"Benj" <bjacoby@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:6fdf2ae8-7384-49d9-9be2-2863cde81264@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
Yep. This is the one that claimed to use the magnetic field "caused" by
Displacement Current to form radiation in a small space. And this is the
one
that cost the Isle Of Man Radio enterprise megabucks when it didn't work.
BTW there's a "rule" in antenna design:
Small
Efficient
Wideband
Pick TWO
Bill
>
>
|
