Promoting electronic discussion.
|
|
electronics-forum.info Promoting electronic discussion. |
Sucking Radio Antenna" described here: http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html Thx, Paul |
Paul S <upintahoe999@yahoo.com > wrote: >Can anyone comment on the reality (or lack thereof) of the "Energy >Sucking Radio Antenna" described here: > >http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html It sure reads like nonsense. -- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
>Can anyone comment on the reality (or lack thereof) of the "Energy >Sucking Radio Antenna" described here: > >http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html > > >Thx, >Paul This very group had an extended thread on this subject, started by Mr Beaty as I recall. Nothing he says is remarkable: a short antenna can be matched with a high-Q tuning network such that it radiates like a longer antenna. And antannas are reciprocal devices. So a short receive antenna can be tuned to radiate or gather as much energy as, say, a half-wave dipole. It just takes a very high-Q matching network; the smaller the antenna, the higher the Q. The ball-lightning and stuff seems over the top, though. John |
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com > wrote: [...] >This very group had an extended thread on this subject, started by Mr >Beaty as I recall. Nothing he says is remarkable: a short antenna can >be matched with a high-Q tuning network such that it radiates like a >longer antenna. And antannas are reciprocal devices. So a short >receive antenna can be tuned to radiate or gather as much energy as, >say, a half-wave dipole. It just takes a very high-Q matching network; >the smaller the antenna, the higher the Q. For atoms and EM radiation, the Q is really high. For the one case I just calculated, the Q works out to be about 10^8. If you take the frequency of line and the line width for the Q value, that is. -- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
following: > In article <1u81m094pncpo63v66d8prfe4440p9jn8h@4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote: > [...] >>This very group had an extended thread on this subject, started by Mr >>Beaty as I recall. Nothing he says is remarkable: a short antenna can >>be matched with a high-Q tuning network such that it radiates like a >>longer antenna. And antannas are reciprocal devices. So a short >>receive antenna can be tuned to radiate or gather as much energy as, >>say, a half-wave dipole. It just takes a very high-Q matching network; >>the smaller the antenna, the higher the Q. > > For atoms and EM radiation, the Q is really high. For the one case I just > calculated, the Q works out to be about 10^8. If you take the frequency > of line and the line width for the Q value, that is. > He lost me at the imaginary Bussard ramscoop. Cheers! Rich |
> > Paul S wrote: > >> Can anyone comment on the reality (or lack thereof) of the >> "Energy Sucking Radio Antenna" described here: >> http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html > > This very group had an extended thread on this subject, started by > Mr Beaty as I recall. Nothing he says is remarkable: a short antenna > can be matched with a high-Q tuning network such that it radiates > like a longer antenna. And antannas are reciprocal devices. So a > short receive antenna can be tuned to radiate or gather as much > energy as, say, a half-wave dipole. It just takes a very high-Q > matching network; the smaller the antenna, the higher the Q. Indeed, a standard part of Poynting vector classical EM physics, and antenna design. One could start their investigation with the nice article by CF Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it," Am J Phys 51 (4), April 1983, pg 323, and follow the citation links. For example, ZB Wang in Physical Review B 70, pg 035418, 30July 2004. It's also become a newly- interesting subject in the high-tech field of nanoparticles, e.g. S Paper, J Applied Physics 92 (10) pg 5270, 15 2002. A useful way to think of the scene in energy terms is to realize that very small antennas have a high impedance, hence the required high-Q network. It becomes a matter of extracting energy at high voltages and low currents (from the external field). Even though the resonant currents may be fairly high, one cannot directly extract this as the Q would be spoiled. Alternately, consider low-frequency active receiving antennas, which are very short compared to the wavelength. These dispense with trying to extract the energy, and the high Q required, and simply use a high-impedance preamp to grab the antenna voltage. The only resonant elements involved would be parallel series LC traps, tuned to attenuate strong (local) RF sources that would otherwise overload the wideband preamp. > The ball-lightning and stuff seems over the top, though. Well, ball lightning is certainly another story. -- Thanks, - Win (email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now) |
Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com > says... > Indeed, a standard part of Poynting vector classical EM physics, A.K.A. "The science most likely to be mangled by an editor's spellchecker"... |
> >Can anyone comment on the reality (or lack thereof) of the "Energy >Sucking Radio Antenna" described here: > >http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html > As John said there was, a few years ago, a very, very long thread on this very subject. It may still be archived. I think google no longer archive this group and they may have deleted all the old stuff. A great shame if they have. Firstly. It does indeed work. Apparently some commercial uses of it are available. The problem lies in the description of *how* and *why* it works with almost no-one agreeing on it. Many engineers dismiss it and simply refuse to accept that it works. Of those that do agree it works, almost none of them agree on *how* it works. I personally think the description given in the link above is the correct explanation. But others will disagree. Gibbo |
> >Can anyone comment on the reality (or lack thereof) of the "Energy >Sucking Radio Antenna" described here: > >http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html > Hint. Think magnetic field.... short range effect. Think electric field.... short range effect. When the two go together, ie an electromagnetic field.... very long range effect. Each one reinforces the other. That's the important part . Therefore if you can manipulate one, you automatically manipulate the other. And as I said, everyone seems to disagree on this "energy sucking" idea. So when the flames start I will not respond. Gibbo |
wrote (in <73cf625b.0410031443.641874d4@posting.google.com >) about 'Is this antenna article serious?', on Sun, 3 Oct 2004: >Can anyone comment on the reality (or lack thereof) of the "Energy >Sucking Radio Antenna" described here: > >http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html > > It's largely out in left field (US metaphor and pun combined), but with a grain of truth. A resonant loop can concentrate a weak r.f. field from a distant transmitter sufficiently to allow an ordinary AM radio with a ferrite rod antenna (loopstick) to receive it quite well. I made one of these and called it a 'passive amplifier', with predictable incredulous reactions. But it's just a coil wound on a cardboard box about 2 feet on a side and an air-spaced variable capacitor in parallel. No transistors, batteries, etc. The electric field analogy (long wire antenna tuned to resonance by a series capacitor) exists in theory, but is physically much larger and not normally very practicable. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul S <upintahoe999@yahoo.com> > wrote (in <73cf625b.0410031443.641874d4@posting.google.com>) about 'Is > this antenna article serious?', on Sun, 3 Oct 2004: > >>Can anyone comment on the reality (or lack thereof) of the "Energy >>Sucking Radio Antenna" described here: >> >>http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html >> >> > > It's largely out in left field (US metaphor and pun combined), but with > a grain of truth. A resonant loop can concentrate a weak r.f. field from > a distant transmitter sufficiently to allow an ordinary AM radio with a > ferrite rod antenna (loopstick) to receive it quite well. I made one of > these and called it a 'passive amplifier', with predictable incredulous > reactions. But it's just a coil wound on a cardboard box about 2 feet on > a side and an air-spaced variable capacitor in parallel. No transistors, > batteries, etc. > > The electric field analogy (long wire antenna tuned to resonance by a > series capacitor) exists in theory, but is physically much larger and > not normally very practicable. Applications in power transmission over short distances eg 10m in the tens of kHz? -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org |
wrote (in <nV58d.2435$r3.1139@trnddc05 >) about 'Is this antenna article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: >He lost me at the imaginary Bussard ramscoop The Tnuctipun must have deleted that from the site, because I can't find it. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
the following: > I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net> > wrote (in <nV58d.2435$r3.1139@trnddc05>) about 'Is this antenna article > serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: > >>He lost me at the imaginary Bussard ramscoop > > The Tnuctipun must have deleted that from the site, because I can't find > it. > -- http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html http://www.amasci.com/graphics/dp-absb2.gif Right on the main page, about 5 screenscrolls down (maybe more if you display fewer lines), under 'A "HOLE" IN PHYSICS', "Fig 1. Energy flux lines for the nearfield region of a resonant absorber. The tiny absorber acts like a large disk." Looks kinda like a monopole, or very much like one of my metaphysical magical mystical metaphenomena. I've never metaphenomenon I didn't like. ;-) Cheers! Rich |
wrote (in <rKa8d.4134$eq1.3864@trnddc08 >) about 'Is this antenna article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: >Right on the main page, about 5 screenscrolls down (maybe more if you >display fewer lines), under 'A "HOLE" IN PHYSICS', "Fig 1. Energy flux >lines for the nearfield region of a resonant absorber. The tiny absorber >acts like a large disk." > >Looks kinda like a monopole, or very much like one of my metaphysical >magical mystical metaphenomena. I've never metaphenomenon I didn't like. I thought you meant that there was a specific reference to a Bussard ramjet. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
the following: > I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net> > wrote (in <rKa8d.4134$eq1.3864@trnddc08>) about 'Is this antenna > article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: > >>Right on the main page, about 5 screenscrolls down (maybe more if you >>display fewer lines), under 'A "HOLE" IN PHYSICS', "Fig 1. Energy flux >>lines for the nearfield region of a resonant absorber. The tiny absorber >>acts like a large disk." >> >>Looks kinda like a monopole, or very much like one of my metaphysical >>magical mystical metaphenomena. I've never metaphenomenon I didn't like. > > I thought you meant that there was a specific reference to a Bussard > ramjet. Nah, just that it uses some imaginary construct to make a big scoop. Sorry. Rich |
$nVMQpXYBFwrm@jmwa.demon.co.uk: > I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net> > wrote (in <rKa8d.4134$eq1.3864@trnddc08>) about 'Is this antenna > article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: > > > I thought you meant that there was a specific reference to a Bussard > ramjet. For a really great story concerning a Bussard engine, read Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero"! |
"John Todd" <tser827@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:Xns9579465772802tser827yahoocom@129.250.170.84... > John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in news:qGZ > $nVMQpXYBFwrm@jmwa.demon.co.uk: > > > I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net> > > wrote (in <rKa8d.4134$eq1.3864@trnddc08>) about 'Is this antenna > > article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: > > > > > > I thought you meant that there was a specific reference to a Bussard > > ramjet. > > > For a really great story concerning a Bussard engine, > read Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero"! I lost my copy of it maybe 30 years ago but somewhat annoyingly I've been stuck with an oft remembered but very hazy memory of a described spaceship data encoding system that compressed vast amounts of data into maybe just 6 transmitted digits. The decoding and unzipping back on earth apparently took phenomenal time and computer power. Any idea if this the same book?. I'd love to reread and actually *understand* what Poul was on about . regards jhon |
news:ck21po$irl$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "John Todd" <tser827@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9579465772802tser827yahoocom@129.250.170.84... > > John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in news:qGZ > > $nVMQpXYBFwrm@jmwa.demon.co.uk: > > > > > I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net> > > > wrote (in <rKa8d.4134$eq1.3864@trnddc08>) about 'Is this antenna > > > article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: > > > > > > > > > I thought you meant that there was a specific reference to a Bussard > > > ramjet. > > > > > > For a really great story concerning a Bussard engine, > > read Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero"! > > I lost my copy of it maybe 30 years ago but somewhat annoyingly I've been > stuck with an oft remembered but very hazy memory of a described spaceship > data encoding system that compressed vast amounts of data into maybe just 6 > transmitted digits. The decoding and unzipping back on earth apparently > took phenomenal time and computer power. > Any idea if this the same book?. > I'd love to reread and actually *understand* what Poul was on about . > regards > jhon You are thinking of "Gold at the Starbow's End", by Fredrick Pohl. The process described was called "engodelization", I suppose after Godel. The back-of-envelope version of this concept is to represent each character as a prime number, then send back the product of the primes. The receiver has to factor the received data to recover the primes used. For example, if I sent the number 2040, you would factor it to see that I sent 2 2 2 3 5 17, and then figure out what I meant with those 6 numbers. |
"Travis Hayes" <tmh-SPAMISSPICEDHAM@nerdshack.com > wrote in message news:2sjstiF1ldh5hU1@uni-berlin.de... > "john jardine" <john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ck21po$irl$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > "John Todd" <tser827@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns9579465772802tser827yahoocom@129.250.170.84... > > > John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in news:qGZ > > > $nVMQpXYBFwrm@jmwa.demon.co.uk: > > > > > > > I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net> > > > > wrote (in <rKa8d.4134$eq1.3864@trnddc08>) about 'Is this antenna > > > > article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought you meant that there was a specific reference to a Bussard > > > > ramjet. > > > > > > > > > For a really great story concerning a Bussard engine, > > > read Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero"! > > > > I lost my copy of it maybe 30 years ago but somewhat annoyingly I've been > > stuck with an oft remembered but very hazy memory of a described spaceship > > data encoding system that compressed vast amounts of data into maybe just > 6 > > transmitted digits. The decoding and unzipping back on earth apparently > > took phenomenal time and computer power. > > Any idea if this the same book?. > > I'd love to reread and actually *understand* what Poul was on about . > > regards > > jhon > > You are thinking of "Gold at the Starbow's End", by Fredrick Pohl. The > process described was called "engodelization", I suppose after Godel. The > back-of-envelope version of this concept is to represent each character as a > prime number, then send back the product of the primes. The receiver has to > factor the received data to recover the primes used. For example, if I sent > the number 2040, you would factor it to see that I sent 2 2 2 3 5 17, and > then figure out what I meant with those 6 numbers. > > Thanks Travis. Yes, makes sense, that was it. Pleased I hadn't imagined it. Bingo!. Just spotted it in the bookcase beckoning to me. regards john |
> I'd love to reread and actually *understand* what Poul was on ... I don't know what it was, but I am sure you can buy it in Denmark. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
wrote (in <10m2go2fv8iso54@news.supernews.com >) about 'Is this antenna article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: > >Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> says... > >> Indeed, a standard part of Poynting vector classical EM physics, > >A.K.A. "The science most likely to be mangled by an editor's spellchecker"... > > The term 'Poynting vector' is a tautology; all vectors point. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com> > wrote (in <10m2go2fv8iso54@news.supernews.com>) about 'Is this antenna > article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: > >>Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> says... >> >> >>>Indeed, a standard part of Poynting vector classical EM physics, >> >>A.K.A. "The science most likely to be mangled by an editor's spellchecker"... >> >> > > The term 'Poynting vector' is a tautology; all vectors point. They term "Pointing vector" would be tautology. Speaking of the vector invented by John Henry Poynting isn't. In which case you were making stupid puns; if you were that one Hertz. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com |
the following: > I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com> > wrote (in <10m2go2fv8iso54@news.supernews.com>) about 'Is this antenna > article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: >> >>Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> says... >> >>> Indeed, a standard part of Poynting vector classical EM physics, >> >>A.K.A. "The science most likely to be mangled by an editor's >>spellchecker"... >> >> > The term 'Poynting vector' is a tautology; all vectors point. > -- Geez, now you've really spoiled it for me. The student has surpassed the master. Have you recently been in a room filled with pot smokers? Cheers! Rich |
wrote (in <3si8d.5102$r3.772@trnddc05 >) about 'Is this antenna article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: >Nah, just that it uses some imaginary construct to make a big scoop. > >Sorry. De nada. But the pattern of field lines in the region of the tuned loop or ferrite rod does look as if the energy is being 'sucked' through the device. I'll chicken out of trying to do it in ASCII art, though. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
wrote (in <_qi8d.5097$r3.1467@trnddc05 >) about 'Is this antenna article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: >On Monday 04 October 2004 09:31 am, John Woodgate did deign to grace us with >the following: > >> I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com> >> wrote (in <10m2go2fv8iso54@news.supernews.com>) about 'Is this antenna >> article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004: >>> >>>Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> says... >>> >>>> Indeed, a standard part of Poynting vector classical EM physics, >>> >>>A.K.A. "The science most likely to be mangled by an editor's >>>spellchecker"... >>> >>> >> The term 'Poynting vector' is a tautology; all vectors point. >> -- >Geez, now you've really spoiled it for me. The student has surpassed >the master. Have you recently been in a room filled with pot smokers? > I confess that it's not original. I think the author might have been Marcus Scroggie, aka 'Cathode Ray', in a Christmas Festschrift. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
SPAMISSPICEDHAM@nerdshack.com > wrote (in <2sjstiF1ldh5hU1@uni- berlin.de >) about 'Is this antenna article serious?', on Wed, 6 Oct 2004: > You are thinking of "Gold at the Starbow's End", by Fredrick Pohl. >The process described was called "engodelization", I suppose after >Godel. The back-of-envelope version of this concept is to represent >each character as a prime number, then send back the product of the >primes. The receiver has to factor the received data to recover the >primes used. For example, if I sent the number 2040, you would factor >it to see that I sent 2 2 2 3 5 17, and then figure out what I meant >with those 6 numbers. An interesting prediction, because that is something like public key encryption. But factoring 6 digit numbers doesn't take much computer power, it's the 128 digit ones that take a few minutes. (;-) Of course, the resulting set of prime numbers represents a very powerful sub-code, because, for example, the three occurrences of '2' don't have to mean the same thing. One of the primes might well determine the order in which the other five are arranged. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Travis Hayes <tmh- > SPAMISSPICEDHAM@nerdshack.com> wrote (in <2sjstiF1ldh5hU1@uni- > berlin.de>) about 'Is this antenna article serious?', on Wed, 6 Oct > 2004: > > > You are thinking of "Gold at the Starbow's End", by Fredrick Pohl. > >The process described was called "engodelization", I suppose after > >Godel. The back-of-envelope version of this concept is to represent > >each character as a prime number, then send back the product of the > >primes. The receiver has to factor the received data to recover the > >primes used. For example, if I sent the number 2040, you would factor > >it to see that I sent 2 2 2 3 5 17, and then figure out what I meant > >with those 6 numbers. > > An interesting prediction, because that is something like public key > encryption. But factoring 6 digit numbers doesn't take much computer > power, it's the 128 digit ones that take a few minutes. (;-) > > Of course, the resulting set of prime numbers represents a very powerful > sub-code, because, for example, the three occurrences of '2' don't have > to mean the same thing. One of the primes might well determine the order > in which the other five are arranged. Also, it could be used to succinctly express where an object fits in a taxonomic hierarchy. For the traditional method of type encoding on a 32-bit machine using one bit per position to indicate type of an object, you get 32 positions for 32 different types: GIRL = 1 << 7, BOY = 1 << 8, ...and so on. But if you use Godel factoring: THING = 1, PERSON = 5, GIRL = PERSON * 17, BOY = PERSON * 23 Then you could determine whether a certain type has a subtype by checking for divisibility: if ((type mod PERSON) == 0) ... All types are a THING: if ((type mod THING) == 0) ... Since there are more than 200,000,000 primes less than 2^32, you can get quite a few more encodings for types that are simple. But for composite codes, the key is to choose the base codes carefully so that multiplication does not produce overflow. I proposed this scheme in the USENET C++ group a while ago but it was not well-received. Even I was a bit skeptical at first, but now I use it in a real system and it works fine. -Chaud Lapin- See http://primes.utm.edu/nthprime/index.php#piofx |
> For the traditional method of type encoding on a 32-bit machine using > one bit per position to indicate type of an object, you get 32 > positions for 32 different types: > > GIRL = 1 << 7, BOY = 1 << 8, ...and so on. > > But if you use Godel factoring: > > THING = 1, PERSON = 5, GIRL = PERSON * 17, BOY = PERSON * 23 Good Godel! Given 32 bits I have my choice of 4.3 billion phrases. That's more unique phrases (4e9) than man has concepts (3e0, by the last VP debate). One can always shift knowledge from the decoding algorithm to the data. The ultimate is to send one bit: 'create universe'. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
us with the following: > "Le Chaud Lapin" <unoriginal_username@yahoo.com> wrote > > >> For the traditional method of type encoding on a 32-bit machine using >> one bit per position to indicate type of an object, you get 32 >> positions for 32 different types: >> >> GIRL = 1 << 7, BOY = 1 << 8, ...and so on. >> >> But if you use Godel factoring: >> >> THING = 1, PERSON = 5, GIRL = PERSON * 17, BOY = PERSON * 23 > > Good Godel! > > Given 32 bits I have my choice of 4.3 billion phrases. That's more > unique phrases (4e9) than man has concepts (3e0, by the last VP debate). > > One can always shift knowledge from the decoding algorithm to the data. > The ultimate is to send one bit: 'create universe'. > Interestingly, that coincides with the asymptote of that thermal noise function at F=0. i.e., Big Bang. ;-) Cheers! Rich |
> Can anyone comment on the reality (or lack thereof) of the "Energy > Sucking Radio Antenna" described here: > > http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html > In fact, that's how ALL antennas work. In order for an antenna to receive EM energy, it must emit EM energy (otherwise it wouldn't have any effect on the EM fields, and the incoming EM waves would go right on past without being altered.) The "energy sucking" stuff describes antennas. It only becomes weird when the antenna is far smaller than a quarter-wavelength. By forcing a small antenna to emit more EM than it normally would, we also force that antenna to absorb more incoming EM. That's the essence of Sutton/Spaniol's active VLF antenna used in NASA research. But as many others point out, this depends on power dissipation in the antenna itself. In other words, the smaller the antenna, the higher the conductivity needs to be. To get fantastic results you really need a superconducting coil... or perhaps a rotating permanent magnet on maglev bearings in a vacuum chamber. The really important application will probably be in biology. If relatively distant atoms can communicate forces unexpectedly... then life forms probably harnessed the process a billion years back. For example, what if a protein can be designed so it attracts another atom or molecule over significant distances... but this attraction can be selectively turned off? If such things can exist, then I'd expect to find that DNA synthase is already using this phenomenon to concentrate the desired nucleic acids around itself while it's building a DNA molecule. As opposed to waiting for diffusion to bring the correct molecule within range so it can be grabbed and attached to the growing DNA. (Same should be looked for during RNA-construction, and during protein-building too.) If "energy sucking antennas" are genuine, then we should expect to see some unexpected forces with scanning tunneling microscopes; forces that arise when dealing with sharply-resonant atoms. And yes, such things hit the big time last year. Search on keywords "noncontact friction" and "resonant." For a REALLY WEIRD vision, consider a fairly intelligent single-cell organism such as a paramecium, and consider what it might be using in place of a nervous system. The cytoskeleton might explain everything that Paramecia can do. But wouldn't it be cool if you could link a bunch of protein-computer nodes together using long-range resonance forces in place of neurons. Would evolution discover and use it? Weirder things have happened. Maybe paramecia contain quantum-computer arrays connected together with a wireless network. :) |
billb@eskimo.com wrote: > Paul S wrote: > >>Can anyone comment on the reality (or lack thereof) of the "Energy >>Sucking Radio Antenna" described here: >> >>http://www.amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html >> > > > In fact, that's how ALL antennas work. In order > for an antenna to receive EM energy, it must emit > EM energy (otherwise it wouldn't have any effect > on the EM fields, and the incoming EM waves would > go right on past without being altered.) The way I understand this is that the external EM field causes electrons to flow in the antenna. So there is a flow of electrons in the antenna that is induced by the external EM field. This doesn't mean that the electrons are emitting an EM field, they are moving in a way that reflects the external EM field.. it is the same as back-emf in an electric motor I think. If you dampen the movement of the electrons in the antenna by removing energy from the antenna with a LNA, you will also dampen the external EM field around the antenna, so you are really not emitting any EM energy, but are taking EM energy away with an antenna I think. cheers, Jamie > > The "energy sucking" stuff describes antennas. It > only becomes weird when the antenna is far smaller > than a quarter-wavelength. By forcing a small > antenna to emit more EM than it normally would, > we also force that antenna to absorb more > incoming EM. That's the essence of Sutton/Spaniol's > active VLF antenna used in NASA research. But as > many others point out, this depends on power > dissipation in the antenna itself. In other words, > the smaller the antenna, the higher the conductivity > needs to be. To get fantastic results you really > need a superconducting coil... or perhaps a > rotating permanent magnet on maglev bearings in a > vacuum chamber. > > The really important application will probably > be in biology. If relatively distant atoms can > communicate forces unexpectedly... then > life forms probably harnessed the process a > billion years back. For example, what if a > protein can be designed so it attracts another > atom or molecule over significant distances... > but this attraction can be selectively turned > off? If such things can exist, then I'd > expect to find that DNA synthase is already > using this phenomenon to concentrate the desired > nucleic acids around itself while it's building > a DNA molecule. As opposed to waiting for > diffusion to bring the correct molecule within > range so it can be grabbed and attached to the > growing DNA. (Same should be looked for during > RNA-construction, and during protein-building > too.) > > If "energy sucking antennas" are genuine, then > we should expect to see some unexpected forces > with scanning tunneling microscopes; forces that > arise when dealing with sharply-resonant atoms. > And yes, such things hit the big time last year. > Search on keywords "noncontact friction" and > "resonant." > > For a REALLY WEIRD vision, consider a fairly > intelligent single-cell organism such as a > paramecium, and consider what it might be using > in place of a nervous system. The cytoskeleton > might explain everything that Paramecia can do. > But wouldn't it be cool if you could link a > bunch of protein-computer nodes together using > long-range resonance forces in place of neurons. > Would evolution discover and use it? Weirder > things have happened. Maybe paramecia contain > quantum-computer arrays connected together > with a wireless network. :) > |
|
> sucking") antennas. It seems to me the ferrite, the multiple turns, > and they're capacitance render the space occupied by the antenna > of much lower impedance than the surrounding space, rendering > it "energy sucking". Actually, I'm fascinated by the "microscopic" analysis of antennas. Go and study what happens to the EM fields and the individual charges, moment by moment. Try to *see* the operation. Be a concept-loving 'babylonian' rather than a math-loving 'greek.' Textbooks go for the frequency-domain calculation-based approach. I want to be able to visualize the shape of the EM fields in the antenna's nearfield under various conditions. This is analogous to giving up on Ohm's law and instead examining the shape of e-fields and the behavior of carriers in a conductor. Ohm's law is great for circuit design, but the simplification it brings will conceal all sorts of interesting and complicated phenomena. For engineering, use Ohm's law, but if you want to tear off the hood and look at the details of the physics, then Ohm's law *is* the hood that needs to be torn off. Same with antennas: to confront the physics, we have to carefully remove the mental models which simplify everything and which make engineering easy. When I started understanding what the nearfield looks like, I soon found out about "energy sucking" antennas, I realized that my intuition was right: the frequency-domain approach hides some very interesting phenomena. If we start looking at 3D fields and electron density while ignoring the EM spectrum and the whole Impedance concept, we gain some insights that don't appear in textbooks. Suddenly a superregen receiver is an obvious device. Suddenly the tuning capacitor across your AM radio ferrite coil is an obvious technique. Lasers stop looking so much like QM devices and have obvious connections with classical EM. And suddenly the Sutton/Spaniol antenna becomes a very cool discovery (and why are only the Fringe Science types discussing it?) ---- If I had some real math skills, I'd love to look at antennas from the viewpoint of photon tunneling. Because of tunneling, antennas have access to any photon within approx 1/4 wavelength distance. This might do nothing but make antenna physics excruciatingly complicated. But with luck it will reveal some interesting physics of which nobody else is currently aware. Or it might highlight some antenna designs which aren't currently known. |
>>Bill B. is intrigued with the concept of electrically small ("energy >>sucking") antennas. > Actually, I'm fascinated by the "microscopic" analysis of antennas. Unless we're discussing the QM-GM schizm, the microscopic aught to be teh microscopic too. > Go and study what happens to the EM fields and the individual > charges, moment by moment. Try to *see* the operation. Be > a concept-loving 'babylonian' rather than a math-loving 'greek.' I haven't heard of a difference between concept-Babylonians and math-Greeks before. > Textbooks go for the frequency-domain calculation-based approach. Frequency domain is a generalization of the time-domain. The time domain is of course the most prime, first-principle way to handle problems. > I want to be able to visualize the shape of the EM fields in the > antenna's nearfield under various conditions. > > This is analogous to giving up on Ohm's law and instead > examining the shape of e-fields and the behavior of carriers > in a conductor. Ohms law is just a crude application of Maxwells equations. Ohm's law is great for circuit design, but > the simplification it brings will conceal all sorts of > interesting and complicated phenomena. For engineering, > use Ohm's law, but if you want to tear off the hood and > look at the details of the physics, then Ohm's law *is* the > hood that needs to be torn off. Of course. Even with computers we now have to deal with the EM effects of VHF & UHF buss speeds. Same with antennas: to > confront the physics, we have to carefully remove the mental > models which simplify everything and which make engineering > easy. Of course; get to the first-principles then apply the simplifications that support the application. > When I started understanding what the nearfield looks like, > I soon found out about "energy sucking" antennas, I don't get the implication; I realized > that my intuition was right: the frequency-domain approach hides > some very interesting phenomena. If we start looking at 3D > fields and electron density while ignoring the EM spectrum and > the whole Impedance concept, we gain some insights that don't > appear in textbooks. Please explain the connections between 3D fields, electron density, and impedance. I'm not getting it. Suddenly a superregen receiver is an > obvious device. I don't get it =( Suddenly the tuning capacitor across your > AM radio ferrite coil is an obvious technique. ??? Lasers stop > looking so much like QM devices and have obvious connections > with classical EM. How so? And suddenly the Sutton/Spaniol antenna > becomes a very cool discovery (and why are only the Fringe > Science types discussing it?) As I said, applying regeneration to boost the bandwidth of a lossy transmission line device doesn't correlate with me to energy-sucking systems. An atom is energy-sucking when I think about a pulse of momentun in a really damn small space. Einstien says E=mc^2; a pulse of momentum in the space-time continuum in the configuration of an atom contracts the medium, and causes EM (photons) to warp into it. With ferrites or dielectrics, you have bulk atoms with a broken symetry, which causes bulk EM waves to warp into the bulk medium. When you have a coil of wire, you have a coil of free charges with bulk inductance and capacitance which can bend bulk EM waves into the system. But if you think that applying a little energy to magnetize a piece of ferrite is going to help it suck in EM waves, I think you're mistaken. If you spin a bulk immense superconductor damn fast (neutron star, et.), well, that's a different matter! > If I had some real math skills, I'd love to look at antennas from > the viewpoint of photon tunneling. You can find plenty of scholarly articles at xarchive.org on "evanescnet waves". Caveat Emptor! Because of tunneling, > antennas have access to any photon within approx 1/4 wavelength > distance. I got to do some cyphering, so I can figure out just where photons end and EM waves begin. Probably around 20 microns - far infrared. But that's Scott's SWAG. This might do nothing but make antenna physics > excruciatingly complicated. But with luck it will reveal some > interesting physics of which nobody else is currently aware. > Or it might highlight some antenna designs which aren't currently > known. I want to build a photon-torpedoe transmitter. I think Bearden's Scalar Wave B.S. is some kind of U.F.O. like obfuscation of a covert technology with profound implications for covert communications and EMP weapons. But thats just my SWAG. |
> Go and study what happens to the EM fields and the individual > charges, moment by moment. Try to *see* the operation. Be > a concept-loving 'babylonian' rather than a math-loving 'greek.' A light-bulb flashed! I see now that if you apply regeneration to cause the impedance of an antenna to match that of the space it is in (flux-conservation / transformation ratios accounted for), you are implementing the maximum-power transer theorem - Zsource=Zload. No reflected energy, maximum absorption. A while back, I suggested a stealth aircraft made from a skin of oscillators (transistors) imbedded in ferro-magnetic & ferro-electic material, such that it near-perfectly absorbed incident radiation. I thought of this after contemplating how "Red Mercury" could make stealthy aircraft stealthier. If you have a radio-active material that could be stimulated to beta-emit by incident radiation, you would have an active-plasma. |