The CFA de-bagged (Was: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!)
 

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?

Polly parroted:

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.

Your first point does in fact point to the anomaly regarding points in
your second point, and you have therefore pointed up the answer to
your own point. As you clearly have not thought this point through, I
pointedly leave its discovery as an exercise for you. While you
continue to struggle for technical excellence, doing this should help
point you to the requirements demanded of scientific thinking, and the
possibility of also taking your first tentative steps in that
discipline. Further, as a guide, scientists do not use personal
pronouns in their formal writings, so you might also like to rewrite
your article in such a manner.

from
Aero Spike

Spike wrote:
Polly parroted:


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.


Your first point does in fact point to the anomaly regarding points in
your second point, and you have therefore pointed up the answer to
your own point. As you clearly have not thought this point through, I
pointedly leave its discovery as an exercise for you. While you
continue to struggle for technical excellence, doing this should help
point you to the requirements demanded of scientific thinking, and the
possibility of also taking your first tentative steps in that
discipline. Further, as a guide, scientists do not use personal
pronouns in their formal writings, so you might also like to rewrite
your article in such a manner.

from
Aero Spike
and what would be the point of that?
--
;-)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
http://turner-smith.co.uk

Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:

and what would be the point of that?

It's a triumph of hope over experience, given this chap's posting
history - I'm sure you get the point ;-)

from
Aero Spike

"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?

Not the first time the CFA has been discussed here. The consensus is that
it is nonsense. Belrose has probably done the most rigorous investigation.
See the paper at http://download.antennex.com/shack/Jun00/paperdavos.pdf

I wonder who it was that is not familiar with Euler's formula.

Frank

From 'inventor' Hately's original descriptions of his CFA, it is so
glaringly obviously a load of nonsense that anybody who takes the time
to mathematically expose the fraud, himself exposes his own weakness
and uncertainty in the subject and has already been partially taken in
by it.

Waste no more time.
----
Reg.

Someone who has recently obtained a post as a teacher of
maths at a school in Strood, Kent!

Worrying, is it not?

Hardly surprising, therefore, to find that that person's greatest
achievement in Ham Radio was to aspire to a licence issued under
the gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme!

"Frank" wrote in message
news:TS0Ae.144440$on1.37843@clgrps13...

I wonder who it was that is not familiar with Euler's formula.

One of my purposes in scraping off the rust from 34 years'
of unused E-M theory was specifically so that I could evaluate
the claims made for the CFA.

I was intrigued by the claims but at no times taken in by them.

But yes - I exposed my ignorance but not any weakness, but there is never
any
problem with such exposure if it is done in an open spirit of eagerness to
learn!

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
From 'inventor' Hately's original descriptions of his CFA, it is so
glaringly obviously a load of nonsense that anybody who takes the time
to mathematically expose the fraud, himself exposes his own weakness
and uncertainty in the subject and has already been partially taken in
by it.
Waste no more time.

I see you are accustomed to self analysis. Not a bad thing.

But you unwittingly lowered yourself to the CFA level.

On the other hand, you have rapidly caught up with your true potential
which exceeds mine.

I have been worried about your recent absence and silence. Fearing the
worst in this gradually extending police state. Welcome back!

=======================================

"Polymath" wrote in message
...
One of my purposes in scraping off the rust from 34 years'
of unused E-M theory was specifically so that I could evaluate
the claims made for the CFA.

I was intrigued by the claims but at no times taken in by them.

But yes - I exposed my ignorance but not any weakness, but there is
never
any
problem with such exposure if it is done in an open spirit of
eagerness to
learn!

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
From 'inventor' Hately's original descriptions of his CFA, it is
so
glaringly obviously a load of nonsense that anybody who takes the
time
to mathematically expose the fraud, himself exposes his own
weakness
and uncertainty in the subject and has already been partially
taken in
by it.
Waste no more time.

Thank-you for your kind words.

At 6'3" and 20 stone, I fear that my potential,
gravitational at least, exceeds that of most people!

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
I see you are accustomed to self analysis. Not a bad thing.
But you unwittingly lowered yourself to the CFA level.
On the other hand, you have rapidly caught up with your true potential
which exceeds mine.
I have been worried about your recent absence and silence. Fearing the
worst in this gradually extending police state. Welcome back!