On Jul 9, 11:25 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> Well, after reading the above post yesterday morning I thought I'd wait
> untill the inevitable pandamonium settled. However, apart from Ben the
> silence is deafening.
And even I had little to say. Hey, I've actually worked with photons
and phonons and the like and even though it's clear the effects are
real, I have NO idea what it all means.
> On a side note, Ben asked in a previous post whether or not using the
> negative numbers side in some theoretical works was valid. And since
then I
> have read the following.
<snip>
> I found the above very interesting, and have begun to wonder at what
else
> may be lurking within other negative solutions.
> Is a negative power solution not valid? Negative work is still work is
it
> not?
I have brought up the subject of Maxwells equations and "non-physical"
solutions from time to time. E&M professionals and by that I mean
people who work in practical application of Maxwell's Equations like
antenna designers and radar developers and the like, are very familiar
with the fact that Maxwell's equations often produce solutions that
you simply summarily pitch out by asserting they are "non-physical".
Bill strikes me as an E&M pro and I'm sure he's familiar with this.
However, the question would be "are negative solutions non-physical?"
The answer of course depends totally on experiment. Namely does the
antenna design actually work or is it just another dream.
I would point out that the antenna in question has properties that are
not all that hard to achieve save ONE. The DDRR antenna and it's
clones easily do it all except for bandwidth. A small physical size
almost always implies a tradeoff and if that is not going to be gain,
then it's going to be bandwidth. But that is using the standard
"physical" solutions. Do do the "negative" solutions work? Only
experiment can answer that question. I used to have a CB antenna on
the roof of my van of a DDRR clone variety. It easily produced a gain
in both reception and transmitting equal to a full size dipole. [Yes
Virginia, personally measured by me in comparison to an actual full
size dipole] It had a maximum height of about 6 inches off the roof.
But you had to manually tune it to each channel used. No biggie,
though. Of course it depends on how you define "bandwidth". The
antenna could be TUNED over a very wide range of frequencies, but the
bandwidth at any given tuning was rather limited. But that was GOOD as
it much reduces EMI.
As I recall wasn't this antenna mentioned by Vince, the antenna
mentioned in a previous thread that was termed a hoax?
|
