Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:19:14 -0000, "christofire"
wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:06:28 -0000, "christofire"
wrote:

With a pair of screened loops and a whip it is possible to receive
separately the magnetic and electric fields associated with a radio signal
and to record their strengths at different locations. This can reveal
significant differences on account of building and electrical clutter, but
only if the loop is adequately screened. No myth!
What you describe is a direction finding system with a general antenna
that can be switched in to sniff for a transmitter to take a bearing
on. A commonplace design for this application.
No, the loops were commutated in order to provide an omni-direction pattern
in the horizontal plane and the receiver was switched between the loops and
whip to measure H and E. This was used to establish for medium and
long-wave broadcasting stations (in the UK) the field strength and
receivability on ferrite-rod antennas.

The description you offer in rebuttal says nothing of field
separation. The commutation discussion imparts nothing to the
physical relationship of the wave. The remainder of the description
doesn't actually describe any physical/geometric relationship to the
wave at all. Physics in the UK are not different from the rest of the
world.

The loops are no more
screened than any other, and careful observation of their construction
details would reveal the necessary break in the screen which serves
for balance only.
The loop has to be split at some point to prevent it acting as a shorted
turn - the splits were at the top in this case.

This, too, is merely conventional design then.

You haven't described anything out of the ordinary, and the ordinary
(spanning centuries) has not shown the attributes you describe as
field separation.

You're entitled to your opinion.

As are you, but this isn't rec.radio.amateur.antenna.polls and you
haven't gone beyond unsubstantiated claims.

If the necessity of proof for your claims were set aside, Nature still
demands that noise and signal still arrive by the same mechanism and
any invention that separates fields must apply them equally to both
sources - returning us to the conventional observation that S/N hasn't
changed one bit. The net result of this is that you have provided
unsubstantiated claims for an useless invention. Any value it may
have comes by conventional means.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

Are your powers of perception waning by any chance? Your correspondent
deserves more credit than you're allowing him. As far as I've seen in
this thread, you're the only one talking about 'field delamination' or
such things. As you said, what he is talking about is purely
conventional. And clever. That you apparently don't completely
understand what he is saying is no fault of his.

73, ac6xg