"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Pete old pal, too much caffeine?

Huh?

Firstly, rf energy does refract as it passes through the near field of a
tuned element/antenna

I never said it didn't.

And I don't know what to think about your last statement... But let me
point out that the faster lens 'gathers more light' because it has a
larger
diameter in wavelengths, compared to the slower lens (assuming same focal
length for both)

That's just baloney. It gathers more light because of the larger aperture,
letting in more of the incoming light. It has nothing to do with
wavelengths (though, it is certainly true that, a wavelength simply being
one way to measure linear distance, you certainly can measure the lens
aperture in wavelengths, just as easily as in inches, cm, mm, or whatever).

Light spreads out as it travels. At a certain distance, a certain
percentage of the light from a given source is present across a given area.
The percentage is inversely proportional to the distance from the source of
light, and directly proportional to the size of the area. Increase the
area, or decrease the distance, and you get more light. It's a simple
matter of how much light gathering surface you put in front of the light,
and has nothing to do with the relationship between the area and the
wavelength of the incoming light.

The same thing is true of the reflector dishes used for radio astronomy and
other radio reception. Making them larger allows them to gather more of the
radiation being received. It's as simple as the fact that more of the dish
is "in the way" of the incoming radiation. It's no different than how a
bucket with a one foot opening will catch more rain than a glass with a one
inch opening.

Just because wavelength is a distance and diameter is a distance, that
doesn't mean that every effect caused by a change in diameter is directly
related to the radiation's wavelength. Size matters in other ways too.
Introducing wavelengths simply obfuscates the issue.

Pete