This like will no doubt disappear in time but consider
the applications to amateur radio.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....em0doxnf.html
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Isn't this like looking at a fish underwater where it.... is .....not
exactly where you see it ...... is?
.......This is what Clinton was talking about when referring to.......
:is.........!:
Art

Cecil Moore wrote:
This like will no doubt disappear in time but consider
the applications to amateur radio.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....em0doxnf.html
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

art wrote:
Isn't this like looking at a fish underwater where it.... is .....not
exactly where you see it ...... is?

No, this is like looking at a fish underwater and not seeing the fish at
all because the light is refracted around the fish.

......This is what Clinton was talking about when referring to.......
:is.........!:

No, more like what Bush was talking about when he said 'Mission
Accomplished,' what you see and hear is completely different than actual
reality.

W8LNA

That pretty much agrees with my comments
Art
gwatts wrote:
art wrote:
Isn't this like looking at a fish underwater where it.... is .....not
exactly where you see it ...... is?

No, this is like looking at a fish underwater and not seeing the fish at
all because the light is refracted around the fish.

......This is what Clinton was talking about when referring to.......
:is.........!:

No, more like what Bush was talking about when he said 'Mission
Accomplished,' what you see and hear is completely different than actual
reality.

W8LNA

consider
the applications to amateur radio.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....em0doxnf.html

First application that comes to mind is hiding that 40M SteppIR on your
roof.

Or, more fun, how about having your entire house disappear along with
your CW transmissions? Not exactly RFI but ...

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:11:52 -0400, jawod wrote:

consider
the applications to amateur radio.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....em0doxnf.html

First application that comes to mind is hiding that 40M SteppIR on your
roof.

Or, more fun, how about having your entire house disappear along with
your CW transmissions? Not exactly RFI but ...

Hi John,

The link above is rather facile in its reporting, but so are most of
the pages provided by Dr. Smith (there's something of "Lost in Space"
about them).

Anyway, the science behind this news is found at:
http://www.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/neg_ref_home.htm
which relates to topics I've offered in this group in the past 3 or 4
years. It comes from the photonics of negative refraction abstracted
to RF.

Boeing Phantom Works, here, has already done the bulk of the work and
their devices are displayed at the pages above (without citation), are
better documented at:
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...gust/i_tt.html
and
http://ceta-p5.mit.edu/metamaterials...r_apl_2003.pdf

The last is a real paper, not the fluff going around in the popular
press.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:11:52 -0400, jawod wrote:


consider

the applications to amateur radio.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....em0doxnf.html

First application that comes to mind is hiding that 40M SteppIR on your
roof.

Or, more fun, how about having your entire house disappear along with
your CW transmissions? Not exactly RFI but ...


Hi John,

The link above is rather facile in its reporting, but so are most of
the pages provided by Dr. Smith (there's something of "Lost in Space"
about them).

Anyway, the science behind this news is found at:
http://www.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/neg_ref_home.htm
which relates to topics I've offered in this group in the past 3 or 4
years. It comes from the photonics of negative refraction abstracted
to RF.

Boeing Phantom Works, here, has already done the bulk of the work and
their devices are displayed at the pages above (without citation), are
better documented at:
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...gust/i_tt.html
and
http://ceta-p5.mit.edu/metamaterials...r_apl_2003.pdf

The last is a real paper, not the fluff going around in the popular
press.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Richard,

Thanks so much for the links.

John
AB8O

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:11:52 -0400, jawod wrote:


consider

the applications to amateur radio.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....em0doxnf.html

First application that comes to mind is hiding that 40M SteppIR on your
roof.

Or, more fun, how about having your entire house disappear along with
your CW transmissions? Not exactly RFI but ...


Hi John,

The link above is rather facile in its reporting, but so are most of
the pages provided by Dr. Smith (there's something of "Lost in Space"
about them).

Anyway, the science behind this news is found at:
http://www.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/neg_ref_home.htm
which relates to topics I've offered in this group in the past 3 or 4
years. It comes from the photonics of negative refraction abstracted
to RF.

Boeing Phantom Works, here, has already done the bulk of the work and
their devices are displayed at the pages above (without citation), are
better documented at:
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...gust/i_tt.html
and
http://ceta-p5.mit.edu/metamaterials...r_apl_2003.pdf

The last is a real paper, not the fluff going around in the popular
press.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You know, I've always been puzzled by negative refraction. The basis of
positive refraction is that the speed of EMR (say light) decreases
within a given material. In negative refraction, the speed of light
INCREASES?

I guess as long as it is less than the speed of light in a vacuum, no
laws have been broken?

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:20:40 -0400, jawod wrote:

You know, I've always been puzzled by negative refraction. The basis of
positive refraction is that the speed of EMR (say light) decreases
within a given material. In negative refraction, the speed of light
INCREASES?

I guess as long as it is less than the speed of light in a vacuum, no
laws have been broken?

Hi John,

My first reaction too.

However, when you look at the math, negative refraction is, well,
negative. What you describe (and I initially anticipated) is the
ratio of speed of light and the phase velocity being less than one.
Not the same thing being discussed here.

Another expression for negative refraction is "left-handed."

Anyway, more grist for you to review at:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/5/3

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:20:40 -0400, jawod wrote:

You know, I've always been puzzled by negative refraction. The basis of
positive refraction is that the speed of EMR (say light) decreases
within a given material. In negative refraction, the speed of light
INCREASES?

I guess as long as it is less than the speed of light in a vacuum, no
laws have been broken?

Hi John,

My first reaction too.

However, when you look at the math, negative refraction is, well,
negative. What you describe (and I initially anticipated) is the
ratio of speed of light and the phase velocity being less than one.
Not the same thing being discussed here.

Another expression for negative refraction is "left-handed."

Anyway, more grist for you to review at:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/5/3

Following Richard's informative links, there is a page on the Duke site
which answers the "velocity of light" question:
http://www.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/nega...ndex_about.htm

Near the end, it points out the difference between the phase velocity -
which is what we usually mean by "the velocity" of light - and the group
(or energy) velocity. It's only the latter that is made negative, but
the transport of energy is still in the forward direction.



--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek