Re: Non-Radiative Evanescent Waves are back in the news... (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 04:25:23 -0500
From: Scott Stephens <scottxs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Non-Radiative Evanescent Waves are back in the news... (fwd)

Tesla list wrote:
> Hello All,
>    Can someone explain to me why the word 'Evanescent' is used?
Googling 'evanescent "near field" radio' I got:
http://www.nearfield.com/amta/amta94_EMI.htm

Indeed, the near-field, reactive area is the "evanescent near-field".

Perhaps resonators could be strung at intervals of a meter or so? Why
bother?

What really stinks about this quack science is the bad name it gives the
good stuff. For instance how do we know "global warming" isn't just a
scam to increase taxes on energy, and extort revenue from the energy
industry the same way tobacco has been demonized and taxed/extorted?
Because the professors that make their living off government largess say
so? That's the problem with the corrupt, government-academia complex.
Like the boy that cries wolf.

Scott