EM theory was Re: Wireless Transmission

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Original poster: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> For the straight scoop, see Paul Nicholson's superb discussion about
> Non-Hertzian Waves:
> http://205.243.100.155/frames/Non-Herzian_Waves.html
>

I checked out that link. It contains a description of EM theory. Yes a
superb discussion by Paul Nicholson. He seems to have a grasp and eloquence
not unlike that of the famous Feynman.

The only minor criticism I would make of it which may be due to my limited
understanding would be that it does not highlight the role that the velocity
of EM fields has and the emphasis on the difference between the near and far
field suggests some fundamentally different between them.  I prefer to think
of the near field effects as the sum of far fields i.e. the sum of EM waves
Much I as I think of how the impedance of a secondary changes a long its
length where as a more fundamentally or mathematically its the sum of two
correlated waves of equal impedance.  Of cause this is similar to the
augment about a square wave being composed of an infinite series of sin
waves or not.

The idea that the near field is composed of virtual photons is totally new
to me. It will take me a while to digest that concept and I don't know how
literally that can be taken.
My understanding is the probability of detecting a photon is proportional to
the amplitude squared of an EM wave(far field) how that relates to the near
field that is the sum of correlated waves I don't know.

Bob