"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"The antenna, like the eye, is a transformation device converting
electromagnetic
photons into circuit currents; but, unlike the eye, the antenna can also
convert energy
from a circuit into photons radiated into space. In simplest terms an
antenna converts
photons to currents or vice versa." Antennas, Second Edition, 1988, by
John
D. Kraus. Page 19.

IMHO, antennae do not radiate photons. and the misunderstanding arises from
the photons that are generated from electrons shifting to lower energy
orbits around
atoms.

In tha case of currents within antennae, the energy is the potential energy
brought
about by compressing electrons against each other, against their inherent
mutual repulsion,
and is a different mechanism than that which generates photons.

gareth wrote:

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"The antenna, like the eye, is a transformation device converting
electromagnetic
photons into circuit currents; but, unlike the eye, the antenna can also
convert energy
from a circuit into photons radiated into space. In simplest terms an
antenna converts
photons to currents or vice versa." Antennas, Second Edition, 1988, by
John
D. Kraus. Page 19.

IMHO, antennae do not radiate photons. and the misunderstanding arises from
the photons that are generated from electrons shifting to lower energy
orbits around
atoms.

In tha case of currents within antennae, the energy is the potential energy
brought
about by compressing electrons against each other, against their inherent
mutual repulsion,
and is a different mechanism than that which generates photons.

You come a little late to this discussion. Perhaps you would like to
explain, on the basis of your theory that there are two kinds of
electromagnetic radiation based on the means of their generation, how
you tell which kind of em radiation you are observing, the one which
also exists as photons or the one that doesn't? Preferably show the
answer mathematically.


--
Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

You come a little late to this discussion. Perhaps you would like to
explain, on the basis of your theory that there are two kinds of
electromagnetic radiation based on the means of their generation,

I do not have such a theory.

Both are the same type whether generated continuously or photonically.

gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

You come a little late to this discussion. Perhaps you would like to
explain, on the basis of your theory that there are two kinds of
electromagnetic radiation based on the means of their generation,

I do not have such a theory.

Both are the same type whether generated continuously or photonically.

From which it folllows inevitably that they continue to exist as both
photons and waves. Photons don't only exist at the creation of a wave.


--
Roger Hayter

On 9/7/2015 3:54 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

You come a little late to this discussion. Perhaps you would like to
explain, on the basis of your theory that there are two kinds of
electromagnetic radiation based on the means of their generation,

I do not have such a theory.

Both are the same type whether generated continuously or photonically.

From which it folllows inevitably that they continue to exist as both
photons and waves. Photons don't only exist at the creation of a wave.

Really? You do realize you are having a conversation with the
equivalent of the village idiot? He is never going to say, "Oh, I see.
That makes sense." or "Thanks for that. It was helpful." He is just
going to continue to spew garbage science and create a very long winded
thread about his own junk.

I was on a vacation through Nova Scotia once and stopped in a small
general store. A guy in a wheelchair in the back was obviously not
"with it". I said hi to him and waited to see if I got a response. The
two girls at the counter giggled at my attempts. The difference is you
have no reason to expect a more reasonable reply.

--

Rick

"rickman" wrote in message
...
Really? You do realize you are having a conversation with the equivalent
of the village idiot? He is never going to say, "Oh, I see. That makes
sense." or "Thanks for that. It was helpful." He is just going to
continue to spew garbage science and create a very long winded thread
about his own junk.
I was on a vacation through Nova Scotia once and stopped in a small
general store. A guy in a wheelchair in the back was obviously not "with
it". I said hi to him and waited to see if I got a response. The two
girls at the counter giggled at my attempts. The difference is you have
no reason to expect a more reasonable reply.

The very sort of childish contribution to be expected from someone
intellectually
challenged.

Grow up there, OM.

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
You come a little late to this discussion. Perhaps you would like to
explain, on the basis of your theory that there are two kinds of
electromagnetic radiation based on the means of their generation,
I do not have such a theory.
Both are the same type whether generated continuously or photonically.
From which it folllows inevitably that they continue to exist as both
photons and waves. Photons don't only exist at the creation of a wave.

Your comments add nothing apposite to the discussion.

gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
You come a little late to this discussion. Perhaps you would like to
explain, on the basis of your theory that there are two kinds of
electromagnetic radiation based on the means of their generation,
I do not have such a theory.
Both are the same type whether generated continuously or photonically.
From which it folllows inevitably that they continue to exist as both
photons and waves. Photons don't only exist at the creation of a wave.

Your comments add nothing apposite to the discussion.

Having made the (conclusive, whether you regard it as 'apposite' or not)
main point I shan't discuss it with you further.

--
Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
You come a little late to this discussion. Perhaps you would like
to
explain, on the basis of your theory that there are two kinds of
electromagnetic radiation based on the means of their generation,
I do not have such a theory.
Both are the same type whether generated continuously or photonically.
From which it folllows inevitably that they continue to exist as both
photons and waves. Photons don't only exist at the creation of a
wave.
Your comments add nothing apposite to the discussion.
Having made the (conclusive, whether you regard it as 'apposite' or not)
main point I shan't discuss it with you further.

Then, just as does M3OSN, you run away when faced with discussion.

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"The antenna, like the eye, is a transformation device converting
electromagnetic
photons into circuit currents; but, unlike the eye, the antenna can
also
convert energy
from a circuit into photons radiated into space. In simplest terms an
antenna converts
photons to currents or vice versa." Antennas, Second Edition, 1988, by
John
D. Kraus. Page 19.
IMHO, antennae do not radiate photons. and the misunderstanding arises
from
the photons that are generated from electrons shifting to lower energy
orbits around
atoms.
In tha case of currents within antennae, the energy is the potential
energy
brought
about by compressing electrons against each other, against their inherent
mutual repulsion,
and is a different mechanism than that which generates photons.
You come a little late to this discussion. Perhaps you would like to
explain, on the basis of your theory that there are two kinds of
electromagnetic radiation based on the means of their generation, how
you tell which kind of em radiation you are observing, the one which
also exists as photons or the one that doesn't? Preferably show the
answer mathematically.

Insofar as you make a mathematical challenge, perhaps you could deal with
some simpler
numerical queries ...

How many complete cycles make up one of your RF photons?

What is the formula for the amplitude envelope of your RF photon?

As there is no maser mechanism in a dipole antenna, what is the mechanism
that ensures that all
of your RF photons are coherent?

If the RF photons are not coherent, then why is no amplitude and phase
distortion apparent on
a single unmodulated carrier wave?