Discussion:
NEWS - Researchers invent antenna for light
(too old to reply)
Antennas for Light
2004-09-19 23:24:22 UTC
Permalink
**** 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/science/09/17/light.antenna.reut/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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
k4wge
2004-09-20 13:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antennas 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/science/09/17/light.antenna.reut/index.html
This antenna was invented much earlier, actually, as the compound eye
of insects and other arthropods.

http://biodidac.bio.uottawa.ca/thumbnails/filedet.htm?File_name=ARTH003B&File_type=GIF
Phil Hobbs
2004-09-20 18:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by k4wge
Post by Antennas 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/science/09/17/light.antenna.reut/index.html
This antenna was invented much earlier, actually, as the compound eye
of insects and other arthropods.
http://biodidac.bio.uottawa.ca/thumbnails/filedet.htm?File_name=ARTH003B&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
Richard Clark
2004-09-20 18:09:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:03:43 -0400, Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
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
Phil Hobbs
2004-09-21 00:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Clark
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:03:43 -0400, Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
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
Dogs - nothing but dogs!!
2004-09-21 00:57:31 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Ref:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/09/17/light.antenna.reut/index.html

"Phil Hobbs"
Post by Phil Hobbs
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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Clark
2004-09-21 04:47:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:07:19 -0400, Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Richard Clark
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:03:43 -0400, Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
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
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
Dogs - nothing but dogs!!
2004-09-20 23:26:33 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"k4wge"
Post by k4wge
This antenna was invented much earlier, actually,
as the compound eye of insects and other arthropods.
http://biodidac.bio.uottawa.ca/thumbnails/filedet.htm?File_name=ARTH003B&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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Clark
2004-09-20 23:52:23 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:26:33 -0300, "Dogs - nothing but dogs!!"
Post by Dogs - nothing but dogs!!
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
Dogs - nothing but dogs!!
2004-09-21 00:19:08 UTC
Permalink
**** 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Clark
2004-09-21 05:00:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:19:08 -0300, "Dogs - nothing but dogs!!"
Post by Dogs - nothing but dogs!!
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
Dogs, nothing but dogs !!
2004-09-21 20:49:15 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
...the differences are quite clear.
..."what is different" is what I asked for.
Post by Dogs - nothing but dogs!!
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/library/04/4/text_pop/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.
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:
www.google.com/search?q=%22insect+eye%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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Clark
2004-09-21 21:11:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:49:15 -0300, "Dogs, nothing but dogs !!"
Post by Dogs, nothing but dogs !!
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
H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H
2004-09-21 21:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Clark
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:49:15 -0300, "Dogs, nothing but dogs !!"
Post by Dogs, nothing but dogs !!
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
Dogs, nothing but dogs !!
2004-09-22 03:03:57 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Ref . News on CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/09/17/light.antenna.reut/index.html

**PREFACE - history of this 'discussion'**
"Richard Clark" appears to support K4WGE's
Post by Richard Clark
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"
Post by 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?
Post by Richard Clark
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.)
Post by Richard Clark
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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave VanHorn
2004-09-22 03:19:26 UTC
Permalink
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
Dogs - nothing but dogs !!
2004-09-24 02:03:48 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

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

Sigh...
Post by Dogs - nothing but dogs!!
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.
Post by Dogs - nothing but dogs!!
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.
Post by Dogs - nothing but dogs!!
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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Frank
2004-09-26 17:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dogs - nothing but dogs !!
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...
Dog - nothing but dogs !!
2004-09-26 22:04:58 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Dogs - nothing but dogs !!"
Post by Dogs - nothing but dogs !!
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...
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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
root
2004-09-23 05:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Clark
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:49:15 -0300, "Dogs, nothing but dogs !!"
Post by Dogs, nothing but dogs !!
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
Richard Harrison
2004-09-22 13:06:28 UTC
Permalink
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
Dave VanHorn
2004-09-22 15:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Completely different effect.
--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR
Dogs - nothing but dogs !!
2004-09-22 20:43:35 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
Post by Richard Harrison
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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave VanHorn
2004-09-22 20:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Ever tried working HF on a solar cell? :)
--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR
Richard Harrison
2004-09-23 15:47:24 UTC
Permalink
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
Richard Clark
2004-09-23 16:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
"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
Dogs - nothing but dogs !!
2004-09-24 01:40:41 UTC
Permalink
**** 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Clark
2004-09-24 02:01:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:40:41 -0300, "Dogs - nothing but dogs !!"
Post by Dogs - nothing but dogs !!
No I would not - you're totally wrong.
BUT...
Hi Dogs,

Well that about covers it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Roy Lewallen
2004-09-23 19:23:22 UTC
Permalink
And a 1" square solar cell is about 50,000 wavelengths on a side.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Post by Richard Harrison
"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
Richard Harrison
2004-09-23 22:50:49 UTC
Permalink
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
Richard Clark
2004-09-24 00:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
"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.
Post by Richard Harrison
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
Fractenna
2004-09-24 00:59:52 UTC
Permalink
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
W1xyz
2004-09-26 12:35:27 UTC
Permalink
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
Dog - nothing but dogs !!
2004-09-26 13:23:30 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Ref:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/09/17/light.antenna.reut/index.html

"W1XYZ"
Post by 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.
Post by W1xyz
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?
Post by W1xyz
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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Fractenna
2004-09-26 19:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dog - nothing but dogs !!
(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
Dog - nothing but dogs !!
2004-09-26 22:26:18 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Fractenna"
Post by 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dogs - nothing but dogs !!
2004-09-29 23:12:18 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Another three days passes...
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?
... If you can do that, then I'll award you the
'mythical $50k' and admit defeat. ...
I appreciate your posting and I look forward
to seeing your next.
I'm still awaiting further links that he or his
company actual beat the other team [per
CNN news].
Did I miss a reply? So, now that all the 'barking of the harbour seals' has
died down, we're right back to the starting point - that is that the CNN
news was in fact new news (not old news). All I'm seeking is a firm
conclusion to all the red herrings and (apparently) false leads to prior
art. It's *really* difficult to prove a negative. But I'll inductively
conclude that it has been proven.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Fractenna
2004-09-30 10:01:33 UTC
Permalink
(Inventor) Bob's (W1XYZ) patents on this form a basis for ownership on such
varieties of antennas, within the construct of the claims. That is my opinion.

The fact that later academic groups allegedly claim discovery or invention on
this or other new technologies is irrelevant: the assignee of he patent is
what's important.

It is common for academic groups to be 5-20 years behind the state of the art
in antenna work BTW.

The CNN story is a nice corroboration of Bob's innovation and invention, in my
opinion. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to give the man some well-deserved credit.
Again, this is also a fairly common problem in some academic groups these days,
unfortunately.

Hat's off, Bob.

73,
Chip N1IR
Gods - nothing but gods !!
2004-10-01 00:20:57 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Fractenna"
Post by Fractenna
(Inventor) Bob's (W1XYZ) patents on this form
a basis for ownership on such varieties of antennas,
within the construct of the claims. That is my opinion.
That's a hollow 'motherhood' statement - no one could disagree with that
because your statement doesn't actually say anything (except to partially
define the word 'patent').

Back to The Question:

As you well know, a patent doesn't necessarily mean that anything functional
has actually been built. This is self-evident by the numerous US patents for
the impossible (or for the presently impossible). I was NOT asking about
patents, I asked (quite clearly I might add) if anyone had actually built
the subject item at the subject scale before the subject CNN news item.

It is a very simple question.

CNN story (they were first) true or false?
Post by Fractenna
...the assignee of the patent is what's important.
That assumes that there is any money to be made from it within the term. I
believe that something like 99.99+% of all patents are money losing
propositions. They're apparently a worse investment on average than lottery
tickets.
Post by Fractenna
...wouldn't hurt to give the man some well-deserved credit.
Of course.

The CNN story claimed that those people were first. All the RRAA 'harbour
seals' starting barking that it was old news - most of them just didn't read
the story carefully. Now W1XYZ drops by with his patent portfolio but didn't
answer the very simple question - who actually made one first (which is
where this long thread started).

It is a very simple question.

Not patents.

Who made one first?

CNN guys or W1XYZ or anyone else?

So far - no one has provided anything to prove the CNN story was incorrect.

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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Fractenna
2004-10-01 12:09:08 UTC
Permalink
The patent is the only thing that matters in such new technology.

That's what makes Bob a 'player'.

He's a real person with a real patent. And, by golly, he has a real e-mail!

BTW, here's today's trivia question.

Carbon 14 dating is a mainstay for setting ages of things a few thousands of
years old.

Who--invented--it?

a) Isaac Asimov
b) Harold Urey
c) Linus Pauling
d) Louis Leakey

Not a trick question.

Any 'players'?

73,
Chip N1IR
Wes Stewart
2004-10-01 14:03:05 UTC
Permalink
On 01 Oct 2004 12:09:08 GMT, ***@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:

|The patent is the only thing that matters in such new technology.
|
|That's what makes Bob a 'player'.
|
|He's a real person with a real patent. And, by golly, he has a real e-mail!
|
|BTW, here's today's trivia question.
|
|Carbon 14 dating is a mainstay for setting ages of things a few thousands of
|years old.
|
|Who--invented--it?
|
|a) Isaac Asimov
|b) Harold Urey
|c) Linus Pauling
|d) Louis Leakey

e) none of the above. http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/libby.html

|
|Not a trick question.

Really?
Fractenna
2004-10-01 14:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wes Stewart
|
|Not a trick question.
Really?
Really and truly.

73,
Chip N1IR
Wes Stewart
2004-10-01 16:34:52 UTC
Permalink
On 01 Oct 2004 14:40:56 GMT, ***@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:

|>|
|>|Not a trick question.
|>
|>Really?
|>
|
|Really and truly.

Just one that you didn't know the answer to.
Fractenna
2004-10-02 00:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wes Stewart
Just one that you didn't know the answer to.
That is an incorrect statement.
Gawds - nuttin but gawds !!
2004-10-02 00:16:03 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
Post by Fractenna
Post by Wes Stewart
Just one that you didn't know the answer to.
"Fractenna"
Post by Fractenna
That is an incorrect statement.
Oh stop grand-standing and spit it out.

Geesh...




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Silly Poodles - nothing but...
2004-10-02 14:11:48 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
Post by Fractenna
Post by Wes Stewart
Just one that you didn't know the answer to.
"Fractenna"
Post by Fractenna
That is an incorrect statement.
Oh stop grand-standing and spit it out.

Geesh...




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Harrison
2004-10-02 16:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Chip wrote:
"Who invented it (radiocarbon dating)?"

I`d rather date a real live girl.

All living things contain radiocarbon (carbon 14). It`s a radioactive
isotope which appears in small concentration in the atmosphere from
cosmic ray bombardment. After death, former living things no longer
absorb the isotope. The radioactive isotope in the dead thing starts to
decay at an exact and uniform rate. Its radiation half-life is 5,730
years.

Remnant radiation makes it possible to date things formerly living
within the past 50,000 years. approximately.

The radiocarbon dating technique was developed by Dr. Willard F. Libby
(1908-1980) in the late 1940s.

This comes from "The Handy Science Answer Book" of the Carnegie Library
of Pittsburg.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI.
Richard Clark
2004-10-03 02:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
This comes from "The Handy Science Answer Book" of the Carnegie Library
of Pittsburg.
Hi Richard,

Yes, an answer for the itinerant questioner.

But now for something completely different but wholly within the
purview of light (let's see if they can get this one):

In an infinite universe filled with stars, every line of sight should
eventually meet the surface of a star. The dimming of starlight with
distance should be exactly canceled out by the increase in the number
of stars you see as you look farther out, so the night sky should
appear as bright as the surface of the sun - but it is not.

This paradox, was solved by:
Erle Stanley Gardner
Edgar Allen Poe
Edwin Powell Hubble
Edward Roscoe Murrow

Name the one who coined the paradox for extra credit.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Tom Ring
2004-10-03 02:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Clark
Erle Stanley Gardner
Edgar Allen Poe
Edwin Powell Hubble
Edward Roscoe Murrow
Name the one who coined the paradox for extra credit.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Hubble

Olber

tom
K0TAR
Mike Coslo
2004-10-03 03:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Clark
Post by Richard Harrison
This comes from "The Handy Science Answer Book" of the Carnegie Library
of Pittsburg.
Hi Richard,
Yes, an answer for the itinerant questioner.
But now for something completely different but wholly within the
In an infinite universe filled with stars, every line of sight should
eventually meet the surface of a star. The dimming of starlight with
distance should be exactly canceled out by the increase in the number
of stars you see as you look farther out, so the night sky should
appear as bright as the surface of the sun - but it is not.
Erle Stanley Gardner
Edgar Allen Poe
Edwin Powell Hubble
Edward Roscoe Murrow
Name the one who coined the paradox for extra credit.
That would be Hubble that solved the paradox, and the initial paradox
was by Heinrich Olbers, although Jean-Phillippe Loys de Cheseaux (jeez
Louise, whatta name!) dabbled in that too. Even Kepler to some extent -
though he took the easy way out and decided the Universe must not be
infinite.

- Mike KB3EIA -
Richard Harrison
2004-10-03 04:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Richard Clark wrote:
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"

I have not seen that question before, but will speculate that Edwin
Hubble deserves the credit as he used "red shift" in the light from
other galaxies to show that they are speeding away from us and our
galaxy. In fact, they are accelerating so that the farther the galaxy is
away from us, the faster it is moving away.

From continuous acceleration, the distant galaxy will eventually reach
the speed of light. Then, light from the distsnt galaxy won`t reach us
because it will tag along with the fast moving galaxy.

There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.

Hubble has also shown that the Doppler effect would shift the frequency
lower as velocity of the retreating thing increases. Shift the frequency
low enough and the wave is no longer described as light but may be
classified as a millimeter radio wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
Richard Clark
2004-10-03 05:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"
There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.
A close and suggestive answer.

Hi All,

Well, it is notable that no "astronomer" got this one right ;-)

I will 'fess up in that it was a trick question because it contained a
ringer (one that three out of three sprung for).

However two out of three got the extra credit question (Olber's
Paradox). No doubt second tier, and to date silent, observers may
chime in with "authority." ;-)

No, Hubble may have described an answer that satisfies the paradox,
however the FIRST (1848) and ACCURATE response to this issue was
written by Edgar Allen Poe in "Eureka!" what he calls a prose poem
dedicated to Alexander von Humboldt:
"Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the
sky would present us an uniform luminosity, like that displayed by
the Galaxy -- since there could be absolutely no point, in all
that background, at which would not exist a star."

Poe's work is a very large monograph on the nature of electricity,
gravitation and a very sophisticated description of the cosmology of
cluster galaxies (including what are still current theories of
condensation during stellar and planetary formation). To bring the
paradox to a conclusion he offers: for our being able to view this
totality of solar flux as a continuous sheet of luminosity requires
that the universe must have existed FOREVER. The concept of light
traversing space at less than instantaneous velocity (and that there
are huge and vast distances involved) shows a deep consideration of
the topic. This monograph is exceedingly developed with a style of
irony that I enjoy.

This intelligence touches on a topic that I have broached on one other
occasion. Poe was at one time an engineering student at West Point,
THE pre-eminent engineering school of America (7 presidents were
engineers). Most of us only encounter his work through recitations of
"The Raven," or, for many of us, with the drive-in movies produced by
Roger Corman in the early 60s with Vincent Price et al ("The Tell-Tale
Heart," "The Fall of the House of Usher," "The Pit and the Pendulum"
and others).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Richard Harrison
2004-10-03 13:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Richard Clark wrote:
"To bring this paradox to a conclusion he (E.A.Poe) offers, for our
being able to view this totality of solar flux as a continuous sheet of
luminosity requires that the universe must have existed forever."

It is now assumed that space and time began maybe 15 or 20 billion years
ago. Poe may be wrong.

Albert Einstein speculated that the speed of light is a universal
constant. He may be wrong.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
2004-10-03 15:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
"To bring this paradox to a conclusion he (E.A.Poe) offers, for our
being able to view this totality of solar flux as a continuous sheet of
luminosity requires that the universe must have existed forever."
It is now assumed that space and time began maybe 15 or 20 billion years
ago. Poe may be wrong.
Albert Einstein speculated that the speed of light is a universal
constant. He may be wrong.
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of light
is other than a constant, ever.
--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Richard Harrison
2004-10-03 17:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Jim Pennino wrote:
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."

A.A. Michelson and E.W.Morley in 1881 measured the speed of light in the
direction of the Earth and the speed of light at right angles to the
Earth`s motion. No difference was found.

Light does have different speeds in different media. This causes light
to bend when passing from one medium to another. The "speed of light" is
through space or a vacuum. The more a substance bends light, the higher
its refractive index.

I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
2004-10-03 17:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."
A.A. Michelson and E.W.Morley in 1881 measured the speed of light in the
direction of the Earth and the speed of light at right angles to the
Earth`s motion. No difference was found.
Light does have different speeds in different media. This causes light
to bend when passing from one medium to another. The "speed of light" is
through space or a vacuum. The more a substance bends light, the higher
its refractive index.
I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
You might want to read the following:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html

and maybe:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html
--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Cecil Moore
2004-10-03 18:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."
Heh, heh, and nobody has ever gotten *exactly* the same results. :-)


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
2004-10-03 19:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cecil Moore
Post by Richard Harrison
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."
Heh, heh, and nobody has ever gotten *exactly* the same results. :-)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Or to put it in more realistic terms, as instrumentation gets better
and better, the value of c gets more decimal points.

By 1947 it was to +/- 3 km/s, in 1958 +/- 0.1, and by 1973 +/- 0.001.

To put things in perspective, +/- 0.001 km/s is an error of .000000000007%.
--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Cecil Moore
2004-10-03 18:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.
I predict that Einstein was wrong by the same percentage that Newton
was wrong. After all, physics is a converging series. :-) In 100 years,
I predict that Einstein's theories will be just as obsolete as Newton's
theories are now. 'Course, my great-great-grandson will have to collect
any bets.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
2004-10-03 19:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cecil Moore
Post by Richard Harrison
I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.
I predict that Einstein was wrong by the same percentage that Newton
was wrong. After all, physics is a converging series. :-) In 100 years,
I predict that Einstein's theories will be just as obsolete as Newton's
theories are now. 'Course, my great-great-grandson will have to collect
any bets.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Perhaps you might read:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Einstein.html

and tell us where there's a place for a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.
--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Dogs do not play dice...
2004-10-03 19:56:39 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
Post by j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
Jim Pennino
...tell us where there's a place for
a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.
Al said: "God does not play dice..."

Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
2004-10-03 21:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antennas for Light
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
Post by j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
Jim Pennino
...tell us where there's a place for
a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.
Al said: "God does not play dice..."
Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."
Actually, what he said was "God does not play dice with the world.".

He also said "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not
doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal
himself because of his enormous size".
--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Ed Price
2004-10-04 06:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
Post by Antennas for Light
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
Post by j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
Jim Pennino
...tell us where there's a place for
a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.
Al said: "God does not play dice..."
Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."
Actually, what he said was "God does not play dice with the world.".
He also said "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not
doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal
himself because of his enormous size".
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
As to playing dice with the world, we just got near-missed by a decent hunk
of rock last week. It's coming back in four years; do ya feel lucky?

How fortunate Al didn't try to make a living as a taxonomist.

Ed
wb6wsn
Richard Clark
2004-10-04 06:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Price
It's coming back in four years
Hi Ed,

Have the Republicans named it Clinton yet? Perhaps if we made a
pre-emptive strike against Mars.... The day before it hits us we can
all expect to hear why:
"It's a hard job!"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Cecil Moore
2004-10-04 02:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dogs do not play dice...
Al said: "God does not play dice..."
Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."
So that's how it is possible for an omniscient God to give
free will to human beings?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Ed Price
2004-10-04 06:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cecil Moore
Post by Dogs do not play dice...
Al said: "God does not play dice..."
Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."
So that's how it is possible for an omniscient God to give
free will to human beings?
Uh oh; Cecil asks The Big One! A few of the answers are:

1. God?
2. God's not omniscient.
3. God takes long breaks.
4. God subcontracts.
5. Free Will isn't free, and the rent is overdue.
6. God likes dogs better than humans.
7. God's got a weird sense of humor.


Ed
wb6wsn
Andy Cowley
2004-10-12 16:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of light
is other than a constant, ever.
FYI:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~dzuba/varyc.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html

vy 73

Andy, M1EBV
j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
2004-10-12 21:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Cowley
Post by j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of light
is other than a constant, ever.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~dzuba/varyc.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html
vy 73
Andy, M1EBV
FYI:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=606
--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Richard Clark
2004-10-03 15:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
It is now assumed that space and time began maybe 15 or 20 billion years
ago. Poe may be wrong.
Hi Richard,

Poe got it right. The greater portion of the night sky is as black
now as it was in Poe's time - nothing has changed to render Poe's
assessment incorrect.

" My general proposition, then, is this: -- In the Original Unity
of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with
the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation.

Poe is describing both concepts we now proclaim as the Big Bang, AND
the Big Crunch.

"In speaking of what is ordinarily implied by the expression,
'Universe,' I shall take a phrase of limitation -- 'the Universe
of stars.' Why this distinction is considered necessary, will be
seen in the sequel.

"But even of treatises on the really limited, although always
assumed as the un limited, Universe of stars, I know none in which
a survey, even of this limited Universe, is so taken as to warrant
deductions from its individuality."
...
" It seems to me that, in aiming at this latter effect, and,
through it, at the consequences -- the conclusions -- the
suggestions -- the speculations -- or, if nothing better offer
itself, the mere guesses which may result from it -- we require
something like a mental gyration on the heel. We need so rapid a
revolution of all things about the central point of sight that,
while the minutiae vanish altogether, even the more conspicuous
objects become blended into one. Among the vanishing minutiae, in
a survey of this kind, would be all exclusively terrestrial
matters. The Earth would be considered in its planetary relations
alone. A man, in this view, becomes mankind; mankind a member of
the cosmical family of Intelligences."

These paragraphs introduce a literary device used by Poe to discuss
the topic, a message found in a floating bottle - from the future:

" And now, before proceeding to our subject proper, let me beg the
reader's attention to an extract or two from a somewhat remarkable
letter, which appears to have been found corked in a bottle and
floating on the Mare Tenebrarum - an ocean well described by the
Nubian geographer, Ptolemy Hephestion, but little frequented in
modern days unless by the Transcendentalists and some other divers
for crotchets. The date of this letter, I confess, surprises me
even more particularly than its contents; for it seems to have
been written in the year Two thousand eight hundred and
forty-eight. As for the passages I am about to transcribe, they, I
fancy, will speak for themselves."

I will pause here in anticipation of further inquiry. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Richard Harrison
2004-10-04 04:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Richard Clark wrote:
"Poe got it right."

I had no idea Poe had such a scientific interest. Poe no doubt got many
things right but his observations on the universe are so extensive and
written so long ago that it is unlikely that some errors can`t be found.
Poe`s scientific study is impressive and he got right much of what he
wrote. Where did I get the idea he spent much of his life spaced out on
drugs?

In the years since Poe, much has been added to scientific knowledge.

The antenna section of "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides"
by King, Mimno, and Wing, was written by Ronald W.P. King. On page 73 he
gives the dielectric constant of free-space as:

Epsilon o = 8.85 times 10 to the minus 12 farad / m.

King also gives the permeability of free-space as:

Mu o = 4 pi times 10 to the minus 7 henries / m

From these, King calculates the velocity of light (vC).

vC = 1 / sq.rt. Mu o times Epsilon o = 3 times 10 to the 8th power m /
sec.

On page 117, King elaborates, saying: The existence of a characteristic
resistance for electromagnetic effects is just as mysterious (no volts
and amps in the wave itself), but no more so than the existence of the
finite velocity---3 times 10 to the 8th power m / sec.

---Physical science seelks to provide a mathematical mechanism for
predicting observable effects about nature."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
Richard Clark
2004-10-04 05:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
"Poe got it right."
I had no idea Poe had such a scientific interest. Poe no doubt got many
things right but his observations on the universe are so extensive and
written so long ago that it is unlikely that some errors can`t be found.
Apparently you have followed the link I've offered to Mike.
Post by Richard Harrison
Poe`s scientific study is impressive and he got right much of what he
wrote. Where did I get the idea he spent much of his life spaced out on
drugs?
Hi Richard,

This may be attributable to his contemporaries, certainly. After-all
Coleridge and buddies tasted the popular social drug, Hashish.

However, Poe's "drunkenness" was a legend based upon his death, which
recent theories dismiss through rather abstract research (and I am
rather vague as to them myself, having seen them in fleeting reference
some years ago). Either way, there is very little substantiation as
to the cause of his death except he was found collapsed in the street.
He died about a year after this work I have offered.
Post by Richard Harrison
In the years since Poe, much has been added to scientific knowledge.
Perhaps, but Poe's contribution is not from demonstration, as he would
say, but rather through knowing the truth - an artistic intuition.
His style directly attacks the notion of exactitudes, especially when
they are eclipsed by later, more ponderous exactitudes. This is
especially shown in his wry commentary through the fictitious future
correspondent of the message in the bottle:

"'Do you know that it is scarcely more than eight or nine hundred
years ago since the metaphysicians first consented to relieve the
people of the singular fancy that there exist but two practicable
roads to Truth? Believe it if you can! It appears, however, that
long, long ago, in the night of Time, there lived a Turkish
philosopher called Aries and surnamed Tottle.' [Here, possibly,
the letter-writer means Aristotle; the best names are wretchedly
corrupted in two or three thousand years.]"
...
"Well, Aries Tottle flourished supreme, until the advent of one
Hog, surnamed 'the Ettrick shepherd,' who preached an entirely
different system, which he called the a posteriori or in ductive.
His plan referred altogether to sensation. He proceeded by
observing, analyzing, and classifying facts -- instantiae Naturae,
as they were somewhat affectedly called -- and arranging them into
general laws. In a word, while the mode of Aries rested on
noumena, that of Hog depended on phenomena; and so great was the
admiration excited by this latter system that, at its first
introduction, Aries fell into general disrepute. Finally, however,
he recovered ground, and was permitted to divide the empire of
Philosophy with his more modern rival: -- the savans contenting
themselves with proscribing all other competitors, past, present,
and to come; putting an end to all controversy on the topic by the
promulgation of a Median law, to the effect that the Aristotelian
and Baconian roads are, and of right ought to be, the sole
possible avenues to knowledge: -- 'Baconian,' you must know, my
dear friend," adds the letter-writer at this point, "was an
adjective invented as equivalent to Hog-ian, and at the same time
more dignified and euphonious."

The style is rather dry and extended for modern readers, so I will
offer a shorthand of this introductory matter that Poe offers. He is
simply mocking the philosophers, Aristotle (Aries, the Ram) and Bacon
(Hog, the pig), or rather mocking those who drag their corpses out to
embellish their own impoverished theories (AKA, the
"Transcendentalists" or our Hash eaters already mentioned):

"The error of our progenitors was quite analogous with that of the
wiseacre who fancies he must necessarily see an object the more
distinctly, the more closely he holds it to his eyes. They blinded
themselves, too, with the impalpable, titillating Scotch snuff of
detail; and thus the boasted facts of the Hog-ites were by no
means always facts -- a point of little importance but for the
assumption that they always were. The vital taint, however, in
Baconianism -- its most lamentable fount of error -- lay in its
tendency to throw power and consideration into the hands of merely
perceptive men -- of those inter-Tritonic minnows, the
microscopical savans -- the diggers and pedlers of minute facts,
for the most part in physical science -- facts all of which they
retailed at the same price upon the highway; their value
depending, it was supposed, simply upon the fact of their fact,
without reference to their applicability or inapplicability in the
development of those ultimate and only legitimate facts, called
Law.

"Than the persons" -- the letter goes on to say -- "than the
persons thus suddenly elevated by the Hog-ian philosophy into a
station for which they were unfitted -- thus transferred from the
sculleries into the parlors of Science -- from its pantries into
its pulpits -- than these individuals a more intolerant -- a more
intolerable set of bigots and tyrants never existed on the face of
the earth. Their creed, their text and their sermon were, alike,
the one word 'fact' -- but, for the most part, even of this one
word, they knew not even the meaning.

A sweet vintage of writing that makes the grape pale.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Mike Coslo
2004-10-03 22:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
"To bring this paradox to a conclusion he (E.A.Poe) offers, for our
being able to view this totality of solar flux as a continuous sheet of
luminosity requires that the universe must have existed forever."
It is now assumed that space and time began maybe 15 or 20 billion years
ago. Poe may be wrong.
Albert Einstein speculated that the speed of light is a universal
constant. He may be wrong.
Yes, Light slows down and speeds up so that fundamentalist
interpretations of the bible can be correct. Oy!

- Mike KB3EIA -
Mike Coslo
2004-10-03 22:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Clark
Post by Richard Harrison
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"
There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.
A close and suggestive answer.
Hi All,
Well, it is notable that no "astronomer" got this one right ;-)
I will 'fess up in that it was a trick question because it contained a
ringer (one that three out of three sprung for).
However two out of three got the extra credit question (Olber's
Paradox). No doubt second tier, and to date silent, observers may
chime in with "authority." ;-)
No, Hubble may have described an answer that satisfies the paradox,
however the FIRST (1848) and ACCURATE response to this issue was
written by Edgar Allen Poe in "Eureka!" what he calls a prose poem
"Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the
sky would present us an uniform luminosity, like that displayed by
the Galaxy -- since there could be absolutely no point, in all
that background, at which would not exist a star."
Awesome, Richard! Can this monograph be found online?

- Mike KB3EIA -
Richard Clark
2004-10-03 22:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Coslo
Awesome, Richard! Can this monograph be found online?
Hi Mike,

After some rummaging:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/poe/eureka.html

73's and enjoy,
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
j***@specsol-spam-sux.com
2004-10-03 05:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harrison
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"
I have not seen that question before, but will speculate that Edwin
Hubble deserves the credit as he used "red shift" in the light from
other galaxies to show that they are speeding away from us and our
galaxy. In fact, they are accelerating so that the farther the galaxy is
away from us, the faster it is moving away.
From continuous acceleration, the distant galaxy will eventually reach
the speed of light. Then, light from the distsnt galaxy won`t reach us
because it will tag along with the fast moving galaxy.
There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.
Hubble has also shown that the Doppler effect would shift the frequency
lower as velocity of the retreating thing increases. Shift the frequency
low enough and the wave is no longer described as light but may be
classified as a millimeter radio wave.
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
To be accererating, there would have to be a force .

Where would this force be coming from and what pray tell is directing
it?

The speed of light is a constant in all reference frames. If a light
source were to be moving at the speed of light away from an observer,
an impossiblity in itself, the light would still be moving at c towards
the observer.
--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Gods - nothing but gods !!
2004-10-01 22:38:21 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Fractenna"
Post by Fractenna
The patent is the only thing that matters
in such new technology.
<Yawn...> Oh sorry...

Look - anyone could 'patent' going into space in a cheap, reusable rocket
like 'this' and like 'that'. What makes the evening news is when someone
actually DOES it. Same thing for 'light antennas' - who did it first
(couldn't care less who happened to apply for a patent if they didn't
actually DO it).

When they changed the definition of 'reduction to practice' from 'send a
working model' to 'just write it down', the whole patent system became a
lawyers' game and a work of fiction in many cases.
Post by Fractenna
BTW, here's today's trivia question.
Carbon 14 dating is a mainstay for setting ages
of things a few thousands of years old.
Who--invented--it?
Perhaps someone patented it in 1920.

The decay of Carbon-14 and it's relationship to cosmic rays, the atmosphere,
life and death is a natural phenomenon. It wasn't really 'invented' (except
by God and/or Nature), it was discovered (or developed) by W.F. Libby.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica 2003 Deluxe CD edition (oh so cool for
$10):
"The carbon-14 method was developed by the American physicist Willard F.
Libby about 1946."
"...he and his students developed the carbon-14 dating technique."
"[He] wrote Radiocarbon Dating (1952)."
"For this development he was honoured with the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in
1960."

From the WWW:
"In 1960, Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for leading the
team (namely, post-doc James Arnold and graduate student Ernie Anderson,
with a $5,000 grant) that developed Carbon-14 dating."

"Martin Kamen discovered [Carbon-14] in 1940 in collaboration with the late
Sam Ruben, a University of California, Berkeley chemist, while the two were
working at the 60-inch cyclotron at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory."

Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Clark
2004-09-26 18:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by W1xyz
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.
Hi Robert,

What is the yield rate?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Fractenna
2004-09-26 19:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by W1xyz
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
Dog - nothing but dogs !!
2004-09-26 22:15:20 UTC
Permalink
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Fractenna"
Post by 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SWRLabs
2004-09-26 22:41:04 UTC
Permalink
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
Loading...