[guest39538]

Why not make the licence a honest licence.  By this I mean  have the licence as a sort of radiation tax, the bigger the radiation source the more expensive the tax licence?

Surely the poorer people of the nation who cant afford huge televisions would then benefit from this and not mind paying a lesser fee that equates to their status in society.
Richer people with big televisions should pay more than a poor person with a small television. A fee could be set at x amount per inch, around about the £2.50-£3.00 an inch being a honest price.

Once again, you seem unable to tell a lightbulb from a TV set.

Again you have gone back to your trollish ways and are being silly.

[Bored chemist]

Again you have gone back to your trollish ways and are being silly.

It's not trolling to point out that the radiation (deliberately) emitted by TV sets is light, and that they resemble light bulbs in this way.

[guest39538]

Again you have gone back to your trollish ways and are being silly.

It's not trolling to point out that the radiation (deliberately) emitted by TV sets is light, and that they resemble light bulbs in this way.

I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light, obviously a light bulb emits light the same as the television does. 
I think we just got our wires crossed , it is how we read each others posts sometimes.

[alancalverd]

No, the license is specifically to receive broadcast television signals. What you do with them is up to you.

[Bored chemist]

I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,

You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?

[guest39538]

I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,

You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?

Carrier signal = photons 

[The Spoon]

Carrier signal = photons

No. It really doesnt. Something else you are wrong about then.

[guest39538]

Carrier signal = photons

No. It really doesnt. Something else you are wrong about then.

Yeah ok, there are no pictures on a television screen, don't you know how sight works? 

[The Spoon]

Carrier signal = photons

No. It really doesnt. Something else you are wrong about then.

Yeah ok, there are no pictures on a television screen, don't you know how sight works? 

Are you really that much of a fool?

[Bored chemist]

I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,

You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?

Carrier signal = photons 

Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.

Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave

[guest39538]

I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,

You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?

Carrier signal = photons 

Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.

Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave

It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.
You know that.

[The Spoon]

I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,

You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?

Carrier signal = photons 

Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.

Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave

It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.
You know that.

If the carrier wave consisted of photons we would see TV transmitter aerials glowing due to the emission of visible light as a consequence of the photons emitted. They dont.

[guest39538]

I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,

You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?

Carrier signal = photons 

Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.

Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave

It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.
You know that.

If the carrier wave consisted of photons we would see TV transmitter aerials glowing due to the emission of visible light as a consequence of the photons emitted. They dont.

No you wouldn't , the photons are not within your visual frequency range. So you can't see them .  You can detect them by having better eyes, i. e a device.

[Bored chemist]

It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.
You know that.

So, the bit about a carrier was just you putting a "sciency sounding" word in for no reason.
Why do you do that?

[Bored chemist]

No you wouldn't , the photons are not within your visual frequency range.

Astoundingly, he's right about this
All em radiation is quarantined- the photon emery for radio waves is tiny, but they are still photons.

The rest of it is still a crock.

[guest39538]

It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.
You know that.

So, the bit about a carrier was just you putting a "sciency sounding" word in for no reason.
Why do you do that?

Electromagnetic waves are carrier signals, it contains information at the right frequency . 

[The Spoon]

I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,

You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?

Carrier signal = photons 

Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.

Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave

It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.
You know that.

If the carrier wave consisted of photons we would see TV transmitter aerials glowing due to the emission of visible light as a consequence of the photons emitted. They dont.

No you wouldn't , the photons are not within your visual frequency range. So you can't see them .  You can detect them by having better eyes, i. e a device.

But according to your nonsensical idea, we see a picture on a tv screen because the transmission is of photons. You are therefore implying that the transmission is in the visible range. Do you also think that cable or You tube videos are transmitted over a wired network using photons?

[guest39538]

I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,

You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?

Carrier signal = photons 

Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.

Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave

It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.
You know that.

If the carrier wave consisted of photons we would see TV transmitter aerials glowing due to the emission of visible light as a consequence of the photons emitted. They dont.

No you wouldn't , the photons are not within your visual frequency range. So you can't see them .  You can detect them by having better eyes, i. e a device.

But according to your nonsensical idea, we see a picture on a tv screen because the transmission is of photons. You are therefore implying that the transmission is in the visible range. Do you also think that cable or You tube videos are transmitted over a wired network using photons?

A television emits wave-lengths of electromagnetic radiation in the range of 400-700nm i.e visible light.   And of course a network uses photons sent up a wire, the same as fibre optics work with sound.

[The Spoon]

I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,

You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?

Carrier signal = photons 

Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.

Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave

It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.
You know that.

If the carrier wave consisted of photons we would see TV transmitter aerials glowing due to the emission of visible light as a consequence of the photons emitted. They dont.

No you wouldn't , the photons are not within your visual frequency range. So you can't see them .  You can detect them by having better eyes, i. e a device.

But according to your nonsensical idea, we see a picture on a tv screen because the transmission is of photons. You are therefore implying that the transmission is in the visible range. Do you also think that cable or You tube videos are transmitted over a wired network using photons?

A television emits wave-lengths of electromagnetic radiation in the range of 400-700nm i.e visible light.   And of course a network uses photons sent up a wire, the same as fibre optics work with sound.

You claimed that the carrier wave consisted of photons - now you are saying that televisions emit visual light. This is nonsense.
Fibre optics work with visible light yes - the clue is in the name. Transmission of a signal via a wire is completely different.

[The Spoon]

It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.
You know that.

So, the bit about a carrier was just you putting a "sciency sounding" word in for no reason.
Why do you do that?

Electromagnetic waves are carrier signals, it contains information at the right frequency . 

But you said specifically that photons are the carrier.