Gene Fuller wrote:
Why do you seem to believe that bringing photons into the discussion
adds any light? (pun intended)

Does the word "photon" sound more hifalutin than "wave"?

Using "photons" instead of "EM waves" makes things a little
more obvious. While "standing EM waves" may imply EM waves
that are standing still, "standing photons" are obviously
impossible. Photons cannot stand still. EM waves cannot
stand still for the same reason. A "standing EM wave" is
a human abstraction that doesn't really exist in reality.

The only people with something to gain by objecting to
the use of "EM waves" and "photons" interchangeably are the
people trying to hoodwink the uninitiated into believing
that photons can stand still. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Why do you seem to believe that bringing photons into the discussion
adds any light? (pun intended)

Does the word "photon" sound more hifalutin than "wave"?

Using "photons" instead of "EM waves" makes things a little
more obvious. While "standing EM waves" may imply EM waves
that are standing still, "standing photons" are obviously
impossible. Photons cannot stand still. EM waves cannot
stand still for the same reason. A "standing EM wave" is
a human abstraction that doesn't really exist in reality.

The only people with something to gain by objecting to
the use of "EM waves" and "photons" interchangeably are the
people trying to hoodwink the uninitiated into believing
that photons can stand still. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


Cecil,

There seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect here. Waves don't
create radiation; photons don't create radiation; accelerating charges
do create radiation.

You seem to be placing some sort of restriction on the motion of those
charges. They can move or stand still as they please. Some folks around
here appear to think that standing waves are totally inert, and
therefore totally useless or even fictitious. There are most definitely
accelerating charges in a standing wave, and that accelerated charge
generates the desired radiation. Call it "sloshing" if you wish, but it
still works.

What difference does it make if the wave on the antenna and the radiated
wave in space can be defined as photons?

Answer: None whatsoever, and there is not even any insight gained into
the radiation mechanism at HF.

In case there is any doubt, let me say it again;

Adding photons into the discussion of HF radiation adds absolutely
nothing but confusion.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:34:32 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Adding photons into the discussion of HF radiation adds absolutely
nothing but confusion.

Hi Gene,

I seriously doubt that, the confusion is already super-saturated.
Perhaps you meant it might add more precipitate.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gene Fuller wrote:
There seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect here. Waves don't
create radiation; photons don't create radiation; accelerating charges
do create radiation.

Who cares? Photons can form standing waves in free space.
Where are your accelerating charges in a vacuum? Everything
that happens to EM waves in a wire, or a waveguide, also
happen to EM waves in free space.

You want to talk about the ocean and ignore the Tsunami.

What difference does it make if the wave on the antenna and the radiated
wave in space can be defined as photons?

Answer: None whatsoever, ...

That's your agenda and you're sticking to it. Like
I said, some people apparently enjoy hoodwinking the
uninitiated. What else do you have to gain by ignoring
the photonic nature of EM waves?

Accelerating charges do not morph into EM waves.
Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave. Ignoring the photonic nature of EM waves is
the cause of the present mass confusion about
standing waves. Why on earth would you want that
mass confusion to continue?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
There seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect here. Waves don't
create radiation; photons don't create radiation; accelerating charges
do create radiation.

Who cares? Photons can form standing waves in free space.
Where are your accelerating charges in a vacuum? Everything
that happens to EM waves in a wire, or a waveguide, also
happen to EM waves in free space.

You want to talk about the ocean and ignore the Tsunami.

What difference does it make if the wave on the antenna and the
radiated wave in space can be defined as photons?

Answer: None whatsoever, ...

That's your agenda and you're sticking to it. Like
I said, some people apparently enjoy hoodwinking the
uninitiated. What else do you have to gain by ignoring
the photonic nature of EM waves?

Accelerating charges do not morph into EM waves.
Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave. Ignoring the photonic nature of EM waves is
the cause of the present mass confusion about
standing waves. Why on earth would you want that
mass confusion to continue?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


Cecil,

So sorry. I thought that your 75m Bugcatcher Coil was a real, metallic
object. If it is really nothing but free space, then I will agree with
your assertions. The waves on your free space coil therefore have no
connection to charges on a wire.

I also forgot that all standing waves are identical, whether in free
space or on a wire.

I particularly love the wording you used, "Accelerating charges do not
morph into EM waves. Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave."

Did you ever hear of wave-particle duality? Did you ever read a serious
treatment of radiation from antennas. Did you find lots of references to
photon release, say, in Kraus or Balanis?

Reversing the question you posed above, what do you gain by including
the photonic nature of EM waves?

I will try harder to follow the change of topic in the future.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 10 May, 13:38, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
Some time ago I stated that a yagi antenna operated under a
mathematical binomial function. This was termed as junk science in
this group which raises the question again as where does the energy
that is not reradiated go ?

" A perfectly matched antenna only reradiates 50 % of the energy that
it receives"

This also suggests that an array without parasitics required for
reradiation is a lot more efficient than an antenna with parasitics.
Seems like this group is going around in circles unless this 50% finds
a way to radiate in some alternative way !
Is the 'perfectly matched' statement of any importance that demands
it's inclusion with respect to re-radiation efficiency of an antenna?
Regards
Art

On 10 May 2007 14:13:15 -0700, art wrote:

where does the energy
that is not reradiated go ?

Hi Art,

Into the load.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Richard,

That is a well-known factoid. Do you think it differs from something I
said? You note that current is involved in the reradiation.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

That is a well-known factoid. Do you think it differs from something I
said? You note that current is involved in the reradiation.

Hint: If waves cause currents that in turn, cause
re-radiation, then Richard has proved your, "waves
don't cause radiation", assertion to be false.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com