| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
NEWS - Researchers invent antenna for light
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Researchers ... have invented an antenna that captures visible light in much the same way that radio antennas capture radio waves. ...tiny carbon nanotubes... snip http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/sci...eut/index.html For some reason - it reminds me of Isaac Asimov's fictional 'anopticon' - although the technology is different. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
"Antennas for Light" wrote in message ...
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Researchers ... have invented an antenna that captures visible light in much the same way that radio antennas capture radio waves. ...tiny carbon nanotubes... snip http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/sci...eut/index.html This antenna was invented much earlier, actually, as the compound eye of insects and other arthropods. http://biodidac.bio.uottawa.ca/thumb...&File_type=GIF |
k4wge wrote:
"Antennas for Light" wrote in message ... **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Researchers ... have invented an antenna that captures visible light in much the same way that radio antennas capture radio waves. ...tiny carbon nanotubes... snip http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/sci...eut/index.html This antenna was invented much earlier, actually, as the compound eye of insects and other arthropods. http://biodidac.bio.uottawa.ca/thumb...&File_type=GIF Oh, honestly. Real antennas have been used at optical frequencies for a decade. There's a current DARPA BAA on just this topic--for uncooled infrared imagers. My day job involves trying to use this effect for optical interconnection in servers and routers. Cheers, Phil Hobbs |
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:03:43 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote: There's a current DARPA BAA on just this topic Hi Phil, I must've missed that (probably because they don't offer BAAs to SBA set-asides). Do you have a link to this BAA? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"k4wge" This antenna was invented much earlier, actually, as the compound eye of insects and other arthropods. http://biodidac.bio.uottawa.ca/thumb...&File_type=GIF Googled your proposed connection: "An ommatidium contains a cluster of *photoreceptor* cells..." I believe that you've missed the point. It's the difference between optics and EM (*), or between nerves and conductors, or between biology and physics. (* Yes, I know, I know...) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:26:33 -0300, "Dogs - nothing but dogs!!"
wrote: I believe that you've missed the point. It's the difference between optics and EM (*), or between nerves and conductors, or between biology and physics. Hi OM, What's the difference in Truro? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:03:43 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote: There's a current DARPA BAA on just this topic Hi Phil, I must've missed that (probably because they don't offer BAAs to SBA set-asides). Do you have a link to this BAA? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Sorry, it's a bit older than I thought: http://www.darpa.mil/baa/baa04-01.htm Cheers, Phil Hobbs |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"Richard Clark" What's the difference... 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. The news is not BIG NEWS - quite the opposite... ;-) ...in Truro? Truro? Puhleeze....couldn't stand it. Way too much traffic congestion for such a small town. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
Ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/sci...eut/index.html "Phil Hobbs" Sorry, it's a bit older than I thought: http://www.darpa.mil/baa/baa04-01.htm I know it's natural to poo-poo all things new, but this NG takes the cake sometimes. CNN, "Until now, no one had been able to make a device small enough to act as an antenna for [visible] light." ['visible' light is from the CNN article's lead paragraph]. Seems pretty clear that the news is the size. Other than scale, they've simply made some good ole' fashioned vertical monopoles. That DARPA link (above) leads to 'blah, blah, blah' about millimetre wave and IR - not visible light. And they're looking for someone to invent same - it wasn't exactly a purchase order for an off-the-shelf product. And (apparently worth repeating) it wasn't for visible light scale. If anyone can provide any 'old' news for actual 'EM' antennas for ~visible~ light, please post the link and be sure to alert Boston College(*) and CNN and DARPA. Insect eyes don't count (not even close) - not EM technology. (* OMG - Let's quickly put any obvious fractal derivatives into the public domain here and now.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:07:19 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:03:43 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote: There's a current DARPA BAA on just this topic Hi Phil, I must've missed that (probably because they don't offer BAAs to SBA set-asides). Do you have a link to this BAA? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Sorry, it's a bit older than I thought: http://www.darpa.mil/baa/baa04-01.htm Cheers, Phil Hobbs Hi Phil, Thanx. It looks like I was on the mark about lack of SBA set-asides, but I have an appointment with the UW Nanotech group this week and it will be a useful discussion point. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
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 |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
Here is a link to a prior art antenna device comprised of carbon nanotubes.
I am surprised so many hams do not distinguish between antennas and devices like photodiodes. A nano-antenna can be used without a lens. Groups of nano-antennas can be used to make gain antennas, directional antennas, and steerable antennas, but you knew that from the ARRL Antenna Book. Antennas can be connected to junctions that can then detect, mix, modulate, upconvert, downconvert, and the antenna elements can be tuned to length so they favor certain wavelengths. Lots of information can be sent. Lightwave-scaled antennas can be biased to switch light. They are quite fast! There is also a shortening effect that hams already know about at radio wavelengths that is more pronounced at light wavelengths, essentially due to the inertia of the electron. Even so, practical antennas can be made by growing them to length on a substrate, such as silicon. I have been working on this since the mid-90's. Oh, the links www.ambitcorp.com has a list of some prior art patents in that area. You can also look up W1XYZ in www.qrz.com and see some more stuff that is related. IBM's Phil Hobbs may be putting this to work to try to eliminate board to board or chip to chip interconnects which is a worthy goal. Phil is right as we did our first demo about a decade ago. How time flies. Robert J Crowley w1xyz |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
Ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/sci...eut/index.html "W1XYZ" I am surprised so many hams do not distinguish between antennas and devices like photodiodes. snip Me too. I'm not sure if they've 'lost it', or if they're just playing troll. Here is a link to a prior art antenna device... www.ambitcorp.com has a list of some prior art patents in that area. You can also look up W1XYZ in www.qrz.com and see some more stuff that is related. (It would be slightly more fair if you had included an advance disclaimer that the link was to YOUR company. Not a serious issue, but it took me a minute to realize that you're referencing your own work (or that of your company). Interesting links just the same...) By their very nature (especially American) patents are intentionally not forthcoming about what has actually been accomplished and what might be claim-stretching brochure-ware. Can you please confirm exactly when (year) you achived an actual physical embodiment of a functioning carbon nanotube antenna with dimensions corresponding to visible light? I'm sorry if I seen to be poo-poo'ing, but I didn't see that precise question answered on the provided links. I did see mention of larger structures. A more-precise link would be helpful in this regard. If you can do that, then I'll award you the 'mythical $50k' and admit defeat. Also, the group that was mentioned on the CNN news was from Boston, MA and you appear to be from that same area. Any relationship between these two (?) groups. Have you ever had contact with them on this topic? Phil is right as we did our first demo about a decade ago. How time flies. I'm just trying to establish if your links to 'prior art' are strictly valid (in the 'been there, done that, got the T-shirt' sense) or if they are the sort of thing (in the sense of 'close, but no cigar' sense) that happens with ANY new development. There's always a dozen or more groups working on the same thing at any one time, but usually only one crosses a significant boundary first and issues press releases to CNN. I appreciate your posting and I look forward to seeing your next. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** 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... |
|
Here is a link to a prior art antenna device comprised of carbon nanotubes.
I am surprised so many hams do not distinguish between antennas and devices like photodiodes. A nano-antenna can be used without a lens. Groups of nano-antennas can be used to make gain antennas, directional antennas, and steerable antennas, but you knew that from the ARRL Antenna Book. Antennas can be connected to junctions that can then detect, mix, modulate, upconvert, downconvert, and the antenna elements can be tuned to length so they favor certain wavelengths. Lots of information can be sent. Lightwave-scaled antennas can be biased to switch light. They are quite fast! There is also a shortening effect that hams already know about at radio wavelengths that is more pronounced at light wavelengths, essentially due to the inertia of the electron. Even so, practical antennas can be made by growing them to length on a substrate, such as silicon. I have been working on this since the mid-90's. Oh, the links www.ambitcorp.com has a list of some prior art patents in that area. You can also look up W1XYZ in www.qrz.com and see some more stuff that is related. IBM's Phil Hobbs may be putting this to work to try to eliminate board to board or chip to chip interconnects which is a worthy goal. Phil is right as we did our first demo about a decade ago. How time flies. Robert J Crowley w1xyz Interesting work, Bob. What is the relative efficiency (in collection) compared to photovoltaics? 73, Chip N1IR |
(It would be slightly more fair if you had included an advance disclaimer that the link was to YOUR company. Not a serious issue, but it took me a minute to realize that you're referencing your own work (or that of your company). Interesting links just the same...) Huh? So what? I don't get it. Why the need for a disclaimer? What should the disclaimer be? What's wrong with Bob referring to his own work? 73, Chip N1IR |
**** 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 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"Fractenna" Interesting work, Bob. What is the relative efficiency (in collection) compared to photovoltaics? Pending a response from W1XYZ, I'll propose that the answer is likely to be that you're rather naive to assume that he - or his company - is that far along with THAT technology (light antennas to replace photovoltaic cells). I might be wrong, but I'll put it out there and we'll see. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"Fractenna" Huh? So what? I don't get it. Why the need for a disclaimer? What should the disclaimer be? What's wrong with Bob referring to his own work? I didn't notice that Ambit was ~his~ company until I got to the 'About Us' page. I overstated the issue. Apologies to W1XYZ. I'm still awaiting further links that he or his company actual beat the other team [per CNN news]. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
I don't work in the area of photovoltaic cells at all - just not interested in
that area, though I think it is a worthy subject. I do work with antenna like nanostructures for detection, reradiation, etc. Bob |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com