[HCARC] "Antennas on A Chip"

Sat Apr 11 10:50:22 EDT 2015

Gary,

You guessed wrong, it isn't Global Warming.  Global Warming is an 
example of another problem - it is an example of a scientific debate 
that was hijacked by a bunch of idiot politicians from both sides who 
had no knowledge of what they were talking about.  As always, just my 
opinion!

The articles I'm talking about appeared in the "IEEE Transactions on 
EMC" in the 70's, 80's and 90's.  They were written by Prof. Henning 
Harmuth of The Catholic University and his graduate students and all 
dealt with nonsinusoidal signals.  These were of interest because there 
were numerous Ultra Wideband (UWB) systems being proposed for radar, 
communications, etc.  A large number of industry and government people 
seemed to believe UWB was "magic" and could be used to solve many 
difficult problems such as detecting stealth objects and penetrating 
shielded areas.  Harmuth's papers basically claimed that UWB or 
nonsinusoidal signals didn't obey Maxwell's equations.  As you might 
imagine, this was a controversial claim! No one really wanted to touch 
these papers except for an editor of the EMC Transactions who was a 
friend of Harmuth's and found a "friendly" group of reviewers so the 
papers were published.  After years of battles I believe the premise 
that Maxwell's equations don't apply to nonsinusoidal signals has been 
shown to be false.  I was working in that field for most of that 
period.  That's the story.

Kerry

On 4/10/2015 8:21 PM, Gary J - N5BAA wrote:
> " I am aware (actually, much more
> than aware) of a series of papers that appeared over a ten year period
> of time in a peer reviewed technical publication.  It turned out that
> the original premise was bogus!  Who knows how much research money was
> squandered on that premise.  "
>
> GLOBAL WARMING perhaps??
>
> Gary J
> N5BAA
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Kerry Sandstrom
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 6:59 PM
> To: hcarc at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [HCARC] "Antennas on A Chip"
>
> Fred,
>
> The government bought a bunch of those B&W antennas.  I'm sure the spec
> was for broadband SWR.  the gain was probably not even specified. It
> was about -6 dB, probably not much worse than the real gain of other
> broadband antennas.
>
> In my lab days one of our researchers was working on a detector for the
> vector potential associated with an electromagnetic source.  One of the
> problems is the detector was overwhelmed by any electromagnetic fields.
> Our challenge was to design and build an "antenna" that wouldn't
> radiate!  Heaven only knows what people made of that work!
>
> The academic world is driven by "publish or perish" so a lot of stuff
> that should never be published is.  A lot of researchers/small companies
> are looking for stuff to patent.  Unfortunately our current patent
> system is broke.  A lot of stuff gets patented that should never have
> been.  The companies then try to claim infringement on their patent and
> the lawyers get rich.  The validity of the patent is left up to the
> courts to decide.  Unfortunately a letter or paper in a professional
> journal has little to do with reality.  I am aware (actually, much more
> than aware) of a series of papers that appeared over a ten year period
> of time in a peer reviewed technical publication.  It turned out that
> the original premise was bogus!  Who knows how much research money was
> squandered on that premise.  Another case is the British medical
> journal, The Lancet.  The Lancet has a section that is unreviewed
> letters.  Often you will see these letters quoted in newspapers,
> magazines and news shows.  In reality, it is unlikely that most of these
> letters could ever get published if there was a peer review.
>
> One of my fondest memories was debating with another co-worker about
> which one of us was assigned to the dumbest project.  He finally became
> part of my project at which point he turned to me and said, "You win."
> I don't think our chief ever figured out what we were debating!
>
> Just because it is in a technical journal and on the the internet
> doesn't mean it is real.
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> On 4/10/2015 4:23 PM, Fred wrote:
>> Some years back a friend and I wrote an article for our local club 
>> newsletter for the April issue, on a "Futuristic All-band Kinetic 
>> Emitter" antenna.  This antenna in less than one cubic foot of space 
>> would work 1.8 to 30 MC.  It used a DC electric motor to quickly 
>> rotate the S shaped dipole element and "sling" the RF signal off 
>> giving it greater coverage. In the receive mode it turned in the 
>> opposite direction thus "sucking" the signals in for better 
>> reception. It was built by F.A.K.E. Industries (after the name of the 
>> antenna) and we advertised it for only $395 dollars as the startup 
>> special when production started.  We did receive one order with a 
>> check to get on the waiting list, the person ordering it wanted a 
>> small 160 meter antenna.  There's one born every day . One might take 
>> a close look at the B&W dipole which has a 100 watt 50 ohm resistor 
>> across the feed point.  No wonder it has a good SWR, it just does not 
>> radiate very good.
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> HCARC mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> HCARC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4328/9504 - Release Date: 04/10/15
>