On 31 Aug, 09:01, K7ITM wrote:
On Aug 30, 11:33 pm, Dave Oldridge
wrote:





K7ITM wrote roups.com:

On Aug 29, 4:11 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...

Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing
antennas emitting photons?

And, I would answer:

Photon emissions from an antenna element(s) seems difficult, at
best, to visualize (no pun intended.)

Consider a 1/2 inch dia. single element antenna (monopole?) If the
thing is emitting photons, one would think the photons are being
emitted equally around the elements circumference.

Well, now flatten that 1/2 dia rod into a very thin
ribbon--however, the ribbon still has the same area of cross
section, and equal to the cross section of the round rod. If this
conductor is emitting photons, one would expect them, now, to be
off the two flat sides of the element and relative few off the
sides--indeed, one would now expect this element to be becoming
directional in two favored directions--off the flat sides ...
to date, I have NOT been able to measure an acceptable difference
to reinforce the "illumination properties" of the element.

The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and
proof hard to come by.

Regards,
JS

John

Imagine your ribbon antena flattened to the thickness of a razor
blade. Instead of using RF, heat the antenna with a blow torch until
it becomes white hot.

It is only when looking at the exact edge of the antenna that any
appreciable drop in light out put will be noticed. At all broadside
angles an appreciable amount of light would be seen. The same effects
can be expected to occur at RF but the majority of amateur test
equipment would not have the resolution to measure the dip with the
antenna edge on. The width of the receiving antenna and diffraction
effects would tend to hide this in the far field, and alignment,
reflection effects and manufacturing tolerances in the near field.

Or perhaps more appropriately, with visible light being around 500
nanometers wavelength, imagine your antenna wire being about 0.01
nanometers thick and 1 nanometer wide (and 250 nanometers long, if you
wish) ... Now does you intuition tell you anything useful about the
angular distribution of emitted photons? I suppose not.

The real reason that photons are not a particularly useful concept in RF
design is that they are vanishingly small in energy, due to the rather
long wavelenths. I doubt if there is any equipment that would actually
intercept a MEASURABLE photon at most radio frequencies. You cannot
always say that of short-wavelength gamma rays or even light.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Yes, exactly. As I pointed out in another posting in this thread, for
14MHz electromagnetic radiation, it takes about 1e6 quanta per second
to equal the noise power in a one Hz bandwidth in a resistor at room
temperature. I suppose it could be open to discussion exactly _what_
the low energy per quantum is due to. That might be more interesting
than a lot else that's gone on in this thread, so far.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh I don't know about that. I find some of the comments quite
interesting
since it shows that there are some interested thinkers out there who
are interested in relativistic
versus particulate theorems and its connection to electro magnetic
waves.
The thread has certainly attracted a lot of attention from hams
interested in the mystery
of communication transmission beyond the glib and unverifiable
statements made by some .
Art

K7ITM wrote:

...
the low energy per quantum is due to. That might be more interesting
than a lot else that's gone on in this thread, so far.


Don't be surprised if you do not receive a greater return than what you
put into this thread, don't expect much at his point ... perhaps later?

Regards,
JS

Dave Oldridge wrote:

...
The real reason that photons are not a particularly useful concept in RF
design is that they are vanishingly small in energy, due to the rather
long wavelenths. I doubt if there is any equipment that would actually
intercept a MEASURABLE photon at most radio frequencies. You cannot
always say that of short-wavelength gamma rays or even light.

Yeah. And, photons like razor edges, with a passion! ROFLOL!

JS

Mike Kaliski wrote:

...
It is only when looking at the exact edge of the antenna that any
appreciable drop in light out put will be noticed. At all broadside
angles an appreciable amount of light would be seen. The same effects
can be expected to occur at RF but the majority of amateur test
equipment would not have the resolution to measure the dip with the
antenna edge on. The width of the receiving antenna and diffraction
effects would tend to hide this in the far field, and alignment,
reflection effects and manufacturing tolerances in the near field.
...
Mike G0ULI

The eye, like the ear, has defects, in the fact it is not linear.

However, if a ribbon the width and depth of a razor blade is white hot,
a light meter available and rotated around this ribbon--the least energy
would come from the side, the most from the flat. There would be
something of a linear graph in the 90 degree rotation between thinnest
to broadest ... please, don't attempt to kid a kidder.

Regards,
JS

How is it that you guys are comparing the photon, a sub-atomic particle
without mass, to electromagnetic radiation/waves? I don't see a basis
for comparison.....


Ed K7AAT

On 30 Aug 2007 01:04:08 GMT, Ed G
wrote:

How is it that you guys are comparing the photon, a sub-atomic particle
without mass, to electromagnetic radiation/waves? I don't see a basis
for comparison.....

Hi Ed,

Mass as a basis of comparison implied:
How much do your electromagnetic radiation/waves weigh?
How thick is sunlight on your arm while driving?

If they don't compare, then these questions should reveal differences
when light is substituted for waves (and versa-visa).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in
:

On 30 Aug 2007 01:04:08 GMT, Ed G
wrote:

How is it that you guys are comparing the photon, a sub-atomic
particle
without mass, to electromagnetic radiation/waves? I don't see a
basis for comparison.....

Hi Ed,

Mass as a basis of comparison implied:
How much do your electromagnetic radiation/waves weigh?
How thick is sunlight on your arm while driving?

If they don't compare, then these questions should reveal differences
when light is substituted for waves (and versa-visa).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC



Sorry, the above just doesn't compute with me. I'll sit aside in
this thread and just watch.....

Ed

Ed G wrote:

...
Sorry, the above just doesn't compute with me. I'll sit aside in
this thread and just watch.....

Ed

Ed:

In a nut shell:

Light displays the qualities of consisting of photons AND waves.
Naturally the question arises, "Is light composed totally of one or the
other--or both?" (and, you can propose all sorts of side questions from
this one ...)

Some argue that this extends to rf also (at the top of the microwaves
there is the infrared, at least enough to gain ones' attention.) And,
some even go as far as to say rf is composed of photons--ONLY, but these
have wave qualities.

This URL should get you well established on the ground floor of this
ongoing debate and "friendly" argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Regards,
JS

Ed G wrote:
How is it that you guys are comparing the photon, a sub-atomic particle
without mass, to electromagnetic radiation/waves? I don't see a basis
for comparison.....

EM waves are sets of coherent photons.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
EM waves are sets of coherent photons.

Cecil:

I composed this thread with you in mind.

Welcome back from retirement. The level of argument you bring was
sorely missed. :-)

Regards,
JS