"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/2015 8:43 AM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Exactly, Evans is simply looking for an excuse to hurl his repertoire of
abuse. He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him
countless times in the past. Sometimes he digs up basic things he should
have mastered decades ago, eg the super regen, Or, as here, looks up a
few
technical terms and launches into a topic he clearly has no knowledge
of.
Brian, M3OSN Old Chap, just because you are embarrassed that you do not
have the answers, that is no reason to let fly with such a gratuitous and
somewhat infantile tirade.
Reminds me of the old joke about the Lion in the jungle. One morning he
saunters forth and sees a monkey walking, he stops him and asks loudly,
"WHO'S THE KING OF THE JUNGLE?" The monkey says, "You are, sir" and the
lion goes on his way. Same thing happens with a boar and then a tiger.
Finally he comes across an elephant and asks loudly, "WHO'S THE KING OF
THE JUNGLE?" The elephant picks him up with his great trunk and slams him
against a tree, then against a rock and finally throws him 100 feet
crashing to the ground. The lion gets up, dusts himself off and with an
annoyed look says, "Just because you don't know the answer, you don't have
to get so mad!"


Very droll, but you cannot fail to have noticed that reay, as the organ
grinder,
never ontributes anything of value, but only ever sneers, which perhaps is
what lost him his job as a teacher. The organ grinder needs to change the
record.

As for the organ grinder's monkey, I am surprised that you lower yourself to
his level, for he has no technical acumen whatsoever, and his history since
joining
this NG 3 years ago is nothign but a litany of attention-seeking anti-social
infantile outbursts.

Don't believe me? I suggest that you should examine only the last moth's
outpourings into uk.radio.amateur
by stephen thomas cole.

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:32:53 +0100, Rambo wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:11:00 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay
wrote:


The usual rejects are all the same, but for the rows they stir up, they
have no life and certainly no pleasure.

You're implying therefore that your relentless harassment of another
poster suggests that you have no life and certainly no pleasure.

Thank you for confirming that which we all already know.

"No, you are!"

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

There is no reason to discuss this with him. He won't get what you are
saying.

I have an open mind, unlike those who desperately hold onto partial
knowledge with an almost religious fervour.

Yeah, sure.

I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which it *isn't*.

Why not say what it is, then?

A quanta of RF energy.

There is also little reason for me to point out the futility of discussing
this with Gareth. Every so often he starts a discussion and the band
starts playing. I don't know who is stupider, Gareth or the band.

Such abuse is themark of the ignoramus.

Shame on you.

Boo hoo.

Quanta at radio frequencies will be hard to prove.

Indeed.

True, but you have no clue why this is true, i.e. the practicallity
of building instrumenation to do it at frequencies much lower than
light.

But as someone pointed out, RF is emitted by individual atoms in an MRI
scan. So clearly that would be a quantum effect and not a continuous
wave.

It is neither, for it is simply near-field induction and not far-field
radiation.

Wrong again.

I
believe this is due to the RF energy absorbed by the atoms causing them to
flip spin. After a relaxation time (basically a delay) they revert to the
ground state and emit quanta of RF energy.

Quantised objects emit quantised radiation? Sure, but in the case of RF
antenna we are not dealing with radiation from sub-atomic processes.

We most certainly are.



--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their
probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot
separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is
exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas.

In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual
elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae.

An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage.


--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/2015 8:25 AM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their
probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot
separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is
exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas.
In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual
elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae.

Why not? Don't antenna have atoms and electrons?

irrelevant

Nope, totally relevant and what makes an antenna work.

snip remaining drivel


--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
...
As frequency is lowered from visible light, there is no reason to believe
that photons disappear when the frequency is below visible.

There is no reason to believe that they appear in the first place when no

As their existence has repeatedly been verified by expirement, your
lack of belief just betrays your ignorance.


--
Jim Pennino

"gareth" wrote in
:

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
As frequency is lowered from visible light, there is no reason to
believe that photons disappear when the frequency is below visible.

There is no reason to believe that they appear in the first place when
no mechanism exists for there creation,

Photons are no more created than waves are. They are simply different
manifestations of the same phenomenon.

for all quantisation theory
and experimental evidence arises from objects that are themselves
quantised and not as
multi-electrons in electric currents.

Photon behaviour has been observed at microwave frequencies. Why do you
suppose it suddenly stops, and at what frequency?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.0461.pdf


How many cycles make up your RF photon, say, at 14MHz?

Cycles of what? Take your time now. (Hint: the 'wave packet' model refers
to particles, not radiation)


How big is the photon?

GIGO. Have you forgotten already?
https://www.rp-photonics.com/spotlight_2008_05_05.html

"The trouble with that question is essentially that the photon is a
theoretical construction which does not have any straightforward
connection either with an entity of physical reality or with anything
simple which we can imagine."

On 9/10/2015 2:19 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/2015 8:43 AM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Exactly, Evans is simply looking for an excuse to hurl his repertoire of
abuse. He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him
countless times in the past. Sometimes he digs up basic things he should
have mastered decades ago, eg the super regen, Or, as here, looks up a
few
technical terms and launches into a topic he clearly has no knowledge
of.
Brian, M3OSN Old Chap, just because you are embarrassed that you do not
have the answers, that is no reason to let fly with such a gratuitous and
somewhat infantile tirade.
Reminds me of the old joke about the Lion in the jungle. One morning he
saunters forth and sees a monkey walking, he stops him and asks loudly,
"WHO'S THE KING OF THE JUNGLE?" The monkey says, "You are, sir" and the
lion goes on his way. Same thing happens with a boar and then a tiger.
Finally he comes across an elephant and asks loudly, "WHO'S THE KING OF
THE JUNGLE?" The elephant picks him up with his great trunk and slams him
against a tree, then against a rock and finally throws him 100 feet
crashing to the ground. The lion gets up, dusts himself off and with an
annoyed look says, "Just because you don't know the answer, you don't have
to get so mad!"


Very droll, but you cannot fail to have noticed that reay, as the organ
grinder,
never ontributes anything of value, but only ever sneers, which perhaps is
what lost him his job as a teacher. The organ grinder needs to change the
record.

As for the organ grinder's monkey, I am surprised that you lower yourself to
his level, for he has no technical acumen whatsoever, and his history since
joining
this NG 3 years ago is nothign but a litany of attention-seeking anti-social
infantile outbursts.

Don't believe me? I suggest that you should examine only the last moth's
outpourings into uk.radio.amateur
by stephen thomas cole.

You are sir, you are king of the jungle!

--

Rick

On 9/10/2015 2:15 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/2015 8:25 AM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their
probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot
separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is
exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas.
In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual
elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae.

Why not? Don't antenna have atoms and electrons?

irrelevant

Isn't the EM wave made by the electrons movement?

With voltage pressure giving rise to acceleration, yes, but not by quantised
changes of electron orbits.

Who said quanta can only be generated by "quantised[sic] changes of
electron orbits"? Oh, why am I being sucked into this idiotic discussion?

It has been stated before that the EM emitted by atoms flipping spin
state in a magnetic field must, by your definition, emit quanta, but you
wave your hands and say, "Foul! NEAR FIELD" whatever that means to you.
I expect you don't really understand what near field and far field are
really about.


Electrons generate packets of EM energy called Quanta.

Irrelevamt.

Yes, you are right. Everything about quanta are irrelevant to a
discussion of quanta.


I expect you are bright enough to calculate the energy of a single EM
quantum at 1 MHz. How much energy is it? What is the size of *any*
quantum?

I say that they do not exist. Let those who claim their existence make such
a calculation
and thereby ridicule themselves.

Yes, indeed! Let the ridicule begin!

The point being that QM predicts the size and energy of a quanta based
on the frequency. It's not really rocket science.

--

Rick

On 9/10/2015 2:47 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their
probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot
separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is
exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas.

In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual
elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae.

An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage.

All this time I thought it was an AC current!

--

Rick