On 24 Jun, 08:13, art wrote:
On 24 Jun, 04:09, "Dave" wrote:





"art" wrote in message

oups.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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Addition to the above

Maxwell collected all the obsevations by others and put a
three dimensional picture (Cartesian 3 dimensional) starting
at a particular observation and then built upon it like a
jigsaw puzzle progressively including observations of others
until
the full picture emerged from a mass of pieces.
As assemblers of jig saw puzzles know the intricacy
of placing the parts in the correct order depends on
the starting point and since the majority of observations
were of dynamic form it was a dynamic point that Maxwell
started from. However if Maxwell had started his
composition from a "static" point ala Gausses observations
he still would have achieved the final picture but by a
different route of clues given. On the other hand a yagi picture
is a two dimensional Cartesian picture where only the
equilibrium between two points come under consideration
tho Yagi came across it the back way where equilibrium was broken
and the radiation became bi directional and manipulated by coupling
to a common direction with the coupling moving energy fro a resonant
structure to a non resonant structure to a non resonant structure
with a lesser gravitational pull. Computor programs emulate this
procedure
by viewing each element as being resonant but at a different frequency
and where the energy transition is completed in serial form
with respect to time where as the Gaussian transition is completed
near instantaneously and as a whole.
If one were to place several elements in a cluster form saqy in the
shape
of a reversed letter 'C' it can be seen that on the application of a
time varying current the particles residing on the surface will be
propelled
to on end or the other depending on the direction of the current,
thus the emmision of particles will take place from two or more areas
of the misshapenned Poyntings circle in the shape of two swarms
of particles at places where there are irregularities of the closed
surface.
Of course the border openning are constantly closing and current
direction
changes in the pursuit of constantly changinging equilibrium.Thus some
particles
that have been propelled away from the element surface finds that its
exit
is closed off such that the gravitational pull of the element pulls
the
particle back where it meets a surface that is occupied by other
particles
leaving it no other place to go but beyond the surface towards the
center
where it decays
Thus we see the escaping partincles emminating from at least two
points
on the poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more
swarms of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known
as the near field. So when are particles 'matter' or when are they
'energy'?
Another day another dollar.
Art KB9MZ.....XG