K7ITM wrote in
ups.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

On 30 Aug, 23:33, Dave Oldridge wrote:
snip


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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It seams that many here have aligned themselvezs with modern
relativistic
theories expoused by scientists and lately championed by Einstein.
Yet to do this pushes aside great scientists of the past such as
Newton,
Ohm and many others with phoney thinking. The next decade will push
aside
this ludicrous thinking and move back to Newtonian thinking where
"equilibrium"
was always at center stage. Gravitation is at the center of all
science and to
build on anything else is to place a foundation on sand. Particulates
DO have mass
which thus places it firmly into Newtons Laws of physics areana which
has never been disproved.
Regards
Art

art wrote:

...
build on anything else is to place a foundation on sand. Particulates
DO have mass
...
Regards
Art


Ever seen a radiometer? What do you think turns those vanes--if it
ain't the "mass" of photons striking the plates? So, back to square
one, again?

Regards,
JS

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:20:50 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

What do you think turns those vanes--if it
ain't the "mass" of photons striking the plates?

Hmm, dare anyone ask either of you for a simple computation to support
this notion of "mass?"

If Arthur is so wedded to a Newtonian universe, it should be a walk in
the apple orchard.

A very simple question of rotational kinematics:
How much power is required to accelerate
the 1 gram mass of the vanes
from 0cM/s to 1cM/s in 10s?

Extra credit:
How many photons does it take to do this?

Extra special, super duper credit:
What is the weight of one of those photons?

You can use your calculator to convert mass to slugs in an Earth
environment. Of course, this may be an egregious speculation of
ability if the prior compuations are begged (or whined) off with
extraneous demands (not worth Newton's spit) for parsing F=MA.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Aug 31, 12:36 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:20:50 -0700, John Smith

wrote:
What do you think turns those vanes--if it
ain't the "mass" of photons striking the plates?

Hmm, dare anyone ask either of you for a simple computation to support
this notion of "mass?"

If Arthur is so wedded to a Newtonian universe, it should be a walk in
the apple orchard.

A very simple question of rotational kinematics:
How much power is required to accelerate
the 1 gram mass of the vanes
from 0cM/s to 1cM/s in 10s?

Extra credit:
How many photons does it take to do this?

Extra special, super duper credit:
What is the weight of one of those photons?

You can use your calculator to convert mass to slugs in an Earth
environment. Of course, this may be an egregious speculation of
ability if the prior compuations are begged (or whined) off with
extraneous demands (not worth Newton's spit) for parsing F=MA.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I'm left with the impression that JS, at least, hasn't a clue about
how those little radiometers actually work. (Or perhaps he just
thinks he's having fun with a little trolling.) Answers to your
questions, of course, won't get him there. Here are a couple of
questions that just might: Just how good is the vacuum in one of
those radiometers? What happens if you evacuate the globe down to,
say, 1e-6 Torr?

Cheers,
Tom

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:54:51 -0700, K7ITM wrote:

I'm left with the impression that JS, at least, hasn't a clue about
how those little radiometers actually work.

Hi Tom,

I was thinking more of Arthur who is quick to hug Newton's corpse to
prove his own "theory."

(Or perhaps he just
thinks he's having fun with a little trolling.)

Brett will plead guilty to that faster than an Idaho Senator in a
Minneapolis Airport lockup.

Answers to your
questions, of course, won't get him there.

Actually, I think they would. ...But not so handily as scribbling a
few lines of fluff passing as deep insights into the mysteries
Einstein couldn't fathom (like building a gaussian array).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 31 Aug, 14:40, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:54:51 -0700, K7ITM wrote:
I'm left with the impression that JS, at least, hasn't a clue about
how those little radiometers actually work.

Hi Tom,

I was thinking more of Arthur who is quick to hug Newton's corpse to
prove his own "theory."

(Or perhaps he just
thinks he's having fun with a little trolling.)

Brett will plead guilty to that faster than an Idaho Senator in a
Minneapolis Airport lockup.

Answers to your
questions, of course, won't get him there.

Actually, I think they would. ...But not so handily as scribbling a
few lines of fluff passing as deep insights into the mysteries
Einstein couldn't fathom (like building a gaussian array).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Einstein hasbeenproven wrong many many times.
Einstein also did not produce the Gaussian array
since it would prove him wrong once again.
Haven't you got anything to contribute of a technical nature
other than following news from Minninapolis airport stalls ?

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Actually, I think they would. ...But not so handily as scribbling a
few lines of fluff passing as deep insights into the mysteries
Einstein couldn't fathom (like building a gaussian array).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

:-)

Regards,
Brett! :-)

On Aug 31, 2:40 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:54:51 -0700, K7ITM wrote:
...
Answers to your
questions, of course, won't get him there.

Actually, I think they would.

Seriously?? Wow.

K7ITM wrote:

I'm left with the impression that JS, at least, hasn't a clue about
how those little radiometers actually work. (Or perhaps he just
thinks he's having fun with a little trolling.)

Both are correct, IMO.

ac6xg