NEC-LIST: Re: Request to mailing list NEC-List rejected

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 [D.M. Grimes, C.A. Grimes, Radiation Q
of Dipole Generated Fields, Radio Science, vol. 34, No. 2, pp.
281-296, 1999 ], placed in perspective in [D. M. Grimes, C. A.
Grimes, Minimum Q of Electrically Small Antennas: A Critical Review,
J. Microwave and Optical Letters, vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 172-177 2001 ]
(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 2002 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.

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

>Your request to the NEC-List mailing list
>
> Posting of your message titled "(no subject)"
>
>has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
>following reason for rejecting your request:
>
>"This message is empty."
>
>Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
>at:
>
> nec-list-admin_at_gweep.ca

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