On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:19:08 -0300, "Dogs - nothing but dogs!!"
wrote:

I believe that insect eyes have little connection to the recent news about
carbon nanotubes being arranged into 'antennas for light'. I think that the
differences are quite clear.

Hi OM,

Well, you said as much before without really saying anything. Beliefs
are simple to express, "what is different" is what I asked for. The
similarities outweigh the perceived differences.

More than two cars at an intersection is a traffic jam? If scale is
anything, this may be more your problem with antennas for light and mm
wave models at IR.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

I wrote:
...the differences are quite clear.

"Richard Clark":
..."what is different" is what I asked for.

My views of the differences were already explicitly listed:
It's the difference between optics
and EM (Yes, I know, I know...*),
or between nerves and conductors,
or between biology and physics.

[*I'm as in favour of the fundamental sameness of light to radio waves as
anyone.]

I would have thought it an obvious and reasonable assumption that biological
optical sensors, including insects, are typically based on 'wetware'
(photochemical reactions). In other words, the question is - are the
insect's optical receptors (INSIDE the photoreceptor cells which are
themselves clustered INSIDE the purely-structural ommatidium) something
functionally similar to a quarter-lamda conductors, or something related to
an optical/photochemical sensor (wetware) ???

Here's a webpage that states that all eyes (including humans and the fruit
fly, an insect) have the same genetic basis (read the whole thing
carefully - it is interesting):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_044_01.html

It seems that my assumption is not not only reasonable, but also seems to be
correct. Eyes (human or insect) are wetware, not antennas. Just as I
assumed.

Thus, K4WGE's comment (below) about the CNN news is not applicable.
"k4wge" supposed incorrectly:
This antenna was invented much earlier, actually, as the
compound eye of insects and other arthropods.

And to explicitly answer your question:
"Richard Clark"
What's the difference in Truro?

Discussed in exhaustive detail above - couldn't possibly be more clear.

As you know, it is impossible to prove a negative, but here is as close as I
can get:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22in...ye%22+monopole
'Your search - "insect eye" monopole - did not match any documents.'
[Can't use 'antenna' for obvious reasons - insects - think about it...]

The ball is firmly in your court to better my negative search results with a
link that clearly supports the position that you appear to be supporting
(insect eyes = antennas). I'm asking you to prove a positive. Can you
point me to anything on the WWW that clearly backs-up your apparent (?)
position that insect eyes are based on 'antennas'? I believe that your
position, apparently supporting K4WGE's apparently incorrect statement, is
nuked and a smoldering ruin, but I'm open to more data.

Also, if anyone has any links to prior art 'visible' light scale antennas,
please post links. IR need not apply - could be ten times the size (maybe
more).


More than two cars at an intersection is a traffic jam?

It seems that you've never been to the Truro (that I'm referring to) on a
Saturday. There are rumours that missing union leader Jimmy Hoffa might
simply be stuck in traffic somewhere near downtown Truro, NS.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:49:15 -0300, "Dogs, nothing but dogs !!"
wrote:

The ball is firmly in your court to better my negative search results with a
link that clearly supports the position that you appear to be supporting
(insect eyes = antennas).

Hi OM,

There is a world of difference between nanotech conductors, especially
carbon nanotubes, and conventional conductors. There is a world of
similarity between nanotech conductors, and wetware as you describe
it. In fact, one nanotechnology framework is the DNA molecule. 300
base pairs would be adequate for a quarterwave visible light
structure.

Trying to force Newtonian physics into a Quantum solution fails not in
the application, but in the explanation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:49:15 -0300, "Dogs, nothing but dogs !!"
wrote:

The ball is firmly in your court to better my negative search results
with a
link that clearly supports the position that you appear to be supporting
(insect eyes = antennas).

Hi OM,

There is a world of difference between nanotech conductors, especially
carbon nanotubes, and conventional conductors. There is a world of
similarity between nanotech conductors, and wetware as you describe
it. In fact, one nanotechnology framework is the DNA molecule. 300
base pairs would be adequate for a quarterwave visible light
structure.

Trying to force Newtonian physics into a Quantum solution fails not in
the application, but in the explanation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Heisenberg's dad, an engineer IIRC, told him not to go into Physics, it was
all done.
Boy was HE wrong!
Theorys are just ways of thinking about observations and as such are only
useful when and where they work.
73
H., NQ5H

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Ref . News on CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/sci...eut/index.html

**PREFACE - history of this 'discussion'**
"Richard Clark" appears to support K4WGE's
assertion:
This [CNN^] antenna was invented much earlier,
actually, as the compound eye of insects and
other arthropods. [And then he provided a link
to a crude drawing of an insect eye at nearly
macroscopic scale. sigh]

RC joined the poo-poo chant with "What's the difference in Truro?" His
position isn't all that clear. He's maintained a small 'deniability' gap.
Perhaps he will clearly state [YES/NO], without obfuscation, if he really
does intend to support the above (incorrect) assertion.

My position is crystal clear. I think that there is some confusion between
some nearly-macroscopic structural (non-optical) elements within an insect's
eyes and the similarly shaped, but ~much~ smaller, carbon nanotube antennas.
Insect eyes no more use 'antenna' elements than do human eyes.

We've also been sidetracked by the IR crowd - those that ignore the
adjective 'visible' in the CNN article.

If anyone has any links to prior art 'visible' light scale antennas, then
please post links. (That's about the third or fourth time for that plea...)
As with George Jr, I don't think that even an offer of a $50,000 reward
would help in the search.

**back to our regular programming**


"Richard Clark"
There is a world of difference between nanotech conductors,
especially carbon nanotubes, and conventional conductors.
There is a world of similarity between nanotech conductors,
and wetware as you describe it.

The above statements hardly constitutes a valid proof (even by the
incredibly weak standards of the Internet) that insect eyes somehow
represent 'prior art' for 'visible light antennas' (per CNN link at top) as
asserted by K4WGE. Are you planning to provide any supporting links to
support your apparent support of K4WGE's (incorrect) assertion ??? If you
don't know, then when will you know?

"Richard Clark" continued:
DNA... ...300 base pairs would be adequate for
a quarterwave visible light structure.

I could quite reasonably ask, "So you really think that insect eyes use
their DNA to directly sense light?" - but I won't. I will ask what point
you're trying to support with that rather off-the-wall (*) comparison. (*
off-the-wall because I don't believe that nature intends that DNA interact
with visible light and I don't believe that it does. It's just silly and it
doesn't support K4WGE's assertion in the slightest.)

"Richard Clarfucius" say:
Trying to force Newtonian physics into a Quantum
solution fails not in the application, but in the explanation.

Ah so Master (but it doesn't 'answer the mail').

Your post (as extracted above) fails to move your argument any further down
the road.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I see the difference.
Perhaps it helps to explain that the carbon nanotubes are rather smaller
than the cells in the insect's eyes, and there's no lens involved.

--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR

Antennas for Light wrote:
"Researchers...have invented an antenna that captures visible light in
much the same way that radio antennas capture radio waves..."

The cell that powers my calculator has been doing that, converting wave
motion to electricity, for years. The cell forms a diode so its output
is d-c.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Completely different effect.

--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Richard Harrison" mentioned:
The cell that powers my calculator has been doing that,
converting wave motion to electricity, for years. The cell
forms a diode so its output is d-c.

Perhaps you could also take a moment to confirm that you understand the
difference between an antenna and a solar cell. I know that you do - which
makes your posting inexplicable.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ever tried working HF on a solar cell?

--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR