Richard Clark wrote:

...
Try the combination of all amplitudes and phases at a distance (pretty
usual stuff already covered).
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

For you Richard, just remember to stand the broadside of a stove on cold
winter days--wouldn't want 'ya to catch yer death of cold! :-)

Regards,
JS

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:22:30 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

For you Richard, just remember to stand the broadside of a stove on cold
winter days--wouldn't want 'ya to catch yer death of cold! :-)

That has nothing to do with Photons.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Aug 29, 5:35 pm, John Smith wrote:
K7ITM wrote:

...

On the other hand, there's probably not much utility in discussing
photons of, say, a 14MHz signal, simply because the energy contained
in one quantum at that frequency is so small that you won't be able to
detect it: a little less than 10^-26 joules per photon. At one
photon per second, that's under 10^-26 watts, if you collect all the
energy. At 50 ohms, that's less than a picovolt. Noise in a 1Hz
bandwidth in a 50 ohm resistor at room temperature is about a
thousand times that much. -- Yes, the energy is quantized. But the
quanta are going to be _very_ difficult to distinguish.

Cheers,
Tom

If there are, indeed, as many photons being emitted by the thin edge of
the ribbon, as by the broad edges, what law/effect/affect is being
demonstrated here?

Or. why are the photons "drawn" to the thin edge with such magnitude of
force?

The 14MHz photons are being emitted by the whole antenna, not by
"broad edges" or "thin edges" as you suggest. You seem to be thinking
of them as little tiny balls, or some such. That mental image just
doesn't hold water. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, photons do
not behave like billiard balls. They don't behave like anything you
have encountered in the macro world we live in.

There are some decent "modern physics for the masses" books that will
explain to you some of the behaviour that you will probably think very
strange, if you are thinking in terms of how the macro particles
you're familiar with behave. Even particles like electrons, neutrons
and protons don't behave like large spheres. They have distinct "wave-
like" behaviour.

As a start, it would probably help if you dropped "wave" and
"photon" (particle) from your vocabulary when dealing with things like
this and realize that the antenna emits a stream of quantized energy,
with characteristics that can be described accurately without
resorting to "particles" or "waves". If you had no idea what a
passenger airplane was, but you were familiar with birds and busses,
would you get into a discussion about the new thing being a bird and
not a bus, or a bus and not a bird? Or would you realize that it has
some characteristics of each, but is neither, and deserves a
description all its own? Quantized radiation is rather like that.
You will NOT describe it accurately as either "waves" or
"particles" (in the macro sense).

Cheers,
Tom

The following of yours is very interesting, very descriptive and sounds
very scientific.

So now, the only question left, which seems implied by you, is, "Do I
get it?"

To which I reply, EUREKA! YES! Indeed, since we got rid of photons and
waves--we are only left with quanta! And, if we now construct a
"quanta-antenna", such as you imply, we can have a "160 meter earth
scorcher" the size of pin head which is just as an efficient radiator as
the MONSTER in my backyard!

Thanks for the explanation--I won't forget you for awhile! grin

Regards,
JS

K7ITM wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:35 pm, John Smith wrote:
K7ITM wrote:

...

On the other hand, there's probably not much utility in discussing
photons of, say, a 14MHz signal, simply because the energy contained
in one quantum at that frequency is so small that you won't be able to
detect it: a little less than 10^-26 joules per photon. At one
photon per second, that's under 10^-26 watts, if you collect all the
energy. At 50 ohms, that's less than a picovolt. Noise in a 1Hz
bandwidth in a 50 ohm resistor at room temperature is about a
thousand times that much. -- Yes, the energy is quantized. But the
quanta are going to be _very_ difficult to distinguish.
Cheers,
Tom
If there are, indeed, as many photons being emitted by the thin edge of
the ribbon, as by the broad edges, what law/effect/affect is being
demonstrated here?

Or. why are the photons "drawn" to the thin edge with such magnitude of
force?

The 14MHz photons are being emitted by the whole antenna, not by
"broad edges" or "thin edges" as you suggest. You seem to be thinking
of them as little tiny balls, or some such. That mental image just
doesn't hold water. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, photons do
not behave like billiard balls. They don't behave like anything you
have encountered in the macro world we live in.

There are some decent "modern physics for the masses" books that will
explain to you some of the behaviour that you will probably think very
strange, if you are thinking in terms of how the macro particles
you're familiar with behave. Even particles like electrons, neutrons
and protons don't behave like large spheres. They have distinct "wave-
like" behaviour.

As a start, it would probably help if you dropped "wave" and
"photon" (particle) from your vocabulary when dealing with things like
this and realize that the antenna emits a stream of quantized energy,
with characteristics that can be described accurately without
resorting to "particles" or "waves". If you had no idea what a
passenger airplane was, but you were familiar with birds and busses,
would you get into a discussion about the new thing being a bird and
not a bus, or a bus and not a bird? Or would you realize that it has
some characteristics of each, but is neither, and deserves a
description all its own? Quantized radiation is rather like that.
You will NOT describe it accurately as either "waves" or
"particles" (in the macro sense).

Cheers,
Tom

John Smith wrote:

...

The more I think about this, the clearer it gets.

What was wrong with me? Considering photons as little weightless,
billiard ball shaped "chunks" of energy?

I missed the boat, and early on--thick skulled and as slow as they come.
I now see 'em as cubes, tubes, polygons, irregular, indescribable,
ghostly, luminous, streaming strings ... of chunks of energy!

Yes, that is it, strings! And, it all fits! Dr. Michio Kaku has been
spouting string theory off the tops of high buildings for years--ahhh,
if only I'd had not been so dense--for so long ... :-(

Yes. This is quite better than my slow acceptance of the ether and "our
matter/energy" only existing as an "altered and unnatural form" of this
very same ether ...

I swear, sometimes I just need someone to save me from myself--my new
wife is beginning to, frequently, point this out to me--thank goodness!
Maybe next time, I just might have the good sense to listen. grin

Regards,
JS

On Aug 29, 8:55 pm, John Smith wrote:
The following of yours is very interesting, very descriptive and sounds
very scientific.

So now, the only question left, which seems implied by you, is, "Do I
get it?"

To which I reply, EUREKA! YES! Indeed, since we got rid of photons and
waves--we are only left with quanta! And, if we now construct a
"quanta-antenna", such as you imply, we can have a "160 meter earth
scorcher" the size of pin head which is just as an efficient radiator as
the MONSTER in my backyard!

Thanks for the explanation--I won't forget you for awhile! grin

Regards,
JS

Hey, great job of leaping to confusion, John! ;-)

K7ITM wrote:r
. . .If you had no idea what a
passenger airplane was, but you were familiar with birds and busses,
would you get into a discussion about the new thing being a bird and
not a bus, or a bus and not a bird?
. . .

I know the answer to that one! And I also know who would be making the
majority of the postings.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote in news:13dcljlrausna18
@corp.supernews.com:

I know the answer to that one! And I also know who would be making the
majority of the postings.

.... but, more importantly the last posting.

Owen

On 29 Aug, 20:47, K7ITM wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:35 pm, John Smith wrote:





K7ITM wrote:

...

On the other hand, there's probably not much utility in discussing
photons of, say, a 14MHz signal, simply because the energy contained
in one quantum at that frequency is so small that you won't be able to
detect it: a little less than 10^-26 joules per photon. At one
photon per second, that's under 10^-26 watts, if you collect all the
energy. At 50 ohms, that's less than a picovolt. Noise in a 1Hz
bandwidth in a 50 ohm resistor at room temperature is about a
thousand times that much. -- Yes, the energy is quantized. But the
quanta are going to be _very_ difficult to distinguish.

Cheers,
Tom

If there are, indeed, as many photons being emitted by the thin edge of
the ribbon, as by the broad edges, what law/effect/affect is being
demonstrated here?

Or. why are the photons "drawn" to the thin edge with such magnitude of
force?

The 14MHz photons are being emitted by the whole antenna, not by
"broad edges" or "thin edges" as you suggest. You seem to be thinking
of them as little tiny balls, or some such. That mental image just
doesn't hold water. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, photons do
not behave like billiard balls. They don't behave like anything you
have encountered in the macro world we live in.

There are some decent "modern physics for the masses" books that will
explain to you some of the behaviour that you will probably think very
strange, if you are thinking in terms of how the macro particles
you're familiar with behave. Even particles like electrons, neutrons
and protons don't behave like large spheres. They have distinct "wave-
like" behaviour.

As a start, it would probably help if you dropped "wave" and
"photon" (particle) from your vocabulary when dealing with things like
this and realize that the antenna emits a stream of quantized energy,
with characteristics that can be described accurately without
resorting to "particles" or "waves". If you had no idea what a
passenger airplane was, but you were familiar with birds and busses,
would you get into a discussion about the new thing being a bird and
not a bus, or a bus and not a bird? Or would you realize that it has
some characteristics of each, but is neither, and deserves a
description all its own? Quantized radiation is rather like that.
You will NOT describe it accurately as either "waves" or
"particles" (in the macro sense).

Cheers,
Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I like that explanation, a "packet" or a "swarm" of particles
in pulsatic form. That last additive bit is extremely important
because
the escape co ordinates change with each pulse.
This should satisfy those who seem to be more concerned with the size
or
shape of particulates. The bird part is especially interesting since a
swarm of birds
emulate equilibrium in mass form without collisions.
Art

John Smith wrote:
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

Get a copy of Richard Feynman's "QED". It's 4 of his lectures on the
subject.

jk