To: | rfi@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [RFI] Far Field, Near Field |
From: | "Ian White, G3SEK" <G3SEK@ifwtech.co.uk> |
Reply-to: | "Ian White, G3SEK" <g3sek@ifwtech.co.uk> |
Date: | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:29:23 +0000 |
List-post: | <mailto:rfi@contesting.com> |
Cortland Richmond wrote:
The actual physical E-field and H-field values around various lengths of dipoles have been known for a long time. Unless these authors are saying that existing calculations and measurements are wrong, all that can possibly be new is their analysis. There is no sharp boundary between "near field" and "far field". Where you decide to draw the line will depend on your personal definitions of what words like "different than" and "non-negligible" (see above) actually mean in numerical terms. If these authors are setting very tight limits on the allowable differences, then of course that will push out the boundaries of what they choose to call the "near field". Meanwhile, the physical fields around the dipoles remain exactly the same as they have always been. Since health protection limits are ultimately based on SAR (Specific power Absorption Rate in W/kg) this paper should have no ultimate effect... though it may muddy the waters. As for BPL, it only adds a little more mud to the superabundance that's already there.
|
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [RFI] Far Field, Near Field, Cortland Richmond |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [RFI] Far Field, Near Field, Jim Brown |
Previous by Thread: | [RFI] Far Field, Near Field, Cortland Richmond |
Next by Thread: | Re: [RFI] Far Field, Near Field, Jim Brown |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |