Re: Grid #2 in ultralinear mode

I am saddened by your graceless and snide refusal to try and help me
with my circuit. Suddenly you are too much like hard work.

You are twisting, turning, talking rubbish and refusing to learn.

If you are so clever, how come you find yourself incapable of
circuit design, or even simulating valves? I can, you can't.

Since you say that you value consensus absolutely, and just in case
you may have misled the unwary, try typing "thermionic emission"
into google. Lest you find yourself incapable even of that, here are
a couple to start you off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_emission

http://www.john-a-harper.com/tubes201/

Note:

**"First of all, the energy of an electron corresponds directly to
its speed."

**Assuming constant mass, the final speed of an electron depends
only on the voltage through which it is accelerated, regardless of
distance.

**An electron thermionically emitted from a metal does not have to
escape atomic forces. It only has to escape the simple electrostatic
forces at the surface of the bulk material. Statistically, most
electrons from the cathode return by simple deceleration due to the
field. That is, they *fail* to achieve escape velocity. ***THERE IS
ONLY ONE ESCAPE*** It is not a two-stage leap. There is only one
escape velocity. They do not pass go, or collect 200UKP...no energy
state is changed. They do not emit photons as a result of a change
in energy level in the atom, because they are not in the atom in the
first place. Some electrons will always escape, and so the bottle is
always full of electrons. It is like steam emission in a perfectly
insulated pressure vessel, in this respect, but with no "latent
heat".

**Atoms are not simple and discrete as you imagine.

So now you try reading your precious consensus.

Worst of all, I have learned something and you haven't. Makes me
feel sick like parasite.

This is what I have learned. I was wrong to suggest that surface
structure necessarily weakens thermionic emission. I did however say
that I am hazy about surfaces. Less so now, thanks and no thanks.
Actually a layer of the right oxide can improve it greatly. This
currently appears to me a paradox, since I would expect electrons to
be more tightly bound in a compound. I wonder if the presence of the
oxide reduces the surface potential of electrons in the metal, or
whether the oxide itself is responsible for the emission. Now I will
go and find out.

Ian

"flipper" <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6e2dt1hcth8qgdv33imnhl98dttlunkkod@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:59:40 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
> <IanIveson.home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"flipper" <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:qc4bt1ls0plfkrenkctm7aj94ahik1mof8@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:56:54 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
>>> <IanIveson.home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>flipper wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But...but...the necessary pressure vessel fills up with
>>>>>>steam...and
>>>>>>the valve doesn't fill up with electrons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK they have equilibrium in common. Wondering what
>>>>>>else...change
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>state? Latent heat?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any analogy can be drawn to absurdity by expanding it past the
>>>>> limited
>>>>> scope the analogy intended to address, which is what you're
>>>>> trying
>>>>> to
>>>>> do with that one.
>>>>
>>>>No. If an analogy only has one thing in common, it is a
>>>>worthless
>>>>analogy.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. 'One thing' in common is perfectly fine if the purpose
>>> is to
>>> illuminate that 'one thing'.
>>
>>Nope, since the "one thing" is already spoken for, there must be
>>other things to do the illumination. Another way of putting it,
>>the
>>"one thing" analogy brings nothing new to the explanation, since
>>that one thing was there already.
>
> A poor assumption as it took you a while to accept the 'one thing'
> but
> finally did, as you note below.
>
>
>>*All* the other things attached to
>>it become potentially misleading, extraneous baggage.
>
> Which is the common fallacy of extending an analogy past it's
> intended
> applicability.
>
>>>> Of course it would not be an analogy if it were the same in
>>>>all respects...I'm not asking for that.
>>>
>>> Near as I can tell you are. Regardless, you're trying to extend
>>> it
>>> beyond it's applicability.
>>
>>I am trying to find where its applicability lies, by process of
>>elimination.
>
> In the visualization of electrons 'boiling' off the cathode
> because,
> like the water molecules acquiring enough thermal energy to escape
> what you prefer to call the "bulk material" the electrons also
> acquire
> enough energy from thermal excitation to escape the "bulk
> material.".
>
>>>> More than one thing would
>>>>do.
>>>
>>> What's relevant is whether the analogy works for the purpose it
>>> was
>>> made and, in that context, it does work fairly well.
>>
>>As I agreed, once I re-jigged reality to fit :-)
>
> Same reality. Acquired energy though thermal excitation.
>
>>>>>>Right...dimly remember encountering the eV...odd how the
>>>>>>electron
>>>>>>gets its very own unit of speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really, it's a matter of unit convenience but, at any rate
>>>>> (pun),
>>>>> eV isn't velocity, it's energy.
>>>>
>>>>Yes of course, that's why it seemed odd to use it to answer a
>>>>question about speed. Ask a straight question about an electron,
>>>>and
>>>>you will rarely get a straight answer.
>>>
>>> You misunderstood the 'answer' you were given. He said nothing
>>> about
>>> eV being 'speed' or 'velocity'. He said electrons accelerated
>>> through
>>> 25KeV would reach relativistic speeds but that is no more a
>>> statement
>>> of eV *being* 'a speed' than someone pointing out you'll reach
>>> a
>>> dangerous velocity falling off a cliff is some kind of claim
>>> that
>>> the
>>> earth's gravitational constant is 'a speed'.
>>
>>No, not Chris, I meant what I learned at school. And what is still
>>in my school physics book. It involved an assumption about the
>>mass
>>of the electron...I'm sure we all know the difference between
>>speed
>>and energy.
>
> Well, it was to his message that you pondered why the electron got
> it's own units of 'speed' and his eV number was the only one
> there, so
> how is someone to know you mean something else?
>
>>Your analogy is false. The gravitational constant is not an
>>expression of energy. I can play that game too.
>
> Ever hear of potential energy?
>
> What you're demonstrating is the fallacy of simply looking for
> something to argue about for the sake of arguing: the "I can play
> that
> game too" syndrome.
>
> In the first place, the purpose of the analogy was to show
> another,
> but obvious, erroneous association and it would make no difference
> to
> the analogy whether it involved energy or anything else, just that
> the
> erroneous association was clear. However, as it turns out, the
> 'energy' aspect of it is quite analogous as well.
>
>>> He merely said 25KeV is sufficient energy to do it.
>>
>>Do what?
>
> Don't you keep track of your own conversations?
>
> He said "In a 25 Kilovolt CRT electrons reach
> velocities with relativistic mass gains of 5% or so.
> Pretty fast."
>
>
>>>>>> I remember when I asked "What's
>>>>>>that in mph?", much handwaving would ensue. That must have
>>>>>>been
>>>>>>because of the change in mass, possibly at a time when it was
>>>>>>no
>>>>>>more than a dark suspicion that something was amiss.
>>>>>>Presumably
>>>>>>that's there to stop the electron travelling faster than
>>>>>>light?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If I ask how fast electrons travel in a vacuum between cathode
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>25kV anode, and the answer is 25keV, I'm not sure I feel
>>>>>>enlightened. Now I know about relativistic mass I feel much
>>>>>>better
>>>>>
>>>>> eV is energy and (kinetic)E= .5mv^2
>>>>
>>>>Speed or velocity? I raise the point because we normally think
>>>>of
>>>>energy as scalar, and voltage as a vector.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, yes of course, that's why I said I felt much
>>>>better...because given the energy, I thought I also needed the
>>>>mass
>>>>to work out the speed or velocity.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you're trying to complain about. Electron
>>> rest
>>> mass is known, at least well enough.
>>
>>You have lost the original sense. I notice you are not answering
>>my
>>questions BTW. You are skipping them to niggle about your
>>misunderstanding of what I am saying.
>
> then be clear.
>
>> I was complaining about the
>>use of eV as an expression of speed.
>
> eV is not used as an expression of 'speed'. It's energy.
>
>> Mass is required for the
>>conversion.
>
> And the electrons rest mass is known.
>
>> Problems ensue unless mass is a variable,
>
> Actually, the 'problems' ensue when mass *is* a variable.
>
>> however, for
>>otherwise, given a great enough potential, an electron would
>>exceed
>>the speed of light.
>
> That is the 'Newtonian physics' style thinking which leads to the
> flawed 'relativistic mass' analogy.
>
> E=mc^2 is the rest energy due to rest mass m. For relativistic
> speeds
> the equation is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where p is the momentum.
> Newtonian momentum is p = mv. Relativistic momentum is p = gamma
> (mv)
>
> "Mass" does not change, the momentum does.
>
>>Here, for me, the whole shebang becomes a matter of
>>definition...of
>>compliance with other definitions...of coherence. Hope of absolute
>>truth is lost.
>
> In quantum mechanics the search for 'absolute truth' runs into the
> Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
>
>>>>> eV is convenient for particle physics because it is also the
>>>>> case,
>>>>> for
>>>>> this purpose at least, that E=MC^2. Energy has the units
>>>>> (mass)(length)^2/(time)^2 so divide by C and you get momentum.
>>>>> Divide
>>>>> by C again and you get mass (old style "relativistic mass").
>>>>> Lay
>>>>> confusion stems from the particle physicists use of shorthand
>>>>> 'apparently' calling all three eV with the divide by C
>>>>> 'understood'
>>>>> when speaking of momentum and by C^2 'understood' when
>>>>> speaking
>>>>> of
>>>>> mass when, to be precise, it is eV/c and eV/c2 respectively.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, this is the kind of loose usage I was complaining about.
>>>
>>> Well, you can either complain or understand it and I suggest
>>> that
>>> the
>>> latter is more productive than expecting all the physicists in
>>> the
>>> world to alter their common behavior.
>>
>>Eh? But you were complaining about it...I just agreed with you.
>>
>>I like to complain *and* understand. The two seem to go together
>>quite nicely.
>>
>>As for all the physicists in the world, you are beginning to
>>suffer
>>from Turneresque delusions. You haven't a clue what all physicists
>>think. Consensus, maybe...
>
> You're playing with semantics to no purpose. Of course I mean the
> current 'consensus' and it isn't that hard to find. And whether
> it's
> 'all" or 'all minus a few' doesn't alter the meaning of my
> statement.
> It's still more productive to understand what the 'consensus' is
> than
> expect 'all minus a few' to change their behavior.
>
>>although a rather ragged one.
>
> It isn't 'ragged' on the elementals we're talking about here.
>
>> Anyway,
>>physicists are paid to question theory, not agree with it.
>
> The discussion in this section isn't about 'theory', it's about
> the eV
> nomenclature.
>
>>Even if everything about the electron is agreed by "scientists"
>>(why
>>assume I am not one, BTW, and what about philosophers...don't they
>>get a look in?), then surely you would wish that consensus remain
>>open to question? Isn't that what science is supposed to be?
>
> Science, at it's root, is experimentation and observation.
> 'Philosophy' ain't in there because it proposes no observable
> experiment, or else it would be a theory and not 'philosophy'.
>
> Schroedinger wandering off into the philosophical implications of
> his
> statistical quantum equations notwithstanding.
>
>>>> Also I
>>>>am pretty much bound to object to this changing mass lark but
>>>>I'm
>>>>stuck for an alternative.
>>>
>>> You're not alone and modern physics doesn't use that 'analogy'
>>> for
>>> much, any more, other than for the purpose of an analogy, which
>>> is
>>> why
>>> I added the (old style "relativistic mass").
>>
>>So what happens now, in your world, to stop an electron
>>accelerated
>>through a large potential from exceeding the speed of light?
>
> It ain't 'my world'. It's Einstein's actual equation.
>
> See above.
>
>>>> Stalin killed our scientists before we
>>>>found out :-(
>>>
>>> Should have been plenty of time to grow new ones by now.
>>
>>Where? Science requires community, not just to ensure sufficient
>>diversity for evolution, but also to protect itself from
>>persecution. Materialism is still a politically unacceptable
>>standpoint for the dominant ideology.
>
> If you think they got no physicists then so be it but I don't feel
> like trying to unravel whatever that was.
>
>>>>> Path length is implicit in the eV term. Place a charge on two
>>>>> plates
>>>>> so you have a particular eV. Change the spacing and eV
>>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>>What? Run that past me again please, slowly.
>>>
>>> Make a capacitor with movable plates. Charge it to a particular
>>> V.
>>> Move the plates further apart or closer together. V changes.
>>>
>>> Put wires on the plates and mound it in a cylinder suitable for
>>> hand
>>> holding and you have a condenser microphone.
>>
>>Eh? You said eV changes...
>
> Right.
>
>>we were talking about the energy of
>>electrons passing from one electrode to the other, remember?
>
> Most definitely.
>
>> Like in
>>a thermionic valve. You said path length is "implicit in the eV
>>term". Now you have dropped the "e". That's a bit naughty of you I
>>think.
>
> 1 eV is the energy given to an electron by accelerating it through
> 1
> volt of electric potential difference. Charge two plates to V
> potential difference, let the electron be accelerated from one to
> the
> other and it acquires eV energy.
>
> Move the charged plates further apart or closer together and the V
> changes, and so does the resultant eV of an electron accelerated
> between them because the V is different.
>
> The length becomes moot by specifying the plates are at a specific
> 'X'kV because you have placed on the plates whatever charge is
> necessary to achieve the 'X'kV for the particular spacing. The
> required charge (to created the energy field between the plates)
> will
> be more or less if the plate spacing is more or less so the
> 'length'
> is implicit in the potential difference V you define as being on
> the
> plates and, hence, the resultant eV, which will be the same number
> as
> the V potential difference because it's a 1 to 1 calculation when
> accelerating electrons since it's defined as the energy an
> electron
> acquires per V of potential difference. I.E. for an electron the
> acquired eV is numerically equal to the potential difference V
> it's
> accelerated through, by definition.
>
> e.g. Make 25kV plates and the electrons acquire 25keV, because
> they're
> electrons and that's how it's defined.
>
> So there's nothing strange or 'naughty' about me using V when
> speaking
> of the V on the plates that cause the electrons to acquire eV.
>
>>>>> "Potential difference" is the energy required to move a
>>>>> charged
>>>>> particle from one potential point to the other against the
>>>>> applied
>>>>> electric field. Let it 'free fall', I.E. be accelerated by
>>>>> that
>>>>> field,
>>>>> and it acquires the energy.
>>>>
>>>>Right.
>>>>
>>>>> Which get's back to eV being energy.
>>>>
>>>>What, again?
>>>
>>> eV is energy.
>>
>>And again...
>
> I don't know how to say it any simpler so if you're going to keep
> repeating the question just reread what's there.
>
>>>>>>Also I wonder now if I should be considering velocity rather
>>>>>>than
>>>>>>speed. Do they all arrive with the same velocity normal to the
>>>>>>screen, and so at different speeds depending on angle?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One thing I have learned from all this is that electron flow
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>coherent in a valve, otherwise the screen couldn't be hidden
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>shadow of the grid.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need 'coherency' to cast a shadow and all one need
>>>>> do
>>>>> is
>>>>> look at their own shadow on a sunny day to confirm it as
>>>>> sunlight
>>>>> isn't even monochromatic, much less coherent.
>>>>
>>>>You most certainly do need coherence to cast a shadow. Perhaps
>>>>you
>>>>have a specialised meaning of coherence in mind...possibly
>>>>germain
>>>>to this subject...like phase coherence, in which case I
>>>>apologise
>>>>for misleading you.
>>>
>>> I see, well, when delving into the realm of particle physics,
>>> especially in this day and age of lasers, people are likely to
>>> think
>>> you mean to include phase coherency when you toss out
>>> "coherent."
>>>
>>>>I just mean coherent in the loose sense of an orderly structure.
>>>>In
>>>>this case that paths are fairly parallel. Although sunlight is
>>>>also
>>>>near-as-dammit parallel, it is not quite coherent in the sense I
>>>>mean. But close, which is why it casts sharp shadows.
>>>
>>> Ok. Now I know what you meant by it.
>>>
>>>>The cathode of a typical valve is not even nearly a point
>>>>source,
>>>>like the sun. And yet it casts shadows. That is all I meant by
>>>>coherent.
>>>
>>> It doesn't need to be a 'point source' because the plate isn't a
>>> 'point' either and the order comes from them being attracted to
>>> the
>>> plate.
>>
>>Yes, but I think there is more to it than that.
>>
>>> They want to go ----> that away
>>> ----> that away
>>> ----> that away
>>> ----> that away
>>
>>Er...:-) LOL !
>>
>>Yes, that's probably what I mean :-) I guess the strongest field
>>is
>>in the direction of the nearest point...although this is a rather
>>idealised view otherwise I suspect "hot spots" would be more
>>common.
>>But there are magnetic effects too, and the tendency for electrons
>>to repel each other.
>
> That's why I mentioned "secondary forces" below. But your sunlight
> shadow comes out pretty good regardless of atmospheric diffusion,
> and
> 'secondary forces', too.
>
>>> and if they make it past the grid they'll have a clear shot
>>> (give
>>> or
>>> take a few secondary forces) if the screen wires are in the same
>>> 'path' as the grid wires were.
>>
>>Of course, as long as paths are parallel...or near enough for the
>>shadow to be significant. I think it's pretty blurred actually,
>>for
>>all sorts of reasons, including diffraction.
>
> When did how 'wonderful' a shadow it is become the topic? and how
> did
> you arrive at the belief it's "pretty blurry?"
>
> Never mind. It doesn't matter. I'm satisfied with their
> "scientific
> observation" (since that was a topic up there) that "hey, it
> works."
>
>
>>>>>> I have tried looking this stuff up, but I find
>>>>>>either what I already think I know, or stuff that appears
>>>>>>pretty
>>>>>>unknowable. Once I get to relativity I wonder if I might be
>>>>>>better
>>>>>>of with the "swarm of bees" hypothesis.
>>>>>>I notice in passing that the CRT transposes the names of
>>>>>>screen
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>anode, compared to the tetrode:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Us materialists are an awkward lot. Or rather, since it is so
>>>>>>long
>>>>>>since I met another, (perhaps I am the last?), me materialist
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>awkward. Clearly a vacuum is totally out of bounds.
>>>>>
>>>>> A vacuum is simply a place devoid of materialists ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, thinking
>>>>>>again, I quite like this steam thing. The electrons are stayed
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>pressure of ether,
>>>>>
>>>>> no
>>>>
>>>>Oh, don't be such a spoilsport...why not?
>>>
>>> Einstein
>>
>>What...didn't he believe in the ether? When did he say that?
>
> I'll leave reading about Einstein to your research.
>
>>Do you believe in vacuums?
>
> Define vacuum.
>
>>>>>> into which they evaporate when excited,
>>>>>
>>>>> They acquire enough energy to escape the electrical forces in
>>>>> the
>>>>> atomic structure.
>>>>
>>>>Atomic, molecular, electrostatic, whatever...it's metal. Easier
>>>>to
>>>>say they acquire enough energy to part significantly from the
>>>>bulk
>>>>material.
>>>
>>> If you like "bulk material" better than "atomic structure," ok.
>>>
>>>> I was trying to stick to the steam analogy anyway...you
>>>>are miles from there now.
>>>
>>> Not at all. When boiling water the water molecules acquire
>>> enough
>>> energy to escape the attractive forces in the "bulk material."
>>> So
>>> do
>>> the electrons.
>>
>>Oi! My "bulk material" isn't far from the analogy, I know that.
>>Your
>>"atomic structure" was.
>
> All elements and compounds are an 'atomic structure' and, no, my
> use
> of it doesn't increase the analogy's 'distance'.
>
>
>>> But, since electrons are negatively charged atomic particles of
>>> extremely low mass, and water molecules are not, that's about as
>>> far
>>> as the analogy goes. But then, that is as far as it is intended
>>> to
>>> go.
>>
>>No, I like it now! The whole pressure vessel and all...fits with
>>the
>>ether ;-)
>
> no
>
>>
>>>>>> to which
>>>>>>they lose energy,
>>>>>
>>>>> Energy decay by quantum emission.
>>>>
>>>>Oi! I'm a materialist. No quantum nonsense please. Of a photon?
>>>>What
>>>>triggers that, or is it a statistical thing?
>>>
>>> What 'triggers' a hot body to radiate?
>>>
>>>> This is nothing at all
>>>>like steam!
>>>
>>> Why do you have no trouble accepting that 'hot' steam will
>>> release
>>> energy but do with electrons releasing energy?
>>
>>Release of energy by hot steam is not a necessary part of the
>>analogy,
>
> A moot comment as you're trying to create a false analogy anyway.
>
>> if it is in an insulated pressure vessel.
>
> It still looses energy, only the time constant is altered.
>
>> New steam stops
>>forming when a surface equilibrium is reached between pressure and
>>temperature. But you are taking the analogy too far now anyway.
>
> No, you are as I specifically said this nonsense was not part of
> the
> original analogy.
>
>>The issue is whether they release energy, or merely convert it
>>from
>>kinetic to potential, and back again.
>
> The electron's charge does not change, or else it isn't an
> electron.
>
>>>> Not keen on probabalistic explanations either.
>>>
>>> Well, I think Schroedinger drew inappropriate conclusions from
>>> the
>>> use
>>> of statistics but that doesn't alter the mathematics of it.
>>
>>It was Popper that pissed me off.
>>
>>>> Are you
>>>>sure they simply don't achieve escape velocity?
>>>
>>> I don't know which 'they' you are talking about but if it used
>>> to
>>> be
>>> 'locked' to <--- here and is now flying off to --> there then
>>> saying
>>> 'they' reached 'escape velocity' sounds like a reasonable
>>> analogy.
>>
>>My little picture is just that the electrons are flung out
>
> Because they have acquired energy from the thermal excitation.
>
>> at less
>>than the velocity required to escape the electrostatic field,
>
> Which electrostatic field? The original low energy state field
> when
> they were bound in the material's atomic structure or the one
> created
> by them now removed from it thereby creating a positive potential
> on
> the material they escaped from?
>
>> so
>>they fall back. They don't need to loose energy to do that.
>
> They most certainly do.
>
> In your 'picture, how do you resolve conservation of energy with
> energy needed to get them wandering around in the first place but
> they'll 'go back' with it still there? Or, put another way, your
> 'picture' has the electron acquiring energy and saying "I'm
> released!,
> no I'm captured, no I'm released!, no I'm captured" all at the
> same
> time. Makes no sense.
>
> If an electron is released by the acquisition of energy, which it
> is,
> then that energy has got to go away for it to be recaptured, or
> else
> it wasn't released, or else it isn't recaptured. But it can't be
> both
> at the same energy state.
>
>
>> OTOH, if
>>they must be ripped out of an atomic structure,
>
> There is no "OTOH." All materials have an atomic structure.
>
>> I would expect they
>>would always achieve enough velocity to escape the field, and
>>would
>>have to lose energy in order to return. But I'm still hung up on
>>the
>>surface thing...surfaces are a world of their own.
>
> What you're 'hung up' on is in attempting to deny that matter is
> made
> up of atoms and particles.
>
> Particle physics doesn't 'change', nor 'go away', based on the
> 'material' involved or that it's on a 'surface'.
>
>> Perhaps the test
>>is whether they emit photons in the process.
>
> They do.
>
>> Does the ether glow?
>
> Define glow.
>
>>>>Again, I don't go along with your atomic structure thing. It's
>>>>metal...or is it something else?
>>
>>> Surely you are aware that metals have an atomic structure. All
>>> elements and compounds do.
>>
>>Vaguely, ideally, sometimes, in varying degrees. Each metal can
>>have
>>loads of different structures depending on impurities and
>>formation.
>>The kind of metal you need to achieve decent perveance presumably
>>has very little structural energy invested in "outer" electron
>>positions. Not many materials make suitable cathodes, remember.
>>Cathode poisoning adds structure because compounds are formed, and
>>this stops emission.
>
> None of which has anything to do with the simple, basic, fact that
> all
> elements and compounds have an atomic structure.
>
>>>> Do your electrons emit photons when
>>>>they are returned to their "atomic structure"?
>>>
>>> Close enough.
>>
>>Eh?
>
> Ew, e, ew ah ah. Bing bang walla walla bing bang.
>
> Sorry, but that's all I know about "eh."
>
>>>> What frequency? IR?
>>>
>>> Depends on the energy state they were in and I'm not *that* good
>>> enough a quantum mechanic to calculate it.
>>
>>Well it doesn't appear to be visible light...and presumably it's
>>not
>>dangerous.
>
> Visible light is but a miniscule part of the EM spectrum and the
> only
> significance to it is our eyeballs like it. But electrons couldn't
> care less.
>
>>>>Anyway, back to the original question, you say that the electron
>>>>loses its energy by quantum emission. That is an interesting
>>>>contribution, thanks. I will look it up with respect to the
>>>>structure of metals!
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter if it's metal or anything else. An electron is an
>>> electron and electrons acquire/release energy by
>>> absorption/emission
>>> of quantum packets or, the synonym, photons.
>>
>>But of course it matters.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
>> Not every material makes a good cathode.
>
> "What makes a good cathode" isn't the topic.
>
>>My question is whether a change of "energy state" is necessarily
>>involved, or whether it is just a change in kinetic energy.
>
> How can you even say that? Kinetic ENERGY is ENERGY and a change
> in
> ENERGY is a change in the ENERGY state.
>
>>They can also acquire kinetic energy, and lose it, without
>>emitting
>>photons?
>
> Not in this context (meaning, for one, we're not talking about a
> particle smasher or matter-antimatter annihilation)
>
>>cheers, Ian
>>
>


.