On 24 Jun, 04:09, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





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

groups.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?

Wrong....With a yagi only the driven element is in equilibrium



have you changed lengths or spacings of
elements in a yagi and seen the resonance move?



If you change the proximetry of other elements then the
driven element nust also physically change to maintain
equilibrium

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.

No it does not. Radiation comes in two forms each abiding by the laws
of maxwell
One is by coupling where one element is resonant at a particular
frequency
and where one is not. The other method of radiation is where both
elements
are resonant at the same frequency. These elements can be randomly
placed and
shaped as well as being resonant in situ, these elements can be seen
as
being in equilibrium or in concert with each other or by stretching
definitions
a homogenous mass where energy is applied to the mass as a whole.





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).

Go back to Gaussian law of statics, it is based around a mass in
equilibrium
( some equate mass with energy) held within the confines of a boundary
where the
gravitational pull on the contents equals the outward pull of exteria
gravitational
actions thus providing a frictionless surrounding area.
This can also be seen as the basis for Poyntings Vector diagram



nothing new there. but it sounds like you
have some other meaning for 'equilibrium' which you have not adequately
provided equations for.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
The universe is in a state of equilibrium where all integral forces
cancel out to zero. Even a small piece of metal has it own
gravitational center that acts in concert with with all mass
or swarms of energy that surrounds it. If the gravitational pull
of energy exceeds tne surrounding energies you get what is
known as a "black hole:. If the opposite comes about then an
explosion occures, the opposite to an implosion and parts separate
and join other gravitational centers to reform as a different
swarm of particles drawn to a different center of gravity.
All the masters were not mathematicians but all formed
their conclusions based on their observations of the Universe
i.e equilibrium. It was Maxwell who drew all the observations
and placed them ina mathematical form taking care with the
use of the "equal" sign to ensure when used it simulated
a state of equilibrium.