(One more CFA since this seems to have some scientific references...
now let's all QRX until we hear something from the NAB meeting...
TU, "The Management")
I have followed the CFA discussion with considerable disbelief since I am a
professional physicist. The theory on which Kabbary et. al. base their
claims is wrong. Their only paper in a peer-reviewed journal is published
in a small circulation education quarterly: International Journal of
Electrical Engineering Education, Volume 27, page 344, October 1990. This
paper by Kabbary, Steward and Hately addresses only the conceptual
framework of their theory and does not support any of their assertions by
comparison with measurement.
The only other refereed paper on the CFA (listed in the bibliographic
service that I have online access to) analyses the antenna in a
conventional manner and gives a convincing argument for its inherent lack
of efficiency and bandwidth, despite the claims of the inventors. This
reference is: M.S. Smith, "Conventional Explanation for Crossed Field
Antenna", Electronics Letters, Vol. 28, page 360, February 1992.
I am reminded of one of my favorite explanations of the three laws of
thermodynamics:
1. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
2. You can't break even.
3. And you can't get out of the game.
Attributed to WC Fields. ;>)
73
Gary Hembree, N7IR
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|