

Watts are a measure of power, which means it is energy per second. Energy has an accumulative effect, so for radio waves this would mean the total energy in joules would increase exponentially.

I believe watts are used for radio so it can be related to the voltage and current in an electrical circuit more easily.

10. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by Nevyn
no, E can be used for energy too. If it is a specific type of energy then the letter for that type will follow e.g Ep is potential energy.
Other letters have been used multiple times in science e.g S for speed, displacment distance and entropy. Q for charge and enthalpy change.
I grew up in a place where we did not accept neutrons until it was Federally mandated to do so. And we still should not have gone along with it, because we knew better. We had the superior technology. We were even told to just go along with it, rather then to make waves. By the newly appointed scientists in charge of science and education decisions. They basically said we would be punished if we did not go along with it.

They even acknowledged to top Universal Scientists that they were aware, that the neutron had not passed the Scientific method standards. But that it would be admitted to the journals of science as a real particle. The new scientists said maybe it will stir up some new technology.

All the really amazing stuff they are still having a lot of trouble with duplicating today, was built without photons, neutron particles, or any subatomic particle other then the electron.

So I do have some problem with all these labels, that hide what was used with total success for many years.

Energy in radio and communications would be given in watts. As any old radio man knows. Watts of output at the antenna.

Watts at the transmitting antenna, may be far less watts, then can be collected by other receiving antennas.

Another thing about frequency that is not totally understood is that, it does not necessarily increase the power output at the output source. It actually takes less power to create the same voltage signal at higher hertz, then lower hertz.

It requires the materials that will be hit with the signal to either make good or poor use of the wave at the given hertz. So much of our stuff is so standardized that we never learn about what makes it work or tick.

On a very moist, hot day, air can disintegrate around a transmitter outputting at high frequency and high voltage. Same power output as on a dry day. But a slightly different substance to conduct through. Moist air turns green when it disintegrates from high frequency and high voltage. Almost like a green neon sign.

I am just explaining why I am not as mainstream as I would like to be.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
How old are you? The neutron was discovered in 1932....

Secondly, and more importantly:

Watts are a measure of power, which means it is energy per second. Energy has an accumulative effect, so for radio waves this would mean the total energy in joules would increase exponentially.

I believe watts are used for radio so it can be related to the voltage and current in an electrical circuit more easily.
I was born in 1962 but we had the things that they claimed the neutron might bring about, already. So we kind of thought that combined with the fact that, they thought they could see subatomic particles. In a perfect vacuum, we kind of wrote them off and kept upon our course.

A Watt and Joule are the same thing without a time value. You have to apply a time value or it is just a measure of what you record at any given moment, of some devices consumption, a sources output or some other events concurrent flow.

Some people get really crazy or anal about, power/energy.

To be honest scientifically you should include a clear understandable, unit of energy/power, and if you are giving a cumulative total output, of the energy or power. You should include the time period, this amount of flow is being stated in. Otherwise it should be correctly presumed to be just a measure of flow at some given point in time.

You should not give a known flow of energy/power, a time value, unless you, mean to claim it is a total summation of some time period and the cumulative amount of power or energy used, taken or consumed during that time period.

Here is some stuff that shows that the Joule and the Watt are the same thing. The first one tells the history and the origin of the Watts and what it was designed for.

The horse power like the Joule is fine. But you need to be able to have a tool that can be both, power and energy. Part of the reason is they are the same thing just one is over time and one is the measured flow or measured energy at a given instant. The Watt did the work of both of them. Baring perpetual motion which wold make all of them irrelevant. Based upon their definitions.

If you have ever tried to think in terms of horse power seconds or minutes. I think you can get the idea. It is much better to have the term related to electricity. And nothing can do it better then the Watt.

Although the Joule was the same exact thing. But without a time value. It was never accepted as the Watt was. As a measure of power or energy. Watts should either be assumed correctly to show just the concurrent power, or with a time value to show a total consumption, or supply.

Part of the problem with the Joule was that it was a scientific term. And that means that anal scientists probably did not want anyone to touch, understand or have their joules. I think that is a pun.

Here it is from another time and place.

http://www.Rockwelder.com/Electricity/Units/Units.pdf

And finally a more modern look at it.

If you look at horse power today, we say the motor puts out one horse power. We do not think about how much weight it will lift in one hour. We think about how hard you can push something up against the buffing wheel we are powering, with the motor. Or how fast the motor will make our mini bike go. Or how strong it will make our table saw.

So you can see what happens with these terms. That is why the Watt was created. It makes sense it is the right choice.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

11. I fail to see what point you were making with your last post, but Ok.

12. Hey William and Drowsy thanks, but I have one question for you William, where do you get all these sheets of information? Are they online or do you scan them from books and newspapers you have at your home? Im kinda really curious.

I understand the joules and wave business now though...

13. LOL, I belive they are on a roll next to a porcelain water contianer.

14. Originally Posted by okkaoboy
Hey William and Drowsy thanks, but I have one question for you William, where do you get all these sheets of information? Are they online or do you scan them from books and newspapers you have at your home? Im kinda really curious.

I understand the joules and wave business now though...
I have a plethora of old information here. One match and the combined knowledge of the universe is destroyed for ever. Ha-ha-ha.

Actually and seriously, I scan it in from books that I have access to. Where ever I go, I find books. Sometimes they are sitting on a curb abandoned. I find some on E-bay.
I find and purchase stuff from Museums, for other people. And make copies or scans.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

15. Huh, thats actually pretty cool lol. And you know where all the inforamtion is, which is more impressive. You are something else (good thing)

16. The snag with Williams roll of info and porcelain container is that he has the essential ingredients of a Van Der Graf generator, just don't comb your hair Billy-Boy or you could generate a Teslian deathray........

17. Another good'en!

18. Originally Posted by Megabrain
The snag with Williams roll of info and porcelain container is that he has the essential ingredients of a Van Der Graf generator, just don't comb your hair Billy-Boy or you could generate a Teslian deathray........

In all actuality that is not totally out of the question, scientifically speaking. The voltages that can be generated by combing your hair, are actually rather high. The energy can be stored in air capacitors. In theory a death ray would be possible.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

19. The voltage is high; the current is minimal.

Therefore, the power is very small still.

20. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
The voltage is high; the current is minimal.

Therefore, the power is very small still.
Not really. A large air capacitor can fill quickly. And send you a mighty wallop.

We were discussing the fact that an 18 gauge wire could be used in place of some high tension wires in some systems. In actual delivery of power. The reason they use such large wire is because of practicality, safety and workability.

However there is almost no amperage in the high tension wires. Just a lot of voltage. Voltage that we can easily duplicate with static electricity. Benjamin Franklin declared we had unlimited energy, a long time ago. He was not a liar.

Some of those giant wires carry less then ten amps. Some of them carry from 70,000 to 140,000 volts. The wattage varies. Anything from a million to a couple million watts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

21. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
The voltage is high; the current is minimal.

Therefore, the power is very small still.
Not really. A large air capacitor can fill quickly. And send you a mighty wallop.

We were discussing the fact that an 18 gauge wire could be used in place of some high tension wires in some systems. In actual delivery of power. The reason they use such large wire is because of practicality, safety and workability.

However there is almost no amperage in the high tension wires. Just a lot of voltage. Voltage that we can easily duplicate with static electricity. Benjamin Franklin declared we had unlimited energy, a long time ago. He was not a liar.

Some of those giant wires carry less then ten amps. Some of them carry from 70,000 to 140,000 volts. The wattage varies. Anything from a million to a couple million watts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
The formula for the power of an electric circuit is

P=VI

P is power in W, V is potential difference in V, I is current in A.

Low current means low power.

Also, low current compared to high voltage means high resistance, as R=V/I

So there is very little power, whilst much of what there is will be lost due to the resistance.

22. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
The voltage is high; the current is minimal.

Therefore, the power is very small still.
Not really. A large air capacitor can fill quickly. And send you a mighty wallop.

We were discussing the fact that an 18 gauge wire could be used in place of some high tension wires in some systems. In actual delivery of power. The reason they use such large wire is because of practicality, safety and workability.

However there is almost no amperage in the high tension wires. Just a lot of voltage. Voltage that we can easily duplicate with static electricity. Benjamin Franklin declared we had unlimited energy, a long time ago. He was not a liar.

Some of those giant wires carry less then ten amps. Some of them carry from 70,000 to 140,000 volts. The wattage varies. Anything from a million to a couple million watts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
The formula for the power of an electric circuit is

P=VI

P is power in W, V is potential difference in V, I is current in A.

Low current means low power.

Also, low current compared to high voltage means high resistance, as R=V/I

So there is very little power, whilst much of what there is will be lost due to the resistance.
At 110,000 volts you can deliver 500,000 watts with only 4.545 amps. That means that you can use telephone wire to carry that wattage. And telephone wire will carry that a pretty fair distance.

The load has an ohm value of 24,000 ohms.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

23. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
The voltage is high; the current is minimal.

Therefore, the power is very small still.
Not really. A large air capacitor can fill quickly. And send you a mighty wallop.

We were discussing the fact that an 18 gauge wire could be used in place of some high tension wires in some systems. In actual delivery of power. The reason they use such large wire is because of practicality, safety and workability.

However there is almost no amperage in the high tension wires. Just a lot of voltage. Voltage that we can easily duplicate with static electricity. Benjamin Franklin declared we had unlimited energy, a long time ago. He was not a liar.

Some of those giant wires carry less then ten amps. Some of them carry from 70,000 to 140,000 volts. The wattage varies. Anything from a million to a couple million watts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
The formula for the power of an electric circuit is

P=VI

P is power in W, V is potential difference in V, I is current in A.

Low current means low power.

Also, low current compared to high voltage means high resistance, as R=V/I

So there is very little power, whilst much of what there is will be lost due to the resistance.
At 110,000 volts you can deliver 500,000 watts with only 4.545 amps. That means that you can use telephone wire to carry that wattage. And telephone wire will carry that a pretty fair distance.

The load has an ohm value of 24,000 ohms.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Considering the that resisitity of hair (the original example was combing your hair) is likely to be many millions of ohms, the current will actually be tiny, and so will the power. That is why static shock is felt as a short burst of shock, not a constant current.

24. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
The voltage is high; the current is minimal.

Therefore, the power is very small still.
Not really. A large air capacitor can fill quickly. And send you a mighty wallop.

We were discussing the fact that an 18 gauge wire could be used in place of some high tension wires in some systems. In actual delivery of power. The reason they use such large wire is because of practicality, safety and workability.

However there is almost no amperage in the high tension wires. Just a lot of voltage. Voltage that we can easily duplicate with static electricity. Benjamin Franklin declared we had unlimited energy, a long time ago. He was not a liar.

Some of those giant wires carry less then ten amps. Some of them carry from 70,000 to 140,000 volts. The wattage varies. Anything from a million to a couple million watts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
The formula for the power of an electric circuit is

P=VI

P is power in W, V is potential difference in V, I is current in A.

Low current means low power.

Also, low current compared to high voltage means high resistance, as R=V/I

So there is very little power, whilst much of what there is will be lost due to the resistance.
At 110,000 volts you can deliver 500,000 watts with only 4.545 amps. That means that you can use telephone wire to carry that wattage. And telephone wire will carry that a pretty fair distance.

The load has an ohm value of 24,000 ohms.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Considering the that resisitity of hair (the original example was combing your hair) is likely to be many millions of ohms, the current will actually be tiny, and so will the power. That is why static shock is felt as a short burst of shock, not a constant current.
Have you ever seen some of the static generators. They are made mostly of high ohm substances. It is the insulating materials that generate the power.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

25. P=IV does not necessarily apply for static electricity.

26. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
P=IV does not necessarily apply for static electricity.

Ha-ha. You are joking right?

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement