Jerry,
Let me take the opportunity of explaning the term equilibrium in a
folksy sort of way
to give you a better idea or insight to what it is really about.
Basicaly when we talk of equilibrium we are talking about things that
are somehow bound together. You often see in antenna books the squeezed
ballon to show how energy is pushed from the rear to the front of the
antenna, in that case the balloon is reacting or holding back the
pressure inside the balloon so you can see in that case that the inside
is in equilibrium by virtue of the holding power of the balloon.
Another way of looking at equyilibrium is by placing a bunch of
magnetised ball bearings that no matter how you juggle with them they
stay together but you can't see any bag holding them together. Well in
this case it is the magnetic energy holding things together instead of
gravity taking over and pulling them apart one after the other. So how
can we use this equilibrium glue thing when dealing with antennas? well
you can see now that equoilibrium is really a stand off in forces, two
people pushing against each other yet nothing is moving yet it is
evident by the sweat that both men are working hard. Same way with the
balloon that is holding all that radiation energy together and where
the balloon is applying pressure on the energy inside of the balloon
and like two men pushing there is no movement going on. If the balloon
weakens somewhere you will see that the balloon will swoosh away in an
undetermined direction but wait a minite if it is radiation energy we
would sure like to push it all in the forward direction for maximum
gain. So if we have a bunch of resonant elements in equilibrium
containing the means for radiation we have to find a method of
providing the break in a ideal position so that the innards are
directed the same way. Well what we do with the bunch of radiating
elements that are in equilibrium is to place another element into the
bunch that is not resonant like it doesn't belong. What we find by
doing thid is that all the radiation energy will swirl around striving
to get to the weak part remembering that it is only when the energy
escapes thru the hole can it start to produce a electrical and magnetic
field which creates radiation , where as with a yagi the near field is
produced immediatly the driven energy is provided and where the fields
generate new field around each element it meets on its journey. So with
equilibrium we can break it at any place we want to to provide
directivenes where as with a yagi the radiation begins to start forming
even tho it is being directed in many different directions. Naturally
you can see the advantages of energy going in a single direction versus
energy being bounced around
until it sees daylight. So back to the beginning we have a bunch of
elements that are resonant inside a surface like a balloon where if
energy is applied to one of the elements it is sharedf with the other
ele4ments immediatly without commensing the radiation trail and by
placing a detuned element in the cluster we can chose the directiopn
than the energy of each element takes and where it follows its
predessesor in releasing its radiative energy.
Sound simple but there are difficulties, when you weaken the enclosing
force it does produce a major hole for directive purposes however at
the same time multiple fissures open in other areas which provides a
leakage trail for the swerling innards such that radiative energy on a
smaller scale still escaopes to form radiation in other areas than the
forward direction envisioned. The next person to come along will
address this problem I am sure once presentented with the incentive
that this new concept provides. No miricals but one step forward makes
all things possible
Regards
Art
art wrote:
Jerh each otherry
What I am doing is to get away from inline coupling of elements. The
Yagi antenna is one of these where all the elements are in line. What I
am doing is to arrange a a bunch of elements in a group or cluster such
that each and all elements couple with each other rather than the the
two elements along side. By doing this and yet making the bunch of
elements resonant on their own as well as being driven by one element
as with the normal antenna you have to make changes in either the
length, dia or material of each element to compensate for all the other
factors implanted on them by the proximity of all the other elements in
the bunch or cluster. When this is done correctly the bunch of elements
are in equilibrium with each other and where each element impedance is
devoid or has reactance minimised. The reason for this aproach is the
two resistances that you encounter are the resistance of the material
used for the element which is where the current flows below the surface
and the radiation resistance which is from the current that flows on
top of the surface
to produce radiation. Since it is radiation that we are concerned with
only true resistance is of importance and where reactiveness in the
impedances provide no benefit to radiation.
The bottom line is that we want to avoid reactivenes whereas the yagi
by coupling elements
that are untuned or not resonant promotes reactiveness. An example of
what this reactiveness does to an array is to make the value curves for
gain, back to front and swr all peaking at different frequencies where
as the ideal arrangement is to have all the curves peak near the same
frequency so that when using the antenna across the band you have a
fairly consistent gain figure instead of having to cut it at the high
or low end of the band in a compromising effort. When building such an
array you take advantage of height in the turning radius of the beam
since you dont have to place all elements in a single line as with a
yagi which imposes limits on antenna length. by utilising height of the
array you can have a smaller rotating radius with the same gain of a
yagi with a larger turning radius together with a bandwidth with
smoothed variables.
Hope that helps and clears some of the mystery away from clustered
arrays. This aproach by the way also applies to vertical arrays from
which you can get horizontal, vertical and circular radiation where
each has its special place of use. Use of academic terms was only
provided because some academics don't like change and want to see the
same things they see in books and for some reason were taught that talk
of statics in the same room as electromagnetics is blasphamy yet they
cannot bring forward anything in the books that say they are totally
separable. By the way I mentioned Nagy where as it should have been
Brown who did so much in recent years in broadcasting and T.V.
Have fun with antennas and don't get intimidated by those who learned
things in College only to memorise and pass exams instead of using
knoweledge to advance the quality of life.
Best regards
Art


Jerry Martes wrote:
Hi Art

Thanks for taking your time to direct me to some very complex thinking.
But, I'm a rather simple guy who isnt well educated. You apparently expect
a "just regular guy" like me to understand the ccomplex convoluted
theoretical stuff that you write about.
When I did work as an antenna design engineer, years ago, I saw some of my
buddies working on the distribution of energy across apertures in an effort
to shape beams. One of their considerations was to decrease the power to
the elements as they were more distant from the center of the array. I
remember reading that when the power is tapered to provide a distribution
about equivalent to a Gaussian Distribution, the side lobes were minimal.

I really enjoy thinking about real antenna construction projects. but,
when it gets to the Maxwell's Equation kind of analysis, I get lost. I dont
even know what a Vector is.
You may have the wrong impression about me, Art, I'm an old guy who wants
to have fun with antennas. It isnt necessary for you to tell me to "get back
to basics". I dont have interest in the "basics" you refer to.

Is it possible for you to tell us (me) what you are referring to without
referring to Vectors, Gauss's law, Lorentz, "Nagi", and even elementary
calculus? Frankly, Art, you confuse me when you write such scholarly
paragraphs. You and I are so far removed from each other intellectually
that I can never keep up with your texts.

Jerry


"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jerry, get back to basics and look up a conservative field relative to
Gaussian law.
Step 1
It is a group of electric charges with an addition vector of zero. So
move backwards and remove that vector if you wish and you have a
gaussian field of electrical charges which in the case of a bunch of
resonant elements can be seen as all positive or all negative charges
and we also know that Gaussian law is valid even for enclosed charges
in motion.

Step 2 The vector that we removed is known as curl but at this time nit
has no valu is the samee tho the vector direction is known.
Step 3 Faraday's law of Induced electromotive force. This is somewhat
opposite to the consevative field in terms of rotation but in relative
terms it where the consevative field is revolving around a magnetic
field ( hopefully you can visualise this) So we have a charge q in an
element of length ds, which element, at the instant considered has
velocity u,experiences a force. Now I know some have difficulty with
what I said earlier with respect to adding " at an instant of time) to
Gausses law which is the same length of time referred to above as " at
the instant considered "

Gtep 4 We then examine Lorentz equation which refers to an induced
electric field which is present when, for example the magnetic field is
changing with time such that
v1 = 1/q integral F.ds. You can now see that any CONSERVATIVE force
that might be included in F would integrate to zero thus ommiting any
electrostatic field that might be present Note again faradays law, it
is valid regardloess of the nature of the factor or factors responsible
for change in magnetic flux. So now the overview of the cluster of
resonant elements projected a conservative field with a magnetic vector
of zero reflecting" an instant of time" with respect to resonant
elements and where the magnetic field will provide
motion to the electrostatic field where all charges will exibit the
same direction of charge and will change in unison

Now no amount of writing will get you to understand this flow of
concept if you are not willing to have an open mind or think around
something that at the present time you fail to understand and are not
willing to rethink thing, possibly in a different way than I presented
it.

If you are so inclined you can go back further in history and play with
the 4 vertical array of elements formed by Nagi to obtain possible
insights since he also worked with an array of vertical elements all of
which were resonant. His work has been rechecked via Matlab and found
to be correct so you have a viable path to follow if you have a modicom
of interest in this new concept. It must be noted that the above is
only a partial description of the concept
because I have yet to add a detuned element for directional purposes
for the radiation field.

There is nothing more that I can add that will persuade you to follow
thru with this concept
so I believe I have now reached the Rubicon with respect to this vision
of mine. If you can't understand it now put it down to me not being
smart enough to explain clearly electromagnetics to those skilled in
the art which I am now finding to be a hopeless task at least here in
the U.S. unless one can read it in a book and memorise it so one can
pass an exam..
Art








Jerry Martes wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
In the thread Rain static I referred to a closed surface which is
clearly
defined by Gauss's law.

Gauss's law doesn't define a surface, the surface is any arbitrary
surface
surrounding a charge.

Let us now look at a time vary field applied to

a dielectric. I fht efield is applied for the shortest of time the
charges
will stay on the surface. If time is longer than the shortest space
of
time

you make it sound like there is some 'shortest' time where charges
won't
move. this is not true. no matter how short you make the time it will
move
the charges.

then charges will openetrate the closed surface. If the surface is
an
insulator type then it takes a long while to penetrate but if the
surface

Here you mix up 'surface' and 'surface'. the gauss's law 'surface' is
a
mathematically useful construction around a charge, it does not have
any
charge 'on' it, nor is there any 'penetration' of it by charge in
gauss's
law. it is strictly a non-material thing that is used only for
calculation
purposes.

is a good conductor then the charges will penetrate very quickly so
we can associate the time constant of penetration to the subject of
skin depth. If we are to associate the time varying field to a
gaussian field

you have yet to define a 'gaussian field'. gauss's law applies to
electric
fields and their relation to charges.

all the excess charges must be on the surface by law.

only in a 'perfect' conductor. dielectrics and 'empty' space can have
distributed charges throughout.

Or in other words
the time evolved must be shorter than the time required to begin
penetration.

huh? it just goes down hill from here. write some equations, do some
drawings, publish a manuscript. all the rest is empty handwaving
based
on
incorrect assumptions and missing definitions.

Thus for a short space of time all charges are on the surface and
the
charges
have a magnhe radiating eneetic and electric field vectors. Just
having
charges is not enough to convert to a gaussian field in that a
gaussian
field must be in equilibrium thus a cluster of elements
must have the direction of the surface charges change in unison. For
a
cluster of elements to do this they must all be resonant such that
the
charges reach the ends of the elements at the same time. Resonance
of
an element is determined by its diameter and its length and because
it
is coupled to other elements in the cluster the coupling must be
taken
into account to secure resonance of not only the individual elements
but of the cluster as a whole. When this is accomplished the charges
on
the surface of the closed volume are in equilibrium but onty for
that
shortest of short time and where that time is added to the gaussian
formulae for the transition to be complete. For the Gaussian field
or
volume we can say the energy inside the gaussian field is equal to
that
supplied by flux to the outside of the border and remember the flux
inside consists of magnetic and electric vectoirs. We now can say
that
in a moment of time the flux produced from each element that
breaches
the border in summation with the other elements is equal to the
radiating field outside of the border when each element energy makes
the transmittion. Thus the summation of each of the clustered
elements
individual energy when the vectors are given a value
must equal the flux on the outside of the border that produces
radiation. We also know that if we have a cluster of elements that
are
clustered together we can obtain radiation by just applying a time
varing field to just one of the elements and by virtue of
intercoupling
all the radiating energy
will leave the near field. Thus we have two different methods of
determining the value of the radiated field
! radiation from the clustered within a Gaussian field and
2 radiation from an array of coupled elements
Since the elements within the cluster are all of the same "Q'" the
determination of all factors
in the resulting equation are simplified to Ohms law and where the
laborious coupling calculations
are omitted. The above describes in first principles as to how a
Gaussian field in a short space of time can be equated to a
radiating
cluster using existing laws of the masters which also embraces NEC
code. Now many have said I have no understanding of radiation
concepts
so go ahead and tear this apart and have a merry Xmas doing it
Art Unwin KB9MZ..........XG


It appears Art has picked up some phrases haphazardly and is trying to
apply them to antennas some how, If I remember correctly doesnt
Gaussian field apply to statistical distribution. Been a long time
since I had statistical analysis back in the early 70s but I think this
is also refered to as a "normal distribution".

Hi Jimmy

By my standards, you are *Right On* on all you wrote. I'm pretty sure
Gaussian distribution of power across a radiating plane results
(theoretically) in zero side lobes, That is also a very poor
distribution
when gain is a goal. I think the term Normal is synonymous with
Gaussian
when referring to aperture distribution.

Jerry