NEC-LIST: CFA - Questions and Comments

Jack,
 
I am reading with continued interest you e-mail correspondence about
the CFA " controversy " ! For example, your e-mail of 3 June 99 was
very interesting. I still try to model the CFA as realistically as
possible. I'll FAX you my results sometime next week. Now, I have a
few questions and comments :
 
1. How was it possible to obtain patents for the CFA ? Do the people
who assign a patent know more about the physics of this mysterious
antenna, than experienced professionel engineers and scientists ?
 
2. How come, that one does not find articles, discussing the CFA in
the prof. literature, like IEEE Transactions on antennas and
propagation, or e.g., electronic letters, etc. ?
 
3. Why can we not obtain actual test data of the CFA's, which
apparently have been built and are operating ?

4. Would it be realistic to build a scaled down version of the CFA,
let's say for VHF, to minimize the size ? Should the scale factor not
be linear ?

5. Does the E-field actually produce H-lines, surrounding the
D-plates, i.e., the capacitor ?
 
6. Are the E and H fields actually in synchronism, due to the
matching/phasing unit, and do they match the free space impedance ?
 
7. How much energy is actually lost in the near field region ? The
near field radius is approx. 41 meters, at lambda of 258 meters
wavelength.
 
8. Every antenna has a effective area, which determines how much power
can be transmitted or received ( reciprocal ). What is the effective
area of the GP CFA ? If this area is smaller than the 1/4 wave
monopole area, how can it be more effective, even with additional
gain, as claimed ?
 
Comments : I believe, that one should " disect " the CFA, and look at
the E-plate and D-plate action separately, when excited, and see how
these " antennas " work by themselves ? I do not believe, that the E
and H fields can be generated separately and then combined to a more
efficient antenna, because a lot of energy is lost in the near field ?
My original wire grid model did not show any change in gain by
changing the phase shift between plates.
 
I also believe, that one should go back to the basic electromagnetic
laws, to possibly find an explanation for this " super antenna ", as
claimed. I have read all those marvellous claims about the CFA, but
did not see any actual performance data ! Why ?
 
Theory says : any field line, shorter than lambda half, will not
separate from the near field, and contribute to radiation in the far
field, i.e., the near field is an oscillating reactive field ( no real
power ).
 
Max
Received on Fri Jun 11 1999 - 19:57:34 EDT