[TowerTalk] Fwd: Much Smaller Antennas Possible?

[Erich]

My first thought on this is "there is no free lunch".  I have not yet 
read the paper, and do not understand what they call "symmetry 
breaking".  However, there are two things that limit the performance of 
physically small antennas.  First, power density is defined as power per 
unit area.  This means a small capture area will capture a small amount 
of power.  Second, physically small antennas usually mean small 
impedances.  That means high currents and high I^2*R losses. 
Superconducting antennas can get around some of these losses at the cost 
of high complexity.

The basic concept of an antenna is matching an electrical circuit to 
free space impedance.  Dielectric antennas are well known and often used 
in UHF and above antennas.  The purpose of the dielectric is to make the 
wavelength physically smaller for a given frequency by a proportionality 
constant known as the dielectric constant.  This tends to concentrate 
the field in the dielectric, making the loss tangent of the material 
important.

Since the time of Newton, we have known that differing dielectric 
constants bend photons at interfaces between different dielectric 
constants.  (Radio is just long wavelength photons.)  So changes in 
dielectric constant tend to reflect and refract the waves unless 
carefully engineered to pass them efficiently.

This concept appears to be trying to apply some quantum effects to radio 
wavelengths.  We already do this with lasers.  Light is emitted at a 
specific wavelength when an electron transitions from one energy level 
to another.  This appears to be a mechanical analog of this process.  
This would allow a physically small device to emit coherent energy.

I will follow up after I have read the paper to see if there is anything 
useful here.

73, Erich
N6FD, DM15dp

On 4/10/2015 9:07 AM, Mickey Baker wrote:
An interesting phenomenon called "symmetry breaking" unlocks the
possibility of gain antennas much smaller than traditionally thought and
seems to explain some of the quantum v. particle theory inconsistencies.

Thoughts on this article?

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2015/apr/antenna-chip.cfm