I have always used the CFA as a mobile antenna!

Get with the program people, you will be hard pressed to find a better
antenna for this purpose!

As a shack antenna, it sucks!

However, what other antenna can you chuck a motor into, slap a
steering wheel and horn on and drive?

You guys are all wet, as usual... satisfied-smirk

John

"Polymath" wrote in message
...
Actually, just did a quick webbing and found enough to
realise that the claims are founded upon feet of clay.....

1. You do not separately excite the E and H fields because
if you excite an E field, you get a corresponding H field, and
vice-versa,
even if it is your intention to excite separately.

2. The differential forms of Maxwell describe the fields at _EVERY_
infinitesimal point and there is no way that the attempt to excite
two
separate fields from two separate mechanical contrivances will
result
in registration at every single point. Indeed, it is doubtful that
registration
will be achieved at all at any infinitesimal point. In any case, as
in (1) above,
your E field will have its H, and your H field will have its E field
already.

3. In the accepted equations describing the generated field,
radiation comes only
from accelerating charges. Thus the capacitive elements of the CFA
will
create the near field (decaying as 1/(r^2)) but not any radiated
field
(decaying as 1/r). I wonder if the measurements resulting in the
claims
for the CFA were made in the near field?

I wonder if the whole thing is intended as an elaborate hoax, and
that the
authors, in their original paper in Wireless World, relied on the
fact that
most readers' eyes would glaze over when faced with the maths of
vector
fields? (Remember, that in this NG we've had someone who boasts of
two degrees, one in maths and the other in electronics, stating that
e^(-jwt)
is a function that decreases with increasing time, thus indicating
that the
awarding of a degree together with the professing of mathematical
equations is no guarantee of competence!)

I suggest
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node53.html etc
as a good revising/learning/debunking cookbook. (Don't start from
node 53!)

"Polymath" wrote in message
...
I've just about got enough elec-and-mag theory to be
able to understand the claims made for the GM3HAT
CFA; any pointers to the patent claims?