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