Giantkiller moves forward into Full Heterodyning.

[sparks]

  @gk

    Making partial electrons is a bitch.   Your radiant freqs have to hetrodyne with the reflected freqs. constructively. Mother nature gives them a spinor resonance so it is best that we do. But we don't want mother nature to take over and create a big old electron on our bench top cause E=MC2. 

[Localjoe]

Ã,  @gk

Ã,  Ã,  Making partial electrons is a bitch. ::)Ã,  Your radiant freqs have to hetrodyne with the reflected freqs. constructively. Mother nature gives them a spinor resonance so it is best that we do. But we don't want mother nature to take over and create a big old electron on our bench top cause E=MC2.Ã, 

Have ya looked at pythagoras or PHI you really should http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit3/unit3.htmlÃ,   http://www.championtrees.org/yarrow/phi/phi4.htm

think of two spiral waves going up the sides of an equlatteral triangale.Ã,  when the smack at the top there upward momentum still carries them upward but the sideways hit sways the diamater of the emmision. If done on a sphere same concept two waves hit projet outword or inward depending on vector spins and emit a scalar beam as youd have it.. If Gk makes one of these with a confined beam mabey we could have three or so and focus them into a tetrahedron crystal.Ã,  This crystal is special because it will accept light from wahtever angle and focus it to one point , kinda like a multiplexer. .. But now we need  the inverse to demodulate .. and the range id imagine it would be huge

[EMdevices]

Drossen,  good to have you on board.   Be careful what you say or you'll discredit yourself quickly.  It's not electrons escaping from the antenna that carry the waves, but the nature of the "aether" or space time fabric and the ripples that get created in it.

@Feynmen

The electron mass is interchangable with the frequency.  They are identical in quantum electrodynamics.

Thanks for the plots and insights,  I have to say though,  I was big on learning quantum mechanics and bought some of Feynman's books (including the QED book) and another MIT book on intro to quantum mechanics and read quite a bit, and I got turned off a bit.

For one thing,  they say that objects in motion have a frequency, and after learning how the experiments were done I realized what is happening.  If you hit a crystal with subatomic particles, you are disturbing a matrix of OSCILLATORS,  and yes you will see oscillations.   Their folly, in my opinion is to assume the oscillations were a property of the MOVING PROJECTILES, AND NOT THE TARGET.   How can this be I thought.  I haven't read in detail the pro and con arguments, but it seemed fishy to me in retrospect, and that might just be it.  In retrospect things look different, but when you actually do the experiments, you don't know much and you just assume the obvious.

Along the same lines,  mathematically you can do a Furrier transform and show a particular shape is composed of a series of pure sine waves with varying phases and amplitudes.    Is this however PROOF we are nothing more than a bunch of WAVES?  I don't think so.    To me matter is matter, and waves are waves, two separate phenomena, which brings me to the famous experiments showing duality. 

So once again, IN RETROSPECT, we now know why this is occurring and know about such things as electromagnetic radiation and phases and antenna arrays, etc., and it's not so much of a mystery in the double slit experiments with electron beams, etc.. Electrons are charged and are accompanied by EM fields and when they hit an electromagnetic resonant structure, it's the structure that causes the interference. 

Anyway,  these are my views, and I'm not an expert in any quantum stuff, I'm just an antenna engineer who's been caught in the TPU mire 

EM

[Drossen]

@EMDevices

Thanks for the warning.  It has been my understanding that when signal power is applied to an antenna, some of that power is radiated.  That radiated power has both voltage and current.  Current is the movement of electrons, thus it was my understanding that electrons are emitted from the antenna.  This is my line of thought.  Also, I don't consider myself an "expert", there are physicists and other scientists where I work that have much more knowledge and experience than I do.  The knowledge I have about antennas, and signal propagation comes from classes the Signal Exploitation and Geolocation Division at SwRI teaches their engineers, as well as through the experience I have gained working on various projects and internal research.  Also, I only have less than three years experience in this field, and am still learning.

Drossen

[omnispace]

A common misunderstanding...even many EEs don't understand current and EM radiation.  First of all, understand that while current is a  measure of electron movement, the electrons are moving extremely slowly.  EM energy, on the other hand, moves at the speed of light.  The antenna radiates photons, which can be thought of as EM field disturbances.

You can make antennas which have high voltage and low current, or low voltage and high current.  You can still have a large power transfer by picking up the high voltage (E-field) at the receiver, then pumping a current through the receiving antenna.  The properly tuned antenna will perform the same function without the need for a current source.

omnispace