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

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:53:25 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

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

(You don't close quotes is one larf. Why people laugh is a condition
of creationist-like explanations that attend the topic.)

And, I would answer:

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

The explanation is simple. Because of the pun (intended or otherwise)
too many expect that the experience of "seeing" is sufficient to
understanding "visualization." Nothing could be further from the
truth. The quote that follows provides sufficient evidence to this:

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.

This confuses thinking with visualization now. Unfortunately it
proceeds from a false premise. It is also a false premise if we
simply ignore "photon" and discuss this in the rather more prosaic
term of "fields."

All points of all surfaces are active emitters. Your "perception"
(visualization) is a far field response of the total contributions of
all sources and their phases. This perception creates an "illusion."
Illusions are fun and interesting, but they bear only on cognitive
issues, not Physics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Unless there is a clear, defined and model-able example of why a "rf
photon" would behave different than a "light photon"--I expect both to
obey current laws/actions/expected-behaviors.

However, everyone enjoys a good fairytale, now and then.

There it is == "

The missing double quote! :-)

Regards,
JS

On 29 Aug, 14:57, John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Unless there is a clear, defined and model-able example of why a "rf
photon" would behave different than a "light photon"--I expect both to
obey current laws/actions/expected-behaviors.

However, everyone enjoys a good fairytale, now and then.

There it is == "

The missing double quote! :-)

Regards,
JS

Intersting debating point as to whether it is a fairy tail!
May I point out that a H bomb explosion creats via the velocity of the
explosion
radiation with out the use of a resonant element! In the old days we
used a spark gap to create
radiation again without a resonant element! Tho scientists would say
that it is a consequence
of time varient current and thus settle on the current change of
velocity ie accelleration, They could have easily stated that
radiation is pulsed form after all current does go thru zero and
Newton himself phrased it as "packets"
of radiation in his day. But keeping to the same rules of the Masters
of what creats radiation one could easily see from the explosion
theory that radiation is created by the exchange of energy between
capapaciters and inductance
each of which provides a explosion when shorted at the end of each
cycle which promotes the particulate theorem without conflict with the
Masters. I would remind you that "Gausses theorem" with respect to
equilibrium supports the particulate theorem which to the surprise of
many is supported by Maxwells equations. I read the reply that you got
but I could not determine his position if any or what points he was
trying to make...if any.
A point to ponder on, capacitance and inductance are both capable of
energy storage and shorting the terminals is time varient to eject
particulates at a high velocity thus creatin two pulses per cycle and
where in their absence scientists have only time varient current to
hang their hats on for the wave theorem.
Regards
Art

"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.

An example from nature can be seen when looking at the planet Saturn. The
rings are clearly visible through even a small telescope except for a couple
of weeks when they are aligned exactly edge on to the earth. Even at very
oblique angles, enough light is reflected to make them quite visible.

Mike G0ULI

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.

Cheers,
Tom

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 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.