"Free Energy" is indeed hard to find...
However, consider an antenna made of a superconducting material--it would at
least be impossible to lose any (at least due to resistance and heating!)

Regards

--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this har disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...


Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?


How better to explain interference phenomena at, "Alpha Centauri" for
example? :-)


How better indeed? As I remember, it was Dr. Best's assertion
that the source always provided the extra energy during construc-
tive interference (no matter how far away the source might be).
I, OTOH, tend to believe "Optics", by Hecht where he asserts
that there must always be an energy balance between constructive
interference and destructive interference (as demonstrated by
the radiation pattern of an antenna).

It's certainly correct in almost any instance to say that the source of
energy provides the energy. Not necessarily so of other points in space.
And only rarely do we find any "extra" energy in physical systems. ;-)

ac6xg

John Smith wrote:

"Free Energy" is indeed hard to find...
However, consider an antenna made of a superconducting material--it would at
least be impossible to lose any (at least due to resistance and heating!)

Regards

Yea, but it's a real pain having to haul the liquid helium dewar up the
tower in the middle of a dx opening.

ac6xg