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?