Actually, just did a quick webbing and found enough to realise that the claims are founded upon feet of clay.....
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
formatting link
etc as a good revising/learning/debunking cookbook. (Don't start from node 53!)
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?
>
>