sorry, it just doesn't work that way. gauss' law for electrostatics just
can't be extended to handle time varying fields, as soon as you do that its
not statics any more and you have to take into account currents and magnetic
fields which then give you the coupling to the other elements. that is what
eznec and the other antenna modellers make use of... so don't try to model
your antenna with any existing program, you have to come up with your own
model and calculation method to show what it does.

oh, and one important part of a patent is the claims section... what are
your claims for this new type of antenna??

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dave wrote:
electrostatics is a small subset of electromagnetics, and with good
cause.
its application is limited to static electric fields only. no current,
no
radiation, just static electric fields. so don't try to sell an antenna
based on electrostatics or you will be lumped in with the e/h guys.
David it is not just limited to electrostatics. What Gauss wrote is
accepted for what it is a mathematical deduction or law. That
mathematical statement has universal use as with George Greens work who
did not have one iota of engineering tuition. All I have added to
gausses law is the dimension of time which I suspect that a
mathematician can connect it to Amperes law or even Kirchoff As far as
current is concerned a brief moment of time where a time varying field
is applied to an element immediately the electric particles posses
directive abilities where the vector value is zero. I may be wrong here
but that is called a conservative field with a big but... the inside of
the arbitary curve must be in a state of equilibrium where the sign on
the particals must be alike and change in unison.
This can be done by making the elerments resonant which mine are tho
not of the same length. When the time varying field is applied to the
cluster we break the equilibrium with an element that does not change
in unison with the other elements thus weakening the arbitary border at
that point./ When the energy of the internal field breaches the
arbitary border it will do it in the vicinity of the added detuned
element. It is only when the border is breached does one start
generating the near field which is contrary to the yagi.

Now with respect to coupling. in mathematics you try to remove some of
the variables to make a solution easier, in this cas we removed the
variable of coupling by using elements with the same "Q' I am not
saying that I get radiation without current or coupling I am saying
that I have reduced the design to just ohms law via mathematical
aproaches, nothing more.

coupling between elements of an antenna is a given, you can't have a
conductor in an electromagnetic field without it coupling somehow to the
field and re-radiating. to try to convince anyone otherwise is to ignore
100+ years of electromagnetic research.
I accept coupling but not generation of a radiating field at the same
time. Gausses law revolves around a closed arbitary border where the
radiating field does not generate until the border is breached. This is
why a detuned element is added to the cluster to weaken the border.

also, if you are basing this on new principles you can't expect eznec or
ao
or any of the existing finite element programs to do anything reasonable
for
it, they will all fall apart like the example you posted and give
unobtainable models because they use classical electromagnetics to do all
their calculations. No they are not new principles they have existed for
a long time

Over the years mathematicians have connected many laws of different
disciplines purly by mathematical terms, supposition or just going the
extra mile with somebody elses work and George Green is a prime example
of mathematical genious where his work was connected more than 100
years later to complexc circuitry and other things.

as far as patents... i don't trust them any further than i can throw
them,
you can patent anything unless it says 'free energy' or 'perpetual
motion'
in it. heck there are even patents for faster than light antennas. if
you
can't explain the principles well enough to pass a peer review for
something
like the ieee a&p proceedings the science isn't right.

Exactly. So I am asking for input from those experienced in the state
of the art or a different perspectivebut there doesn't appear to be any
out there to add their penny worth. I really believe Dave that the idea
of adding curl to a electriostatic charge is what you are resisting and
some day you will have to look at that afresh or at least poke academic
holes in the aproach I am taking or a different perspective for me to
mull over, a mathematical aproach requires not amateurs but those
experienced in the art such as yourself.

At least you gave it a shot Dave for which I thank you.

I can give you another arbitary array where the elements are not as
close to each other if you wish or the same array where the elements
are rotated into a star fashion for vertical
radiation to remove this close coupling which seems to be alarming you.
I only supplied such an arbitary placed array to catch the imagination
of those who are really inquisitive, nothing more
Will another person knoweledgable in the field join in with us other
than an amateur who knoweledge only extends to the ARRL examinations,
anyone ? Surely since this is an antenna group somebody must have
studied these things in college even tho it may have been a long time
ago.

Regards
Art


"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
David listen to me. Please. Gaussian law with respect to electrostatics
is very well known
And you surely are aware that electrostatics is a subset of
electromagnetics.
Now you, because of your education and professional experience know
that the energy radiated can be calculated tho it is laborious to do. I
have given you a Gaussian version where only V=IZ needs to be known
where as other means require coupling factors plus other things.
Gausses law is very simple, the energy provided by the addition of curl
to the contained static electrical particles is equal to the radiation
outside the arbitary border when you add " in a space of time" or
something similar to Gausses law.
Yes it is not in the books because it is new, thats right, new in my
eyes because it provides an array without the addition of elements that
are detuned as with the Yagi. With the Gaussian array you do not have
to make compromises with respect to desirables as shown in Chaptor 2 in
the Antenna handbook. The Gaussian array provides sync between all the
curves over a bandwidth. Over time I have written this patent
application many times because of derision from amateures. But, now I
am appealing to the academics or qualified
engineers. (I once was an engineer but time has messed the mind in some
areas}to help me out so I can finalise things but above all I want
academic facts and not drivel that I get from those who follow Richard.
Is there any other academics out there that can help me out as well as
clarifying what I say for better understanding. Anybody to join David ?
Regards
Art





Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
I recently gave a write up on Gaussian arrays
As a sample which was not directed for any
desirable I laid out the following

All of the elements were placed above each other purely
to make things easier to do plus it being an unusual
arrangement probably never seen before.

Coordinates ( perfect ground) Inches
X Y Z

0 209.46 927.1
0 198.25 973.97
0 172.78 822.86
0 219.83 964.4
0 185.53 922.4

With 1" dia elements
my results were
Impedance 48.5 + j 0.1
Horiz gain 8.12 dbi @ 12 deg
Rc gain 5.11 dbic

Since I am not sure of the capabilities of EZNEC
or other programs
I also supply the following

All elements driven impedances are
6.58 + j56.9
-5.28 - j 37.6
-5.00 -125
9.35 + 58.5
-16.2 - j205

as i pointed out before, and this verifies, you have found one of
the
limitations of finite element methods for modeling antennas. very
close
spacings between long elements causes un-realizable results. the
extremely
low real components of the impedance and high reactive values are
symptoms
of this.



David this is just conjecture on your part. I respect your
knoweledge
but I am looking for academic proof. Your comments may well be valid
in
general terms but I have given
a specific case plus some of my findings. Prove to me the error of
my
ways please


Now I need the help from anybody with a engineering degree
which wipes out Richard since his only intent is to ridicule,
or deceive anyway, to confirm the following

For a Gaussian field the energy radiated
by the array as a whole ( feed element 1 )
must equal the sum of the energy
supplied from each individual element.

this is true for any array. O.K. and I gave you all the impedances
that
you would need to prove or disprove what I have said. I would be
interested in what a academic would say
regarding a proof measure based on the figures I've given which I
believe is all that is needed


Questions.
1. Am I correct in saying this?
2. Does the above array rank in any way
as a Gaussian array.?

define 'gaussian array' as it applies to antennas that you are
describing.

that type of array is not defined in my copies of Jackson's or
Ramo-Whinner-VanDuzer's books, nor does my IEEE antenna design
handbook
mention that term. there are references to 'gaussian beams' with
respect
to
the shape of the fields from feed horns for microwave dishes and
other
quasi-optical systems. Some searching of the web also seems to
refer
to
gaussian arrays, but those all seem to be related to current or
power
distribution on elements of an adaptive array.

Yes, these deal with other works of Gauss as he was primarily a
mathematicial and his work is all the vogue now in the
communications
world with respect to channels.

No you will not find it in books possibly because of the popularity
of
the Yagi were all
that is known about antennas was known. I am absolutely positive
that
in time this will be picked up and put in the books because I am
making
it known and I gave several paragraphs
that showed the trail of deductions using the word of the masters
and
nobody found fault that they could justify academically. Richard is
known to lead people astray and he is doing it again. He, Richard
has
no engineering degree, he may have one on geography since he was in
the
navy and if you know what hemesphere the Panama canal is, and you
get
two shots at it you can get a degree in the mail. When I gave you
the
impedances it is the root
of determining the energy supplied by a radiating element where Z1
Z2
etc is all you need
Again I agree that this is not stated in the books but surely you
don't
believe all is in the books at the present time ? Electricity is not
immune to new discovery.
I welcome your comments but really I am looking for academic proof
where Richard has muddled things up so much I am beginning to
question
myself even tho no facts only words have been offered

unfortunately it is not possible to prove a negative. and you have
not
proved your case. I have pointed out the well known failure of finite
element modeling that most of us with engineering degrees do
understand
and
avoid. you have simply been misled by software that you don't
understand
completely. And no, I don't think everything is in books already, but
I
don't believe that someone playing around with software they don't
understand is going to discover a new principle that hasn't been
studied
elsewhere. So, again I ask, please define 'Gaussian array', give web
references that explain it if you can't, surely something that is on
the
cutting edge of technology will have many web sites trying to promote
it,
or
sell antennas based on this design.