--- John Winterflood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > R Stiffler wrote: > > I guess his mail is getting messed up, the > comments you > > make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not > myself. > > My mistake - sorry about that. Your formatting > (without > caretted indenting) together with my sloppy editing > caused > that. > > Paul wrote: > > ... Radiation resistance > > generates no thermal noise. > > That may be true but the argument would be entirely > semantic. > The exact same process of "fluctuation-dissipation" > occurs > and once some thermal power has been dissipated by > an > antenna, then noise with thermal characteristics > comes back > in via your antenna and looks identical to a warm > resistor > generating Johnson noise.
It sounds like you are saying the antenna receives the same amount of radiation as it radiates. That is not true. I provided two examples. One with carbon resistor and another with metal film resistor. The antenna will receive the same amount of radiation in both experiments, but the antenna with carbon resistor will radiate more energy than the metal film resistor at room temperature. In a nutshell, we have to antennas at room temperature, both receive the same amount of radiation energy, but the antenna connected to carbon resistor radiates more energy. The experiment with carbon resistor will get colder than the experiment with metal film resistor. > One might likewise argue that a resistor itself > generates no > thermal noise (since in a zero degree K thermal bath > it > certainly doesn't) and blame the effect on something > going > on in the resistor with another name - eg brownian > motion of > the electrons or something, but again that would > just be > semantics. I really don't see it that way. The carbon resistor is made of atoms containing charged particles. The noise is relative to the temperature of the charged particles. > The fact remains that whatever mechanism is > available to > _dissipate_ electrical power into the radiation > resistance > of the aether, must also act in reverse to produce > electrical > _fluctuations_ from the energy previously or > similarly > dissipated (hence the "dissipation-fluctuation > theorem"). That's possible, but if Aether generates noise given the frequency range as compared to carbon resistors then it is so infinitesimal that no scientist has measured such noise, that I am aware of. > Once equilibrium with the surroundings is reached, > the power > flowing from a warm resistor to a warm environment > via an > antenna will be exactly equal to the power flowing > back from > the warm environment to the warm resistor. That's true; i.e., the carbon resistor will reach equilibrium at a colder temperature. Regardless, that is a source of energy. [snip] > > ... the antenna connected to a carbon > > resistor does indeed radiate more power than an > > antenna connected to a metal film resistor. > > Only if you provide power in the form of a current > through > the carbon resistor to get the flicker mechanism > oscillating > (see the wikipedia flicker noise reference I offered > previously). Why are you interject flicker noise with this example? It's thermal noise. > But then a powered integrated RF > oscillator > connected to an antenna will radiate even more power > than > a powered carbon resistor! I'm uncertain why, but it seems you are interjecting irrelevant information, which merely draws attention away from the fact that --> A carbon resistor at room temperature connected to an antenna will radiate more energy than a similar setup using metal film resistor. Regards, Paul Lowrance ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Get a free Motorola Razr! Today Only! Choose Cingular, Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, or T-Mobile. http://www.letstalk.com/inlink.htm?to=592913
