A question to Igor...
Y.Porat
lets take a Led light torch
and light it on a photoelectric Cell
my question is:
case 1
let us lighten it up - on that cell
during 0.4 seconds
case 2
let us lighten up the above Cell
during 0.8 seconds
now my question is:
WHAT WILLBE THE **RATIO**- BETWEEN
THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS
EMITTED (by that Cell ) IN CASE 1 ???---
---AND THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS EMITTED IN CASE 2 ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:788e41ea-5d1e-4f6e...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> Mr Igor
Gees .. not this AGAIN
> lets take a Led light torch
> and light it on a photoelectric Cell
> my question is:
>
> case 1
> let us lighten it up - on that cell
> during 0.4 seconds
>
> case 2
> let us lighten up the above Cell
> during 0.8 seconds
>
> now my question is:
>
> WHAT WILLBE THE **RATIO**- BETWEEN
> THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS
> EMITTED (by that Cell ) IN CASE 1 ???---
>
> ---AND THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS EMITTED IN CASE 2 ??
Twice as many .. because twice as many photons arrive when the stream is on
for twice as long, each with (time independent) energy E = hf.
I'm sure Igor would agree.
Uncle Al
>
> Mr Igor
> lets take a Led light torch
Already bullshit.
> and light it on a photoelectric Cell
> my question is:
>
> case 1
> let us lighten it up - on that cell
> during 0.4 seconds
>
> case 2
> let us lighten up the above Cell
> during 0.8 seconds
>
> now my question is:
>
> WHAT WILLBE THE **RATIO**- BETWEEN
> THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS
> EMITTED (by that Cell ) IN CASE 1 ???---
>
> ---AND THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS EMITTED IN CASE 2 ??
Jes' goes to show how small a package intelligence can ignore.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--------------------
(:-) (:-) (:-) !!!!!!....
imbecile psychopath **** MORON ***** and shameless CROOK as
well!!
and besides --
the every fact that the
anonymous =Inertial =Artful you name it ....
and only 6 months on the net
answer instead of Igor
is the best prove that you are first of all
a psychopath disturbed pig )
(exactly as the old senile imbecile Uncle Al (:-)
is your name Igore ???
if yes let us know ...
ps
another prove that we deal with a psychopath crook
is that that pig --- erased the chem NG
Y.P
---------------------------------
Inertial
That's you
> psychopath
That's you
> **** MORON *****
That's you
> and shameless CROOK as
> well!!
That's you
> and besides --
> the every fact that the
> anonymous =Inertial =Artful you name it ....
> and only 6 months on the net
Much longer than that
> answer instead of Igor
Its a free newsgroup. Anyone can answer. I'm not stopping Igor from
answering
> is the best prove that you are first of all
> a psychopath disturbed pig )
That's you
> (exactly as the old senile imbecile Uncle Al (:-)
> is your name Igore ???
No. Neither is Igor's
> if yes let us know ...
> ps
> another prove that we deal with a psychopath crook
That's you
> is that that pig --- erased the chem NG
Because, as I have said, I cannot post when there are too many newsgroups ..
you're cross posting to groups that aren't relevant.
Well. looks like you're just being a moron again, no physics mentioned on
your part.
Y.Porat
-------------------
and that is exactly wy i dont want to discuss
with the little incurable Josef Goebbels
2
another prove that we are dealing with a Nazi
psychopath gangster sub -human pig shit:
anyone who will try to answer the above post
will be diverted to his moron nG
***no one except that pig gangster is doing it here****
and the funny thing is that this
sub intelligent *animal*
still did notice that he cant catch me in his psycho trap..
-----------------
Next
Y.P
-------------------------------
Igor
It all depends on the threshold of the photocell and the frequency
output of the led. So you have not supplied enough info. Back to the
drawing board, Borat.
Igor
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I would, if there were emission at the photocell. If the frequency of
the led output is below the threshold of the photocell, there will be
no emission at all.
Tom Roberts
> I would, if there were emission at the photocell. If the frequency of
> the led output is below the threshold of the photocell, there will be
> no emission at all.
It also depends on the bias voltage on the photocell, and the ability of that
bias source to handle the current generated.
Tom Roberts
Y.Porat
-------------
so Igor
do you agree with me that
th eeelctron emission is time dependent??
2
and if so
th eenergy of photons that activated the
cell is as well
TIME DEPENDENT
3
THAT PHOTONS EMIT THEIR ENERGY
DURING TIME
iow
photon energy emission is as well
time dependent!!
4
that freuency is time dependent?
5
that 8single photons emit ther energy
in less than a second
so
hf is not the smallest photon energy
6
therefore the real single photon
energy
has never yet been defined !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------
Y.Porat
--------------
n our case od my expeiment
lasting say
0.4 seconds
or 0.8 seconds
we can assume that those factors you
memtion ar emarginal
2
please note that my above experiemnt
IS QUALITATIVE ONLY!!
AND EVEN SO
IT MAKES MY POINTS !!!
(that E=hf is not the smallest
amount of photon energy emission
and that we found by that simple excperiment
that are as facts
smaller amounts then hf
even if the torch is emitting an anormous numver of single photons
NON OF THEM (AGAIN-NON OF THEM)
LASTED ONE SECOND
BUT RATHER LESS THEN A SECOND !!!
3
do you agree that f is one second defined
and therefore
hf as well is one second defined ??!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
--------------
old imbecile!!
you call youself a paractical physicist ??
solisten careful genius physicist
a wahtr activeted the
photon eelctric cell
IS THE ADDED
** MARGINAL
CONTRIBUTION *OF THE LED LIGHT
iow
it is only the led light that made the difference
between emision or not emision
2
in that pint
tit is trhe Einstein discivery that was alway
inmy mind
and i even mentioned it
Einjstein found that
it is only some 'minimum *plus
some more than that minimum****
that activate electron emission!!
and that is exactly how i directed my experiment
i said it has tobe done
in a background light
THAT DOES NOT ACTIVATE THE CELLS!!
i i am sure most of the readers
undestod why i saied and did it that way !!!
btw Uncle
ddi you do it by your own hands ?? (:-)
did it ever occurred to you
to do such an experiment by your own hands ??
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------
since you call me Borat
see idiot crook moron parrot
my response to Uncle Al
about the back ground light
in that experiment
and try to be more responsible for your
answers
or else you will get it from me !!!...
Y.P
-------------------
Robert Higgins
What is "wahtr"?
> photon eelctric cell
Electric eels are "eelctric".
> IS THE ADDED
> ** MARGINAL
> CONTRIBUTION *OF THE LED LIGHT
> iow
> it is only the led light that made the difference
> between emision or not emision
> 2
> in that pint
> tit is trhe Einstein discivery that was alway
What a dirty mind - talking about tits!
> inmy mind
> and i even mentioned it
> Einjstein found that
> it is only some 'minimum *plus
> some more than that minimum****
Einstein worked this out more than 100 years ago - please try to keep
up. If the photon has a greater energy than the work function of the
metal, one electron is ejected for each photon of sufficient energy.
The time it takes for an electron to be ejected after absorption is
less than
10 ^-15 second. Since very many photons are hitting the surface over a
period of seconds, then electrons are emitted over a period of
seconds.
If you wanted to see how long it takes for an electron to be ejected
for a single photon, you would need a very low photon flux. Your
"experiment" is hardly accurate enough to detect time intervals of
10^-15 s; if you think so, you are an even bigger nitwit than I
previously believed, and that is definitely saying something.
>
> that activate electron emission!!
> and that is exactly how i directed my experiment
> i said it has tobe done
Doesn't he play for the Lakers - Tobe Bryant?
> in a background light
> THAT DOES NOT ACTIVATE THE CELLS!!
> i i am sure most of the readers
> undestod why i saied and did it that way !!!
> btw Uncle
> ddi you do it by your own hands ?? (:-)
I think Uncle Al might have used a calculator before. I am also sure
he understands the principles of electronics of how it operates -
quite unlike you.
>
> did it ever occurred to you
> to do such an experiment by your own hands ??
No, because it is a MEANINGLESS "experiment".
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -------------------
Androcles
"Robert Higgins" <robert_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fba31b9-357d-42bc...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
What is "wahtr"?
> photon eelctric cell
http://bigrab.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/blue_tit.jpg
Inertial
That's pretty obvious :):)
> -------------
> so Igor
> do you agree with me that
> th eeelctron emission is time dependent??
The longer the time, the more photons arrive, the more photons arriving the
more electrons are 'freed'
> 2
> and if so
> th eenergy of photons that activated the
> cell is as well
> TIME DEPENDENT
The TOTAL energy of all the photons is, because the NUMBER of photons is.
Each photons sdtill has the same non-time dependent energy. E = hf.
> 3
> THAT PHOTONS EMIT THEIR ENERGY
> DURING TIME
The photoelectric cell USE the energy that the photons release (E = hf) over
time. But the AMOUNT of energy is still E = hf.
> iow
> photon energy emission is as well
> time dependent!!
The time required to USE the photon energy is .. not the AMOUNT of energy
used in that time.
> 4
> that freuency is time dependent?
No .. it is not. It doesn't matter HOW long an oscillator oscillate, or a
wave waves .. the frequency is the same .. whether for a fraction of a
second, a whole second, or minutes, or years, or millenia.
> 5
> that 8single photons emit ther energy
> in less than a second
Of course they do. Far far less than a second. How long it takes to use up
that energy depends on what is done with it. We've been telling you that
over and over.
> so
> hf is not the smallest photon energy
Yes it is. Because it is the FIXED amount of energy that a single photon
has REGARDLESS of the time taken to use it up.
> 6
> therefore the real single photon
> energy
> has never yet been defined !!
Wrong .. it is E = hf.
This is so very simple. Why can't you understand it?
Inertial
> On Mar 12, 12:17 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Igor wrote:
>> > I would, if there were emission at the photocell. If the frequency of
>> > the led output is below the threshold of the photocell, there will be
>> > no emission at all.
>>
>> It also depends on the bias voltage on the photocell, and the ability of
>> that
>> bias source to handle the current generated.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> --------------
> n our case od my expeiment
> lasting say
> 0.4 seconds
> or 0.8 seconds
> we can assume that those factors you
> memtion ar emarginal
> 2
> please note that my above experiemnt
>
> IS QUALITATIVE ONLY!!
> AND EVEN SO
> IT MAKES MY POINTS !!!
It makes no point
> (that E=hf is not the smallest
It does not in any way show that
> amount of photon energy emission
> and that we found by that simple excperiment
> that are as facts
> smaller amounts then hf
Wrong
> even if the torch is emitting an anormous numver of single photons
Which it is
> NON OF THEM (AGAIN-NON OF THEM)
> LASTED ONE SECOND
That's what we've been telling you
> BUT RATHER LESS THEN A SECOND !!!
That's right
> 3
> do you agree that f is one second defined
f does NOT depend on the duration of the wave or oscillator or whatever it
is.
> and therefore
> hf as well is one second defined ??!!
Nope. It is a fixed amount. It is NOT time dependent.
Y.Porat
wrote:
> > photon elctric cell
>
> Electric eels are "eelctric".
do you have physics arguments
beside spelling arguments ??
piggy ??
-------------
> --------------------
imecile
you call yourself a professor ???!!
nasty lier
if you are a professor
i am the Pope of Rome
now just to show what an imbecile you are
1
no one ever do did that experiemnt
IN CONTEXT I DID
GOT IT IMBECLE CROOK ??
even not Eisstein
unless you prove oth15 sec
does it contradict any thing that i said !!
hey imbecil;e crook??
i said that photon energy emission of the real single photon is
E =hf n
while 0> n <<< 1.0000
and not in onesecond as animbecile like you claim in hf as onesecond
defined
got it imbecile crook??
so were is your 10^-15 is cnntadidcting myclaim ???!!!
2
you say that many photons hit the cell
in how long ??
lets take that 0.8 sec
(does a n imbecile like you understnd whyi took
0.8 sec ???
it is too complicated for a fucker' physicst ""
soright many photon are acting
]canyouknow how many ??
may be by your idiotc hf as a single photon ??!!
no youdont now
but let me tell you a secrete imbecile
WE DONT NEED AT ALL TO KNOW
can an imbecile lke you imagine why ??
too complicated for a pig scientist !!
because
our experiment is firtof all QUALITATIVE
AND NOT QUANTITATIVE
so we dont need to know
how many of them acted
complicated for a professor ?? (:-)
ALL WE NEED TO KNOW IS THAT
NON OF THEM (AGAIN pig professor)
NON OF THEM ACTED LONGER THAN
.08 SECOND!!
AND WE DONT MEED MORE THAN THAT
IN ORDER DO KNOW THAT
hf is ***not** covering the case of phtons
acting less than a second !!
so you silly 10^-15
fits my claim not yours !!!
now i will leave it for your retarded mind to explain why
no more spoon feed for retarded crooks that call themselves
professors of physics !
nasty pig MORON lier !!
3
even the 'surface emission enrgy'' is not relavant to our
experiment??
because inany case
we dont know and **dont need to know**
what is really the smallest photon energy emission
i saie it will be found in future
because until now it we never really found
the smalest ohotnenergy why ?
because we dont have even the
specific formula for that
what i showed is that it is definitely not
hf
because hf is one second defined!!
and we get phton energy emission
shorter than one second
nomatter
**with or without** surface enrgy emission!
got it idiot??
with or without it is** less than a second!**!!
AND THAT IS THE MAIN PUNCH ARGUMENT !!
ALL OF THEM - LESS THAN A SECOND !!!
that is enough to **refute**
hf as a single photon energy emission!!
too complicated for armchairs
fucken mathematicians ??
(or someone who is calling himself a professor of chemistry ?? (:-)
Y.P
----------------------
Inertial
There's not much physics in your posts.
And look.. he made physics arguments a few lines further down.
> beside spelling arguments ??
There's LOTS of spelling errors though
See.. I told you you were a liar
> now just to show what an imbecile you are
> 1
> no one ever do did that experiemnt
> IN CONTEXT I DID
Not even you?
> GOT IT IMBECLE CROOK ??
> even not Eisstein
> unless you prove oth15 sec
"oth15" ??
> does it contradict any thing that i said !!
> hey imbecil;e crook??
> i said that photon energy emission of the real single photon is
>
> E =hf n
> while 0> n <<< 1.0000
Which is wrong .. we know that from experiment that actually MEASURED the
energy of single photons.
> and not in onesecond as animbecile like you claim in hf as onesecond
> defined
It isn't
> got it imbecile crook??
> so were is your 10^-15 is cnntadidcting myclaim ???!!!
> 2
> you say that many photons hit the cell
> in how long ??
However long the light is shining on it ..gees, you'd stupid
> lets take that 0.8 sec
Fine
> (does a n imbecile like you understnd whyi took
> 0.8 sec ???
Because you are a moron
> it is too complicated for a fucker' physicst ""
> soright many photon are acting
> ]canyouknow how many ??
You can calculate it from E = hf if you know the total energy received in
that time. But you've not told us enough . .and its going to vary from LED
to LED torch. Does it really MATTER how many there are?
> may be by your idiotc hf as a single photon ??!!
It is
> no youdont now
> but let me tell you a secrete imbecile
> WE DONT NEED AT ALL TO KNOW
> can an imbecile lke you imagine why ??
> too complicated for a pig scientist !!
> because
> our experiment is firtof all QUALITATIVE
> AND NOT QUANTITATIVE
> so we dont need to know
> how many of them acted
> complicated for a professor ?? (:-)
So why did you ask? Gees you're a moron
> ALL WE NEED TO KNOW IS THAT
> NON OF THEM (AGAIN pig professor)
> NON OF THEM ACTED LONGER THAN
> .08 SECOND!!
of course they didn't you moron, the torch was only on for that long. Gees.
> AND WE DONT MEED MORE THAN THAT
> IN ORDER DO KNOW THAT
>
> hf is ***not** covering the case of phtons
> acting less than a second !!
Of course it does.
> so you silly 10^-15
> fits my claim not yours !!!
You don't have a rational claim
> now i will leave it for your retarded mind to explain why
> no more spoon feed for retarded crooks that call themselves
> professors of physics !
> nasty pig MORON lier !!
You are such a nasty old man
> 3
> even the 'surface emission enrgy'' is not relavant to our
> experiment??
> because inany case
> we dont know and **dont need to know**
> what is really the smallest photon energy emission
But we do .. it is E = hf
> i saie it will be found in future
It was found in the past
> because until now it we never really found
> the smalest ohotnenergy why ?
Yes .. we have
> because we dont have even the
> specific formula for that
Yes we do .. we have the formula BECAUSE we found out what the value was.
> what i showed is that it is definitely not
> hf
No .. you have not done any such thing.
> because hf is one second defined!!
It has nothing to do with any time duration
> and we get phton energy emission
> shorter than one second
Of course we do. And longer. The energy is still E = hf. It is *NOT* time
dependent
> nomatter
> **with or without** surface enrgy emission!
> got it idiot??
Clearly you don't
> with or without it is** less than a second!**!!
Yes .. we know that .. we've been telling YOU that.
> AND THAT IS THE MAIN PUNCH ARGUMENT !!
You have no argument.
> ALL OF THEM - LESS THAN A SECOND !!!
Yes .. we know that .. we've been telling YOU that.
> that is enough to **refute**
> hf as a single photon energy emission!!
No .. it isn't.
> too complicated for armchairs
> fucken mathematicians ??
> (or someone who is calling himself a professor of chemistry ?? (:-)
You have NO idea of science, or math, or rational thinking. Get a new
hobby, like sewing.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-----------------
how can anyone discuss physics
with a donkey head
**that does not know the definitin of
Frequency**
and is unable to extract of it
even a tiny conclusion even if spoon feeded
along a whole mouth !!
just because it was not wtiten in his text book !!
if you dont have the tiniest ability to learn
something new -- even extremely simple --
go discuss with
Josef Goebbels
(thank you for not trying to divert my post (:-)
it is an achievement for a crook ...
----------------
Y.P
---------------------
Robert Higgins
> "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Touche!
So if I see a buxom young lady holding a cage with two of these birds,
I can yell, "Nice tits!" :-)
Robert Higgins
Yes, and you don't.
Please bless me, Holy Father!
It would be kind of ironic for the current pope to call people Josef
Goebbels.
> now just to show what an imbecile you are
> 1
> no one ever do did that experiemnt
> IN CONTEXT I DID
What context? What "experiment"? You are fascinated by solar
calculators, which have been around for decades.
> GOT IT IMBECLE CROOK ??
> even not Eisstein
Eisstein (sic) was a theoretician, so he didn't do the experiments
himself. Look in a dictionary for the definition of "theoretician."
> unless you prove oth15 sec
> does it contradict any thing that i said !!
> hey imbecil;e crook??
> i said that photon energy emission of the real single photon is
>
> E =hf n
> while 0> n <<< 1.0000
How can n be LESS than zero? Are there a negative number of photons?
You can't even write your own (stupid and incorrect) equation.
Igor
No. Emission of any particle is entirely random. So that essentially
shoots down the rest of your nonsense.
Igor
You keep talking about an experiment. But we've yet to see any real
info on it. Unlike particle emission, you are entirely predictable.
I can almost set my clock by your emission of bullshit.
Igor
> do you have physics arguments
> beside spelling arguments ??
Do you?
Androcles
Touche!
==============================================
http://secretwafflelabs.com/Adult/Show%20me%20yer%20tits.jpg
Inertial
I do know. You clearly do not know what it means.
If something has frequency f, then it has frequency f for half a second, a
whole second, two seconds, a minute, a year. It is NOT a time duration
dependent value.
Just like speed in metres per second. If a car has a speed of 60km/hr, then
it has speed for half a second, a whole second, two seconds, a minute, a
year. It is NOT a time duration dependent value.
Just because something has units of time in its dimensions does NOT mean its
value is going to be dependent on a time duration.
> and is unable to extract of it
> even a tiny conclusion even if spoon feeded
> along a whole mouth !!
Of course I can. But you are simply WRONG in saying the E = hf is somehow
related to the energy in a second. The E in E = hf is energy .. it is NOT
energy per second.
> just because it was not wtiten in his text book !!
> if you dont have the tiniest ability to learn
> something new -- even extremely simple --
> go discuss with
> Josef Goebbels
I think you should take uyou own advice. He's love a support of his like
you.
> (thank you for not trying to divert my post (:-)
>it is an achievement for a crook ...
All your posts are the achievement of a crook.
If you posts discuses phsyics, I will leave it un-diverted. . if there is no
physics in it, I will divert it, as it does not belong in there forums.
Y.Porat
> On Mar 12, 1:44 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 11:26 pm,Igor<thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 7:33 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:788e41ea-5d1e-4f6e...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > MrIgor
>
> > > > Gees .. not this AGAIN
>
> > > > > lets take a Led light torch
> > > > > and light it on a photoelectric Cell
> > > > > myquestionis:
>
> > > > > case 1
> > > > > let us lighten it up - on that cell
> > > > > during 0.4 seconds
>
> > > > > case 2
> > > > > let us lighten up the above Cell
> > > > > during 0.8 seconds
>
> > > > > now myquestionis:
>
> > > > > WHAT WILLBE THE **RATIO**- BETWEEN
> > > > > THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS
> > > > > EMITTED (by that Cell ) IN CASE 1 ???---
>
> > > > > ---AND THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS EMITTED IN CASE 2 ??
>
> > > > Twice as many .. because twice as many photons arrive when the stream is on
> > > > for twice as long, each with (time independent) energy E = hf.
>
>
> > > I would, if there were emission at the photocell. If the frequency of
> > > the led output is below the threshold of the photocell, there will be
> > > no emission at all.
>
> > -------------
> > soIgor
> > do you agree with me that
> > th eeelctron emission is time dependent??
>
> No. Emission of any particle is entirely random. So that essentially
> shoots down the rest of your nonsense.
-------------------------
waht has random to do with it ??!!!
again demagoghic obfuscatin!!
do you think that you can divert the issue
to nonsens direation:
listen crook:
in my experiment
no mattwer how many phootns took action
ALLOF THEM WERE ACTIVE LESS THAN A SECOND!!
do you dent it ??
you acivated the les torch for half a second
and your screen was on less than a second
right??
can you deny facts !!
2
you admitted that f is one second defined
(unless you are a crook or idiot )
if f is one second defined than
hf as well - one second defined !!!
so
hf is not covering all the cases in which
experiment show -
photon activity --
LES THAN A SECOND
2
do you say that in my experiment
any (AGAIN - ANY !!)
of the photons was active *more than 0.4 sec*??
there can be some deviation from 0.4 sec
but obviously LESS THAN A SECOND!
unless you inssut to cheat
just because Porat insulted you once-
AFTER THAT YOU INSULTED HIM ..FIRST !!
are we serious RESPONSIBLE scientists
that want to see some advance in science ??
or may be little children ??.
or may be fucken personal politicians ??
Y,P
--------------------
Inertial
Of course .. far less than a second. And each has energy E = hf. WE know
that because it is has been measured before experimentally. So that is a
fact. It is not up for debate or alteration. You cannot change the truth
> do you dent it ??
'dent'?
> you acivated the les torch for half a second
> and your screen was on less than a second
> right??
> can you deny facts !!
Why would anyone deny that. Noone other than you seems to think there is
some problem with a torch being on for less than a second
> 2
> you admitted that f is one second defined
> (unless you are a crook or idiot )
Noone says that other than you . The rest of us know better. In SI units,
seconds are the units of time. That's the only thing about the value of f
that has anything remotely to do with seconds. No more than speed does
because we can express it as m/s, or momentum is because we can express it
as kilogram.meters/second
> if f is one second defined than
Its not .. but we happen to express it in SI units as Hz.
> hf as well - one second defined !!!
Nope .. there is no time duration in that formula AT ALL. It is the same
value whether for half a second or a million seconds.
> so
> hf is not covering all the cases in which
> experiment show -
WRONG
> photon activity --
> LES THAN A SECOND
Of course it does .. because has nothing to do with time duration.
> 2
> do you say that in my experiment
> any (AGAIN - ANY !!)
> of the photons was active *more than 0.4 sec*??
> there can be some deviation from 0.4 sec
> but obviously LESS THAN A SECOND!
> unless you inssut to cheat
> just because Porat insulted you once-
> AFTER THAT YOU INSULTED HIM ..FIRST !!
Eh?
> are we serious RESPONSIBLE scientists
You ceratinly aren't .. you're just a nasty angry senile old man
> that want to see some advance in science ??
You dying sometime soon would ceratinly help .. probably raise the net IQ of
humanity a couple of point
> or may be little children ??.
> or may be fucken personal politicians ??
What ARE you on about .. did you forget to take your meds?
Y.Porat
divert my reponse
tohos pshcho nazi ng
why ?? (he is afraid of my responses
but it want help him
he even dies not worth his salary as ganster
so here is my response"
those dinestions that yuou have no idea why and how to use it
are ALWAYS MULTIPLIED BY SCALARS!!
INORDER TO FIT THEM TO PARCICAL USE:
AND THAT EXACTLY WHY I
ADD THAT n SCALAR MULTIPLIER hf
tobe
Min photon energy = h f n
while my updated n is
0< n < exp -15
got it donkey pigg?
no chance
Y.Porat
---------------------
------------------
> and is unable to extract of it
> > even a tiny conclusion even if spoon feeded
> > along a whole mouth !!
>
> Of course I can. But you are simply WRONG in saying the E = hf is somehow
> related to the energy in a second. The E in E = hf is energy .. it is NOT
----------------------------
Robert Higgins
God, you're stupid. f (frequency) has units of s^-1 (INVERSE seconds,
NOT seconds!!!!!!). Even more, Planck's constant (the same constant
the Einstein apparently "stole" according to fellow dimwit Marvin) has
units of J s. When you multiply h by f, you get ENERGY in units of
JOULES. This is first semester college chemistry.
> > and is unable to extract of it
> > even a tiny conclusion even if spoon feeded
> > along a whole mouth !!
> > just because it was not wtiten in his text book !!
> > if you dont have the tiniest ability to learn
> > something new -- even extremely simple --
> > go discuss with
> > Josef Goebbels
Maybe you should discuss it with GEORGE Goebbels!
> > (thank you for not trying to divert my post (:-)
> > it is an achievement for a crook ...
> > ----------------
>
> the Nazi opig tryed again to
> divert my reponse
> tohos pshcho nazi ng
> why ?? (he is afraid of my responses
> but it want help him
> he even dies not worth his salary as ganster
Gangsters don't get paid salaries - it is strictly "commission".
> so here is my response"
> those dinestions that yuou have no idea why and how to use it
> are ALWAYS MULTIPLIED BY SCALARS!!
> INORDER TO FIT THEM TO PARCICAL USE:
> AND THAT EXACTLY WHY I
> ADD THAT n SCALAR MULTIPLIER hf
> tobe
God, you're stupid...
n is a scalar...
so is "h"
so is "f"...
Google "William Rowan Hamilton"
>
> Min photon energy = h f n
> while my updated n is
Again, "IDIOT" (thanks to Uncle Al)
In addition to energy, photons also possess angular momentum. In the
process of photons being created or destroyed, they transfer their
angular momenta. (remember the conservation laws of angular momentum)
This requires that "n" be an integer. If you want to know the details,
enroll in a course called "Physical Chemistry II" (although some
colleges/universities call it "Physical Chemistry I". Pick the one
that ISN'T thermodynamics/kinetics, and you'll be in the right place.
It's strange, since American engineers of ANY specialty are required
to take this course.
>
> 0< n < exp -15
Well, at least you worked the 10^-15 in their somewhere, even if in
the completely wrong place.
Inertial
You post stuff that is not physics, I will divert it
> why ?? (he is afraid of my responses
Nope .. it just doesn't belong on these newsgroups
> but it want help him
> he even dies not worth his salary as ganster
> so here is my response"
> those dinestions that yuou have no idea why and how to use it
> are ALWAYS MULTIPLIED BY SCALARS!!
> INORDER TO FIT THEM TO PARCICAL USE:
> AND THAT EXACTLY WHY I
> ADD THAT n SCALAR MULTIPLIER hf
h is already the multipler, you moron. It was found experimentally.
> tobe
>
> Min photon energy = h f n
> while my updated n is
>
> 0< n < exp -15
WRONG. n = 1. That was found experimentally. It is a FACT.
> got it donkey pigg?
I've got that E = hf which is a FACT. Your lies cannot change it. You
cannot cheat everyone .. you cannot even cheat anyone (only yourself).
Inertial
You are still a total moron.