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