On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:34:17 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

art wrote:
Obviously this thread is now dead.

DOA is the technical term.

If you ever present enough data where a simple 3 element construction of
your design might be attempted--I'll be there ...

He did that. You weren't there? The invitation was probably lost in
the mail. This 3 element construction conformed to the conventional
outcome of poor performance for having ignored first principles. Note
that ignorance was a forced choice, not a haphazard accident. Arthur
worked hard to design efficiency out of his theory.

Optimization, ironically, is forced out of the goal of the software he
uses to "optimize" through a crippled set of constraints. There are
certainly a lot of conflicting goals here, but achieving a patent and
validation here must be worth the pain. Reminds me of the "Life of
Brian."

What Arthur is laying claim to is his unique description of a jumble
of elements that can only be expected to perform to the same degree of
inadequacy. Hence, the gausssian arrays paradigm explains how a
hodge-podge of elements, that through poor efficiency and total lack
of consideration for effectively adding their phase contributions,
present a muddled performance at best. I must admit that few patents
deliberately seek to corner mediocrity.

It has been long established through common sense that optimal
performance is intrinsically related to all elements presenting a
boresight alignment to the wave front such that each element offers
the most efficient phase coupling. Arthur's paradigm explicitly
decouples all efficient alignments (which is unpatentable as being
long-standing usage of the common practitioner) to focus on
deliberately enforced poor efficiency (which is patentable as this is
no one's marketable goal).

This poor focus is found both in terms of antenna development, and the
expression of its particulars. In essence, the less Arthur says
explicitly about his paradigm (choosing, instead to mock any
questioner - or ignoring others like Herbert), then the less chance of
his failure being evident.

However, we do get glimpses of the chief characteristics:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:13:21 -0700, art wrote:
Note the radiator can be any length as long as it is resonant.

We all note there is nothing here that sets gausssian arrays apart
from standard ones - even to the point of noting there is nothing of
an array in:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:15:10 -0700, art wrote:
i want to know the minimum number necessary.
One

Hence we find ourselves in an old arena with an historical match
between gausssian arrays and fractal antennas, both claiming that the
dipole is their legitimate claim drawn under their umbrella of
uniqueness.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC