NEC-LIST: RE: <none>

Craig
 
Thanks for your reply and for engaging in the discussion at this level. I
think most people have not been able for whatever reason to go through the
very detailed algebra that you are putting forward. Maybe that means we
should keep quiet, but I was trying to see if anyone had looked at the work
in detail and come to any conclusions.
 
>From what I have seen, I think one of the differences can be condensed down
to the way in which the power in different spherical modes is added. You
make the point that the modal analysis is aimed at providing expansions for
the E and H fields, which obey superposition. In general, power does not
obey superposition because E from one mode will multiply with H from another
to produce cross-product powers. Collin says that all the modes are
orthogonal so these cross-product powers are all zero anyway and therefore
the relative phases of the modes are immaterial. Is that one of the
essential differences? In the simpler case of waveguide modes the powers of
the different modes can be added, as shown by Marcuvitz.
 
The other point concerns your paradox about atomic radiation - atoms are
1/500 of a wavelength across yet they radiate effectively. However I do not
see that they produce coherent radiation with a useable bandwidth, or that
the radiation mechanism is subject to Maxwell's equations on which Chu and
Harrington's and others' work is based. Is this really a paradox? Are we
in a region where Maxwell and QED diverge?
 
Kind regards,
 
Alan
 
 
 
 
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig A Grimes [mailto:cgrimes_at_engr.psu.edu]
Sent: 22 January 2003 18:11
To: esayre_at_nesa.com; alan.boswell_at_baesystems.com;
Edward.Altshuler_at_hanscom.af.mil; nec-list_at_gweep.ca
Subject: <none>

Gentlemen

Collin's paper attacks a Grimes and Grimes work, the JEWA paper, which we
had pointed out in a subsequent 1999 Radio Science paper was incorrect.
Since the Editor handling Collin's paper never contacted us about his work
(nor allowed a rebuttal) what is left is Collin's trashing of a paper we had
already said, in print in a widely read journal, was wrong.

The JEWA paper uses frequency domain analysis which is fine for some
specific antenna designs, albeit common ones, but is not a general technique
suitable for all radiation sources. This is fact. For a general antenna
design time domain analysis must be used. The reason is simple enough,
information is lost in the frequency domain that is not in the time domain.
No one, to our knowledge, has found any errors in the time domain results
initially presented in the Radio Science paper attached, placed in
perspective in the Q review paper attached (which summarizes the issue of Q,
it's determination, and where Collin's errors are pointed out for the reader
to which Collin has made no response), and tied together from an
electromagnetics perspective (with an improved technique) in the recent book
The Electromagnetic Origin of Quantum Theory and Light published by World
Scientific. We also gave an hour lecture on this at the recent PIERS
conference, the slides of which are downloadable from

http://www.ee.psu.edu/grimes/publications/

Our point is simple: Determination of radiation Q in mixed modal fields
requires use of the time domain. The frequency domain is only correct with
certain limited radiating structures due to missing phase information. When
one does the general, complete math correctly a considerable amount of
insight into physical phenomena regarding electromagnetic emission and
quantum theory becomes clear. Whether that means we can build a zero-Q
antenna is an open question, certainly mother nature can.... atoms support
wavelength to size ratios of hundreds to thousands yet apparently don't have
any problems with reactive energy storage.

Why don't you guys read the papers and do the math. A proofs a proof, if
the math is wrong we would be delighted to know about it. If the math is
correct then I suggest the EM community might be well advised to consider
the consequences of it.

I would also suggest if you approach the results of our experimental work
without bias you might find something interesting going on there. While
such an antenna is not going to be sold commercially in the near future
there are clues there for people interested in this field and have the time
and resources to pursue it.

Respectively, Craig Grimes

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

-- 
The NEC-List mailing list <nec-list_at_gweep.ca>
http://www.gweep.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/nec-list