On 9/11/2015 6:44 AM, gareth wrote:

2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

They aren't needed. We have already given you an example of RF
radiation from an atom in the MRI. You say somehow that is related to
"near-field", but that is meaningless in this context.

--

Rick

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/11/2015 6:44 AM, gareth wrote:

2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same
intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions
of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

They aren't needed.

So we could have antennae that are only one molecule high, do you mean?

On 9/11/2015 1:22 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/11/2015 6:44 AM, gareth wrote:

2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same
intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions
of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

They aren't needed.

So we could have antennae that are only one molecule high, do you mean?

It would be very hard to drive. I think the impedance would be
phenomenally small.

--

Rick

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/11/2015 6:44 AM, gareth wrote:

2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same
intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions
of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

They aren't needed.

So we could have antennae that are only one molecule high, do you mean?

First you would have to be able to understand that electromagnetic energy
can be generated by more than one mechanism.



--
Jim Pennino

On 11/09/2015 11:44, gareth wrote:
1. If your RF photons are merely a packet of energy for which it is
meaningless to
talk about frequency, what is the difference between your RF photons when
listening to a signal on 14.1 MHz and those of your RF photons when
listening
to a signal on 472 kHz?

Frequency.

2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

To get trillions and trillions of photons to carry the energy in the
same way that a wartime searchlight is bigger than my old pocket torch.

3. Also, if your RF photons are generated by that same intra-atomic process,
then
what must be the laser / maser like process that induces all the atoms in a
half-wave dipole
to produce the photons in the appropriate phase relationship?

No. A laser/maser produces coherent photons, all at the same frequency
and direction. Normal processes produce incoherent photons of a wide
range of frequencies and direction. There is no "RF laser" operating in
an antenna otherwise the gain would be spectacular.

4. When I listen to a single dit, the E of Morse (Really Vail?) Code, if the
photon has no
beginning, no end, and no am modulation to bring about such a beginning and
end, then
why do I not hear a continuous never-ending dit?

This has already been explained to you in other threads.

I quote "Because they carry on forever passing you and going out into
space the collective signal getting weaker and weaker according to the
inverse square law.
If our sun were to vanish suddenly the light it put out would still
carry on. We would be in darkness after about 8 minutes but someone near
Jupiter would still see it and someone in a different solar system would
still see the light after years."

5. Why do some of you blithely quote URLs at me? Is it because you don't
really understand
matters yourselves and are thus incapable of joining in a gentlemanly
discussion, whether you agree, or not,
with what I propose?

Why do you post questions and then ignore the answers and just repeat
the questions on a new thread?

Andy

En el artículo , AndyW
escribió:

Why do you post questions and then ignore the answers and just repeat
the questions on a new thread?

Because he's a tedious attention-seeking troll that thrives on conflict
and would be best ignored?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")