| |
VK3ABK > EMC 13.06.07 07:01l 60 Lines 3277 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 58334_VK3HEG
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: 10MHz wipeout.
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DK0WUE<DB0RES<TU5EX<F6GAQ<ON0BEL<ZS0MEE<VK4TRS<VK3HEG
Sent: 070613/0455Z @:VK3HEG.#WEV.VIC.AUS.OC #:58334 [Ballarat] $:58334_VK3HEG
From: VK3ABK@VK3HEG.#WEV.VIC.AUS.OC
To : EMC@WW
Hello Sceptics.
The bulletin from Paul, G4IJL, telling of a BBC program about lighting a
60Watt lamp without wires, is the kind of 'techno-journalism that grabs
public interest. There may be a reason for this. But the report we got is so
garbled that reality is lost. Anything under an MIT banner must have some
credibility, so let's see the original 'Science' article before judging it.
So why shoot Paul?
This got me thinking about the transmission through space, and about any
difference between, say, a 10mhz source and one at 50Hz. Also, the components
in a 10MHz (RF) frequency and a 50Hz (power) source. A 10MHz wave travels at
300 million m/s, and in one second a single wavefront will advance by
30 metres, to be followed at that distance by the next cyclic wave. At 50Hz,
one wave cycle travelling at the same speed has had time to dissipate before
the next has started. So, at 50Hz, and at audio or 'low' frequencies, there
is not the "pressure or energy" to quote from the BBC report, but at higher
frequencies (10MHz) ..."each cycle arriving, more pressure ....builds up
(in this coil)," Or, as I see it, in the transmitted wave-train. This is how
I see the difference in propagating a 50Hz EM wave and one at 'Radio
Frequencies'.
This would be why Marconi and his contemporaries, using low frequency
mechanical devices as a 'source' , then had to create a wave full of high
frequency harmonics that 'would' propagate whereas the 'source' would not.
Maxwell's equations do not mention 'frequency'. So, I assume that any
dynamic (EM) wave has both a magnetic and an electric component. Forget the
misunderstood talk about magnetic and/or electromagnetic in one bulletin
comment; 'magnetic' is always magnetic no matter whether it is electro,
hydro, solar or any other 'mystic' source. We simply don't need to know.
We do know that a variable magnetic field can be generated, but so far it
seems to be confined to close quarters. What may be 'news' in this BBC report,
is that although a 10MHz source is stated, a later reference to "Using low
frequency electromagnetic waves...and...the body...does not respond to
magnetic fields..." is the breakthrough, and this gives the report a touch
of mystery.
The reference to the 'far field', "the field seen more than one wavelength
from the device.", (but) "...At a distance of less than one wavelength...",
is perhaps the main clue to a new kind of 'force', or some kind of field
concentration by the inventors This is the area that Felix, HB9ABC, in a
recent bulletin, started me thinking about the mechanism of EM wave
propagation, and the reply I sent as ' Antennas and EM Waves' on May 22.
A 'far field' magnetic wave without the electric component would do the
trick, and cause old James Clerk to rotate in his present stationary field!
It's common practice for a research professor who needs extra funds for his
department, to release sufficient information about his work to attract
newspaper or other popular media attention. This is not an official
'publication' and may or may not be recognised, but the report is full of
promise and some basic hope, and something not to get too excited about.
My views, after thinking about it!
73. Dick. VK3ABK.
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
