On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:20:14 +0100, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

An antenna made completely of insulating materials would
at least reduce the risk of lightning strikes.

Hi Mike,

There are antennas made of insulating materials, why don't you have
one already? However, no antenna is made "completely" of insulating
material - unless you can replace a gamma feed with fiber optics at
HF. ;-)

Let's say you want to work 30M Evanescent Mode (this is the coupling
of their work). Build yourself a prism of glass (or other, similar
dielectric with n 1.6) with sides of 400M X 400M X 600M. Aim the
long side's face into the sky - if you can move it, that is. Point
your beam into one of the smaller faces. Expect a LOT of attenuation.
If you want more energy going towards DX, you need to make the prism
larger.

If glass is not your cup of tea, it can be replaced with a similar
sized prism of a matrix of metal rods (all roughly resonant). This
does, of course, present a lightning hazard.

As for the "faster than light," Your DX signal will probably arrive
no sooner than it did without the prisms (the "faster than light" only
works with retarding mechanisms). This is all like selling dehydrated
water (Just add water!).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:16:21 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

Mike Kaliski wrote:

...
If optical photons can tunnel through opaque materials, then why not radio
frequency photons? ...

You just can't pose a better question than that, it escapes me how
anyone can find fault with such a question(s).

Once we deal with the problem of rf waves appearing both as waves and
photons and get our minds wrapped around how this is (truly understand
rf), interesting things could happen.

Both posts pretty much ignore that the research WAS done with RF (9
GHZ).

Fellows, try reading the original work rather than the boys from MENSA
comic book editions.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Both posts pretty much ignore that the research WAS done with RF (9
GHZ).

Fellows, try reading the original work rather than the boys from MENSA
comic book editions.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, I got "your line down"; We already know it all! And, what we
don't, you can fill us in on ... heck, just chalk me up as a slow
learner! :-)

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:16:21 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

Mike Kaliski wrote:

...
If optical photons can tunnel through opaque materials, then why not radio
frequency photons? ...

You just can't pose a better question than that, it escapes me how
anyone can find fault with such a question(s).

Once we deal with the problem of rf waves appearing both as waves and
photons and get our minds wrapped around how this is (truly understand
rf), interesting things could happen.

Both posts pretty much ignore that the research WAS done with RF (9
GHZ).

And the about the only thing new was this was done at RF instead of
optical frequencies as has been done for years.

Fellows, try reading the original work rather than the boys from MENSA
comic book editions.

And the background stuff that says this is old news (other than doing
it at RF).

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mike Kaliski wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...cispeed116.xml
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Seems I got shot down in flames when I mentioned this very topic a couple of
months ago. Or maybe it was my attempt to try and visualise how this
phenomenon might take place. :-(

If optical photons can tunnel through opaque materials, then why not radio
frequency photons? An antenna made completely of insulating materials would
at least reduce the risk of lightning strikes. :-)


Am I reading the wrong thing? When I click on the link, I get a story
about "We have broken speed of light".

Looks like "We go really fast, lose command of English".

To comment on the what the link has on it, There are some really
fundamental mistakes in it:

What kind of scientist measures "instantaneousnous"? How do you measure
that? What is the margin of error on apparent simultaneous occurances?

How does traveling faster than light allow you to arrive before you
leave?. That would be time reversal, not traveling faster than light.
According to their experiment, you could get there no sooner than
instant you left.

Anything is possible when you get your science news from The Telegraph.
Kinda reminds me of the old DAK catalogs.

I'd like to read their publication on the matter.

And as for tunneling, its been known about for quite some time.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:16:21 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

Mike Kaliski wrote:

...
If optical photons can tunnel through opaque materials, then why not radio
frequency photons? ...
You just can't pose a better question than that, it escapes me how
anyone can find fault with such a question(s).

Once we deal with the problem of rf waves appearing both as waves and
photons and get our minds wrapped around how this is (truly understand
rf), interesting things could happen.

Both posts pretty much ignore that the research WAS done with RF (9
GHZ).

Fellows, try reading the original work rather than the boys from MENSA
comic book editions.

The original wasn't a whole lot more satisfying,(I almost thought it
was an abstract) but at least it didn't have the touchy feely science of
the Telegraph's report.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
Both posts pretty much ignore that the research WAS done with RF (9
GHZ).

Fellows, try reading the original work rather than the boys from MENSA
comic book editions.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, I got "your line down"; We already know it all! And, what we
don't, you can fill us in on ... heck, just chalk me up as a slow
learner! :-)


I read the original work too, and came to much the same conclusion. I'd
put more stock in zero point energy than this little experiment allowing
us to get somewhere before we start.

The telegraph's article is a lot more satisfying though, if incorrect.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:09:16 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Fellows, try reading the original work rather than the boys from MENSA
comic book editions.

The original wasn't a whole lot more satisfying,(I almost thought it
was an abstract) but at least it didn't have the touchy feely science of
the Telegraph's report.

Hi Mike,

I'm accustomed to material dealing with evanescent waves. I've
alluded to them in other postings here where the wavelength and the
frequency of the energy do not follow classic conversions such as 1 =
f/t. Evanescent waves are one of but many of the energy transfer
mechanisms being turned into something useful at the nano-scale. The
original article cites work done in the audio spectrum ("Beating the
Sound Barrier"), but unless you are versed in the trade, you might
think in terms of Hz, KHz, or MHz. Instead, their region of acoustic
interest is in the THz.

Touchy-feely at the nano level is wholly different as it departs from
Newtonian rules, but doesn't quite delve into Quantum (a middle ground
of the curious where current flow is one electron at a time).

Anyway, back to antennas.

Another, related, "photonic" oddity is found in materials with
negative indices of refraction. Locally, Boeing has done some
investigation into it:
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...gust/i_tt.html

This reveals a cube of artificial dielectric with a negative index. It
is also relegated to the microwaves for testing the concepts. I
designed models in EZNEC years ago, but quickly ran out of segments
for all but the simplest prisms.

A negative index of refraction gives you a lens that can focus to an
infinitely small spot (a must have for those doing photolithography in
the nano scale). The kicker is that the lens is flat. And, of
course, it bends rays backwards to expectations (backwards as in to
the other side of the normal, incidence; not reflection).

***** sucker bait follows *******

Now, if we were to split the cube diagonally and repeat the evanescent
mode, then maybe we could light up dark matter.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
I read the original work too, and came to much the same conclusion.
I'd put more stock in zero point energy than this little experiment
allowing us to get somewhere before we start.

The telegraph's article is a lot more satisfying though, if incorrect.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

And just what is your Ph.D. in? I just want to know so when I quote
they know I am just not quoting some guy with an opinion ...

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...cispeed116.xml


Cecil:

These guys are truly amazing. It is obivious they are nit-picking in an
endeavor to make you appear as an idiot; equally obvious is that, they
fail every time! However, they do succeed in making complete bozos out
of themselves; and, to all appearances, they show no awareness of what
they have/are done/doing, how can this be possible? I mean, I know
there are a lot of idiots in the world; and I know the extent of
"idiot-ism" in much of the masses deserves watching and respect; but,
these guys dwarf 'em (your run of the mill idiot, that is!)

Whatever mental disorder these guys have, I am afraid it may be caused
by rf--I am thinking of swearing off amateur radio and going wholly with
the net--before it is too late!

Regards,
JS