Richard Clark wrote:
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
xx

A Lot Of Crazy Folks wrote:
"Perhaps you could also take a moment to confirm that you understand the
difference between an antenna and a solar cell."

Reciprocity rules antenna action. I`m not sure electricity through a
solar cell will cause it to emit light.

Electricity does not travel through a void. Fields travel through voids.

A radio antenna is a transducer that converts between r-f fields and r-f
electricity.

A solar cell is a transducer that converts between light fields and d-c
electricity.

Radio waves and light waves are EM fields that differ in frequency.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:47:24 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

A Lot Of Crazy Folks wrote:
"Perhaps you could also take a moment to confirm that you understand the
difference between an antenna and a solar cell."

Reciprocity rules antenna action. I`m not sure electricity through a
solar cell will cause it to emit light.


Hi Richard,

In support of your veiled supposition, yes a solar cell will emit
light. Of course a Lot Of Crazy Folks will then bluster in outrage
that IR is not light. As Thoreau would posit: "A foolish consistency
is the hobgoblin of little minds." The greater consistency is found
in that a solar cell responds to the 90% of the sun's spectrum that is
unseen.

Pick up any LED (which is visible light, I will leave that
determination to the individual), connect a meter to it, and point the
LED at a light source (which is visible light, I will leave that
determination to the individual), and low a potential will be
developed (typically the commonplace 0.7V, but this varies with LED
color). I have also observed this in common diodes - LEDs merely have
optimized their junction for maximum visual exposure.

There is nothing in this to suggest that efficiency follows reciprocal
use. The hobgoblins would be loath to admit that the light bulb also
serves as a light detector - even if poorly (but superbly for RF Power
level measurement).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

And a 1" square solar cell is about 50,000 wavelengths on a side.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Harrison wrote:

A Lot Of Crazy Folks wrote:
"Perhaps you could also take a moment to confirm that you understand the
difference between an antenna and a solar cell."

Reciprocity rules antenna action. I`m not sure electricity through a
solar cell will cause it to emit light.

Electricity does not travel through a void. Fields travel through voids.

A radio antenna is a transducer that converts between r-f fields and r-f
electricity.

A solar cell is a transducer that converts between light fields and d-c
electricity.

Radio waves and light waves are EM fields that differ in frequency.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Roy, W7EL wrote:
"And a 1" square solar cell is about 50,000 wavelengths on a side."

Yes. The wavelength of light is so short, about 1/50,000 inch according
to Roy, that it is measured in Angstroms. The Angstrom is about 10 to
the minus 10th power meter.

My question is why anyone would want to produce micro, micro antenna
arrays when the LASER produces a narrow, uniform, high-intensity beam
of light of one very pure color (frequency) that can be directed in a
very thin concentrated beam over short and very long distances. Maybe
there isn`t such an efficient receiving device?

LASER (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) light
can be so intense that it can vaporize the hardest and most
heat-resistant materials. Can`t a receiving LASER be locked in-step with
external synchronization to provide necessary gain and selectivity?

I wrote: "Electricity does not travel through a void. Fields travel
through a void."

Electrons do travel through voids quite readily. Note the display on a
CRT. They take advantage of the emptyness not to colide with matter so
they can continue their flight. There are also countless electrons
wandering in space between the heavenly bodies, but not so many as to
provide a conductor.

What I meant to imply was that an EM wave does not consist of actual
volts and amps until a conductor intervenes to have the fields generate
the volts and amps on it.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:50:49 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Roy, W7EL wrote:
"And a 1" square solar cell is about 50,000 wavelengths on a side."

Hi Richard,

That wasn't very apropos of anything without some correlative. One
such is that as a consequence of that size (in wavelength count), the
cell exhibits a Lambertian shaped distribution for radiation response
characteristic.

My question is why anyone would want to produce micro, micro antenna
arrays when the LASER produces a narrow, uniform, high-intensity beam
of light of one very pure color (frequency) that can be directed in a
very thin concentrated beam over short and very long distances. Maybe
there isn`t such an efficient receiving device?

Someone may choose to replace the LASER by such an antenna grid, but
there is a world of other choices for their effort that LASER does not
enter into.

One such application, that I have offered here in the past, is a
conjugate mirror. Researchers have designed one in the RF mm
wavelengths. Nanotechnology has the promise of shrinking that
dimension to the visible light wavelengths - using DNA base pairs for
structure if they chose. ;-)

In a sense the conjugate mirror is the reverse analogue of the LASER
and would work quite well with LASER emissions. In fact it could
enable a new class of LASER construction.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

A laser is very inefficient, power-wise.

Nano antennas may offer a cheap option for high efficiency solar conversion.
Yet to be demonstrated.

73,
Chip N1IR

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

"Richard Clark"
Of course a Lot Of Crazy [Dogs]
will then bluster in outrage that
IR is not light.

No I would not - you're totally wrong.

BUT...

I would happily remind you or anyone else to pay attention to the word
VISIBLE, as in visible light, when you, or y'all, clearly neglected to pay
sufficient attention (DARPA and all that IR sub-thread) to the exact
contents of the CNN article and my previous postings (all of which were
perfectly clear).

See the diff ?

Furthermore, you're (intentionally?) ignoring my previous Position
Statement: "I'm as in favour of the fundamental sameness of light to radio
waves as anyone." Given IR's position in the spectrum, you can easily
derive how I feel about its nature.

Your comment (top) was unfair - almost mean.

sniff -- ;-)




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

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:40:41 -0300, "Dogs - nothing but dogs !!"
wrote:

No I would not - you're totally wrong.

BUT...

Hi Dogs,

Well that about covers it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

....insect eyes as prior art...
....ignoring keyword 'visible'...
....I have a $4 calculator...

Sigh...

"Dogs - nothing but dogs!!" on 20 Sept 2004:
If anyone can provide any 'old' news for actual
'EM' antennas for ~visible~ light, please post
the link...

3 days pass slowly by... ...no reply, nothing.

"Dogs, nothing but dogs !!" on 21 Sept 2004:
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).


2 days - still nothing but commentary.

"Dogs, nothing but dogs !!" on 22 Sept 2004:
If anyone has any links to prior art 'visible' light
scale antennas, then please post links. ...
As with George Jr, I don't think that even an
offer of a $50,000 reward would help in the
search.

Another day passes...and still no one has 'claimed the mythical $50k'
reward.

OK - Time's up.

I claim utter victory.

Thanks for playing.




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