Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Do accelerated electrons emit radiations???

  1. #1 Do accelerated electrons emit radiations??? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5
    It is known by Maxwell's electromagnetic law that charged particles when accelerated emits energy in the form of radiations. In that case do accelerated electrons in a.c. current emit such radiations?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Do accelerated electrons emit radiations??? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by impakshi
    It is known by Maxwell's electromagnetic law that charged particles when accelerated emits energy in the form of radiations. In that case do accelerated electrons in a.c. current emit such radiations?

    Maxwell, if that is what he thought, was not correct, in my opinion.

    Electrons when slowed down from natural dark space speed radiation. Start to emit various radiations. Gravity, X-rays, ultraviolet, light, heat.

    Look at a Cathode ray tube. This link below contains some interesting stuff from a certain time period. It shows how science progressed in most cases. Science progresses through the communication system. No matter the level of understanding of the writer. That was the problem with science in America.

    The writers were often aware of certain taboo subjects, and would put a happy spin on them. Other times they just did not have any conception of what took place. Because they did not do the experiments themselves.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Electricit...Cathoderay.PDF

    You can see in this article that the writer is reverting back to the time of Newton, and Newtons theory of light traveling at 186,000 miles a second. Even though it had been proven at that time, that the communication of light is almost instantaneous. Even if it takes time to excite a path to the target. Once created the communication was instantaneous.

    They are also dumbfounded how the electrons were coming from the Cathode that was charged with a shortage of electrons. At that terminal at that time, the cathode was short of electrons, from the power supply, and correctly marked (-). Today that same symbol means and represents an abundance of electrons and is marked (+) incorrectly. They did not understand ARC at this time. Or at least this writer did not.

    Read that very well, it is a very interesting article.

    This tube and poor writers lead to the changing of battery symbols. Because even laymen at the time only had ARC welders, that used the same principle as the Cathode ray tube. They also thought that electrons flowed from the symbol at the time marked (-) to the symbol marked (+), and it did. But only during ARC (Anode Rectified Cathode).

    Some older high tech marines were taught and used this ARC (Anode Rectified Cathode) understanding. Everything quickly loses its mystery with this understanding.

    Today with noble gas we can demonstrate the flow of electricity, rather easily. Common welding systems can use either flow of electricity, either straight polarity or reverse polarity, to create a beam in the same direction. Showing how the total collapse of science occurred.

    It becomes obvious which way the electricity is flowing. Using this equipment. One method requires no ARC to continue flowing through the noble gas that does not disintegrate and repel the flow of electrons.

    Straight polarity DC beam welding is done with no ARC. Just a silent beam of electrons.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Do accelerated electrons emit radiations??? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by impakshi
    It is known by Maxwell's electromagnetic law that charged particles when accelerated emits energy in the form of radiations. In that case do accelerated electrons in a.c. current emit such radiations?
    When a charge is accelerated, it produces crossed electric and magnetic fields, which is , in fact, EM radiation.

    I'm not too clear about it myself, but, as far as my understanding goes, the electron must radiate when accelerated.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Do accelerated electrons emit radiations??? 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,232
    Quote Originally Posted by impakshi
    In that case do accelerated electrons in a.c. current emit such radiations?
    Yes, in the form of 60 hz (in the US) radio waves.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    60 Hz is the AC frequency. Current and voltage produced in the confines of conductors are not termed as radiations.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Yes, whenever electric charges change their velocity they emit radiation. For a simple forward motion, the difference of kinetic energy is transformed into radiative energy. This is not only true for a translatory acceleration/breaking, but also for a curved path, because here the direction of the velocity (the vector) is constantly changing. This is by the way, what brought quantum physics into life, because if electrons orbit nuclei of atoms they should radiate all the time. This would lead to a reduction of their and finally a crash into the atomic nucleus. Since this apparently does not happen, it was postulated and then later confirmed that radiation can only be emitted in certain amounts keeping the elctrons on stable orbits.

    Every particle accelerator and collider suffers from the radiation of charged particles. During such an experiment, it would often be fatal for scientists to be close to them.

    This process is also responsible e.g. for the generation X rays. A highly accelerated electron beam hits a cathode. When penetrating the metal, the electrons loose a lot of their speed. This is transformed into EM radiation energies equivalent to very small wavelengths.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,232
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    60 Hz is the AC frequency. Current and voltage produced in the confines of conductors are not termed as radiations.
    No one said that the current and voltage were termed as radiation. But the electrons in AC current do generate radiation in the form of electromagnetic waves at the frequency of the AC current.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Every particle accelerator and collider suffers from the radiation of charged particles. During such an experiment, it would often be fatal for scientists to be close to them.
    Perhaps they have built their own lethal chamber?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Yes, whenever electric charges change their velocity they emit radiation. For a simple forward motion, the difference of kinetic energy is transformed into radiative energy. This is not only true for a translatory acceleration/breaking, but also for a curved path, because here the direction of the velocity (the vector) is constantly changing. This is by the way, what brought quantum physics into life, because if electrons orbit nuclei of atoms they should radiate all the time. This would lead to a reduction of their and finally a crash into the atomic nucleus. Since this apparently does not happen, it was postulated and then later confirmed that radiation can only be emitted in certain amounts keeping the elctrons on stable orbits.
    If you took a second to examine, my form of science, where ambient radiation is slowed to produce radiation. Could it be that when a conductor, becomes abundant with electrons, that ambient radiation turns away from the abundance, and steers towards the shortage?

    And if it does, would not these large angular deflections mimic natural radiation, coming from material with large atoms that steer ambient radiation at strange angles, and density, similar to a porcupines spikes?
    Creating areas of more and less abundance of electrons? That a Geiger counter is tuned to pick up, at those distances from each other.

    Much like an antenna is created to pick up certain frequency?

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Could it be that when a conductor, becomes abundant with electrons, that ambient radiation turns away from the abundance, and steers towards the shortage?
    A conductor is always abundant with electrons. This is why it is a conductor. You need electrons to produce a electric current.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And if it does, would not these large angular deflections mimic natural radiation, coming from material with large atoms that steer ambient radiation at strange angles, and density, similar to a porcupines spikes?
    Creating areas of more and less abundance of electrons? That a Geiger counter is tuned to pick up, at those distances from each other.
    I cannot comment your strange ideas, because they lack logic. But how do you explain the characteristic spectrum of X radiation? You have a continuum with a minimum wavelength corresponding to the kinetic energy of the electrons penetrating the cathode. This is produced by the few electrons that lose their energy all at once. But others only loose smaller fractions at a time leading to the continuum of emitted radiation. On top of that, you have a characteristic spectrum of the cathode material, because the external electrons excite and ionise the atoms of the cathode. De-excitation and recombination produces photons of a single wavelength.

    Here is an example:

    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Could it be that when a conductor, becomes abundant with electrons, that ambient radiation turns away from the abundance, and steers towards the shortage?
    A conductor is always abundant with electrons. This is why it is a conductor. You need electrons to produce a electric current.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And if it does, would not these large angular deflections mimic natural radiation, coming from material with large atoms that steer ambient radiation at strange angles, and density, similar to a porcupines spikes?
    Creating areas of more and less abundance of electrons? That a Geiger counter is tuned to pick up, at those distances from each other.
    I cannot comment your strange ideas, because they lack logic. But how do you explain the characteristic spectrum of X radiation? You have a continuum with a minimum wavelength corresponding to the kinetic energy of the electrons penetrating the cathode. This is produced by the few electrons that lose their energy all at once. But others only loose smaller fractions at a time leading to the continuum of emitted radiation. On top of that, you have a characteristic spectrum of the cathode material, because the external electrons excite and ionise the atoms of the cathode. De-excitation and recombination produces photons of a single wavelength.

    Here is an example:


    I know you like all the mystery of a bunch of different particles, with all kinds of special, special rules, breaking all the other rules.

    However, the Cathode ray tube is really no more complex then, spraying a very fine mesh, with a garden hose. At first the garden hose, passes through the mesh. If you increase the pressure, you are standing there soaking wet covered in an overload of the mesh.

    The anode is abundant with electrons, caused by the power supply sending electrons to the anode. These electrons cross the tube, getting to the Cathode, that is short of electrons. The power supply is calling for an abundance of electrons by and holding a shortage of electrons at the cathode supply terminal.

    The abundance of electrons in the anode, causes ambient radiation to be slowed as it leaves the anode. Towards the Cathode. By the very light gases, abundant with electrons, around the anode, in the "Cathode Ray Tube"

    The problem is that at the surface of the Cathode, in the vacuum especially, is a super bottle neck of electrons, created at the surface of the cathode. This creates a high voltage, a super abundance of electrons, in the light gases at the surface. A much higher voltage then the anode. You can easily demonstrate this. We can change the power level and let either side show its stuff.

    Then ambient radiation that carries everything everywhere is slowed, as it leaves the Cathode. Cathode rays are just ambient radiation leaving the cathode and passing through the super abundant with electron surface of the cathode.

    The principle was called ARC (Anode Rectified Cathode). It is precise and leaves no mystery. Unfortunately now we have an entire generation brought up, misunderstanding electricities most basic principles, and function.

    It is very hard for me to keep it all in order, because I have to convert symbols to use it correctly.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    The principle was called ARC (Anode Rectified Cathode). It is precise and leaves no mystery. Unfortunately now we have an entire generation brought up, misunderstanding electricities most basic principles, and function.
    Yet, strangely enough, accurate functioning electronic devices the world over work so well, they are able to deliver your drivel everywhere, almost instantaneously.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    The principle was called ARC (Anode Rectified Cathode). It is precise and leaves no mystery. Unfortunately now we have an entire generation brought up, misunderstanding electricities most basic principles, and function.
    Yet, strangely enough, accurate functioning electronic devices the world over work so well, they are able to deliver your drivel everywhere, almost instantaneously.
    We could do that years ago. Just as well. You are actually bolstering and admiring the giant ant hill, rather then the basic principle of grains of sand stacked on one another. You don't think much of the grain of sand stacked on the next. But take credit for the ant hill.

    This is not a new battle. There are poor scientists who want and need praise, for what is not even theirs. They give it fancy names and advertise basic things that have been around for longer then most believe.

    We know that all you will have when you get done is an ant hill, because we understand the grains of sand being placed on top of one another.

    Modern radio at the frequency and power levels that it was planed to be used at. First met with some hesitation. Because of some weird need to get it in place. At all costs. Even though there were other plans and much better systems possible.

    But it had to be done that second. Look at Sprint years ago, they swore and bet everything on the fact that optics would be able to deliver voice over the United States. Grumman called the delay that they would get before it happened. They said no way.

    When they got the delay and the notion of normal light traveling across America was over. Did anyone say hey Grumman guys how did you know that? Heck no.
    Because those on the optic network did not want their jobs to end. Or the project to loose funding.
    Pretty soon all England will need to take over our country are some Eurodollars.

    We have no purpose, no love of science, or anything else for that matter. We ride around, and let our family ride around in gasoline filled automobiles, that were technologically prehistoric, before Ford built his car and motor.

    We already had perpetual motion. That is why professor Joad was making fun of combustion engines.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    We have no purpose, no love of science, or anything else for that matter.
    Probably your most astute refuting argument of self incredulity, Billy.

    Could you please extrapolate? Tell us what you really think?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    We have no purpose, no love of science, or anything else for that matter.
    Probably your most astute refuting argument of self incredulity, Billy.

    Could you please extrapolate? Tell us what you really think?
    Well, for whatever reason God has placed me here with a bunch of poor scientists, that do not understand perpetual motion. I have failed in bringing perpetual motion to light. It used to be the first thing you learned while working with electricity. For safety.

    So I guess my love of science is not great enough, to stop trying to make perpetual motion understood, and just make it understood.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •