[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: X Member
Date: 14 Apr 2003
Time: 02:54:38
Remote Name: 193.235.3.218
I clamed that the NEC-code did not simulate the CFA correctly. Mr.Boswell challenged me, claiming that the NEC-code did this correctly. But he lost because the only data in Mr.Van Der Byl’s article understood as being “numerical” and accepted by Mr.Boswell, is in fact an experimental proof of the existence of Poynting Vector Synthesis. No other antenna can concentrate its radiation to low angles as a CFA. This cannot be explained with conventional theory, and as the Poynting Vector Synthesis is not accepted, it cannot possible be contained in the NEC code. Anyone can make up his or her own opinion about if NEC-code simulates Poynting Vector Synthesis correctly by using the data for the dimensions of the CFA elements presented in the article and see if they can compete with the performance data presented for ground wave and that was “it was generally found that the CFA was equal to or slightly better” and that must also be performed with the presented data for the BW in the same calculation ---- No less then three separately experimental proofs for Poynting Vector Synthesis has been presented over the years by the inventors. Two can be found in Mr.Van Der Byl’s article http://www.geocities.com/vk2edb/CFA.htm --- In answer to Mr.Jefferies question why CFA:s has not sprung up like fungi my answer is that it is because of the dishonest argumentation from opponents and as Mr.Hately also claims in his answer. It is the difficulty to tune the device for correct operation. --- If anyone has interest to read about someone with a wider view of what the inventors has done, please read at http://www.geocities.com/bibhasde/radiocomm.html This is my last posting on this issue --- Regards Håkan