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