"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 22 Jun, 11:57, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote:
Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members,
Thought I would give you another example to laugh at.
(etc)

___________

ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your
posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand
what you mean.

RF
I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books.
I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once.
In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas,
independent computor program checking, independent mathematical
explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian
law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field.
An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium
by virtue of all current directions change at the same time.
That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well
as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow
the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are
capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to
resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which
state they don't understand it so what use are their comments.
If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor
to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra
as David has said time and time again then don't even try to
understand the rest.

Art KB9MZ...XG

the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes
proper
use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come
up
with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some
reason,
and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed
a
few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he
has
admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to
convince
those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has
created,
even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em
terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array
that
happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is not my problem that you can't understand it I suggest you
consult
an engineer for help.As I have said many times before the antenna
array
is resonant in its entirety as is the contributing radiating elements.

so is a yagi... have you ever measured the feed point impedance of a yagi?
do you not see a resonance in that? have you changed lengths or spacings of
elements in a yagi and seen the resonance move?

That definition therefore is describing an array in equilibrium.
From that definition it is obvious that there is no coupling as with
a Yagi design i.e. it is NOT a parassitic array and you are not an

if it's not parasitic then it is driven, meaning every element has power
applied to it from a feedline... but you have described it as driving one
element, do if the others are supplying power to contribute to the pattern
then it is a parasitic array and falls in the same class as yagis.

as for equilibrium, that still makes no sense in relation to antennas unless
you are trying to say that power in equals power out, which is a truism (if
you ignore resistive losses). nothing new there. but it sounds like you
have some other meaning for 'equilibrium' which you have not adequately
provided equations for.