[HCARC] "Antennas on A Chip"

[Gary J - N5BAA]

Damn Kerry - just when I thought that something really cool (as if 100 watts 
talking to Australia is not cool enough - and it is!!) was about to happen 
and using it I could build a 40/80/160 meter antenna that would fit on a 
push up pole at 20 feet above the ground, you have to trash all of my dreams 
and bring it back to earth.  OH well, you can't fault me for at least 
reading and hoping.  BTW, Fred - your antenna theory belongs in the April 
QST which I still don't like nor read.  Kerry - are you sure there isn't 
something out there where no one has added 1+1+1 and come up with 3???  We 
have to have hope don't we??

Gary J
N5BAA

-----Original Message----- 
From: Kerry Sandstrom
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 12:15 PM
To: Gary J - N5BAA ; HCARC Reflector
Subject: Re: [HCARC] "Antennas on A Chip"

Hi Gary,

I wasn't sure I wanted to get into this discussion but since you want to
I will join you.  I really can't decide what these guys are talking
about.  The first thing I think is confusing is when he talks about this
may be where electromagnetics and quantum mechanics cross over.  Well,
the two great physics theories of the 20th century, quantum mechanics
and relativity, are consistent with classical physics.  You can solve
very simple problems with quantum mechanics and relativity.  What
actually happens is when you are in the world of the ordinary, both
quantum theory and relativity reduce to classical physics.  Classical
physics is a special case of relativity and quantum theory.  You can't
do anything with classical physics that you can't also do with quantum
physics and relativistic physics.  The converse is not true.  Classical
physics is incapable of solving problems involving relativistic and/or
quantum considerations.  The name of the field that includes
electromagnetism and quantum physics is called quantum electrodynamics -
and its not for the casual reader!

I don't believe any one has an adequate understanding of how
electromagnetic waves are created.  We have various models which can be
used to predict the generation of electromagnetic waves under specific
circumstances.  I'm sure you remember from school that there are two
different descriptions of electromagnetic radiation. One is a particle
description using photons.  This description is essential to describing
adequately things like the photoelectric effect.  The second description
is the wave description which is essential to describing interference
patterns.  Usually the wave and particle natures of electromagnetic
waves are discussed with visible light but they apply across the entire
spectrum from DC to gamma rays and beyond.  From this it should be
obvious that neither one is a real accurate description of the physics
of electromagnetic radiation, each only applies to specific situations.

Now when it comes down to the physical size of antennas, antenna theory
already allows for infinitesimal antennas.  The theory works adequately
for very small antennas, but of course there is no way to build a true
infinitesimal antenna!  While very small antennas work just fine they
suffer from poor efficiency and very broad beams. That is why people
don't use them except for very special situations.  Note that antenna
theory has no real concept of how the electromagnetic wave is
generated.  It just allows you to determine how to control it and use it.

Now lets talk about what I think these guys are up to.  One of the major
problems with computers is how to move data around on chips. When
computers had  small memories were slow and handled 8 bits at a time,
interconnecting conductors were not an issue.  Times have changed.  Now
computer guys want to talk about massively parallel processors and huge
parallel access memories.  Think about how you might move 1000 bit
parallel data around on a chip!  Some work is being done using light
signals to carry information around the chip.  I think the work
described in the paper you attached is to look at alternatives to lasers
and photodetectors on chips.

As far as 160/80/40 m antennas, this has no conceivable application.
Just my opinion.

Have fun,

Kerry

On 4/10/2015 11:18 AM, Gary J - N5BAA wrote:
> How might this breakthrough affect lower frequency antennas such as for 
> 40/80/160 meters??  Might we finally be able to get those antennas down to 
> a size that is more manageable??  Does height over ground still apply with 
> this breakthrough??
>
> antenna-chip.cfm
>
> Gary J
> N5BAA
> ______________________________________________________________
> HCARC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4328/9504 - Release Date: 04/10/15