**** 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

**** 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"Dogs - nothing but dogs !!" wrote in message

I claim utter victory.

Thanks for playing.

"Winning an argument on the internet is like winning at the special olympics,
you're still a retard." ~ Anonymous...

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

"Dogs - nothing but dogs !!"
I claim utter victory.
Thanks for playing.

"Frank"
"Winning an argument on the Internet is like
winning at the Special Olympics; you're still
a retard." ~ Anonymous...

Tsk tsk tsk...

Ignoring the complete lack of compassion for those encumbered with severe
difficulties in life, your posting leads to the conclusion that we might as
well wrap-up the newsgroups, especially RRAA, and go home.




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