**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

I wrote:
...the differences are quite clear.

"Richard Clark":
..."what is different" is what I asked for.

My views of the differences were already explicitly listed:
It's the difference between optics
and EM (Yes, I know, I know...*),
or between nerves and conductors,
or between biology and physics.

[*I'm as in favour of the fundamental sameness of light to radio waves as
anyone.]

I would have thought it an obvious and reasonable assumption that biological
optical sensors, including insects, are typically based on 'wetware'
(photochemical reactions). In other words, the question is - are the
insect's optical receptors (INSIDE the photoreceptor cells which are
themselves clustered INSIDE the purely-structural ommatidium) something
functionally similar to a quarter-lamda conductors, or something related to
an optical/photochemical sensor (wetware) ???

Here's a webpage that states that all eyes (including humans and the fruit
fly, an insect) have the same genetic basis (read the whole thing
carefully - it is interesting):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_044_01.html

It seems that my assumption is not not only reasonable, but also seems to be
correct. Eyes (human or insect) are wetware, not antennas. Just as I
assumed.

Thus, K4WGE's comment (below) about the CNN news is not applicable.
"k4wge" supposed incorrectly:
This antenna was invented much earlier, actually, as the
compound eye of insects and other arthropods.

And to explicitly answer your question:
"Richard Clark"
What's the difference in Truro?

Discussed in exhaustive detail above - couldn't possibly be more clear.

As you know, it is impossible to prove a negative, but here is as close as I
can get:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22in...ye%22+monopole
'Your search - "insect eye" monopole - did not match any documents.'
[Can't use 'antenna' for obvious reasons - insects - think about it...]

The ball is firmly in your court to better my negative search results with a
link that clearly supports the position that you appear to be supporting
(insect eyes = antennas). I'm asking you to prove a positive. Can you
point me to anything on the WWW that clearly backs-up your apparent (?)
position that insect eyes are based on 'antennas'? I believe that your
position, apparently supporting K4WGE's apparently incorrect statement, is
nuked and a smoldering ruin, but I'm open to more data.

Also, if anyone has any links to prior art 'visible' light scale antennas,
please post links. IR need not apply - could be ten times the size (maybe
more).


More than two cars at an intersection is a traffic jam?

It seems that you've never been to the Truro (that I'm referring to) on a
Saturday. There are rumours that missing union leader Jimmy Hoffa might
simply be stuck in traffic somewhere near downtown Truro, NS.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=