|
A gaussian style radiating antenna
O.K. while the wife is cooking dinner I can at least start on a preable
Most of the masters who contribute to different disiplines were mathematicians who also were observant as tp what was around them and many did not have formal teaching such as George Green and many others were were not really discovered till long after death. Why mathematicians, well the world is formulated around mathematics and you can see it every where in nature and in the Universe. You can picture these mathematicians thinking around the universe as being in the same order of a random bubble on water where the contents of the buble was under partial pressure and the thought come to mind as to where the meniscus enclosing the content was going to burst but where. In Germany more than 100 years ago a child literaly stood out above other with his mastery of mathematics and thus was given all the benefits possible so he could expand on his gift. His name was Gauss and he got involved in mathematics that branched out into many disiplines without a total investment into any one in particular but just followed the path of mathematics. A one set of thinking produced what is known as a Gaussian field in electrostatics where he visualised a cluster of charges that were in equilibrium and held inside a miniscus, border or what have you and came up with what is known as Gausses law. If you draw a rough circle and randomly insert a few small circles inside the arbitary boundary we are seeng a cluster of charges as seen by those small circles. Now for them to be in equilibrium they will have to be like charges so lets put a + inside each circle to demonstrate the polarity of the charges. Now we have to ask the question of where the flux contained within this arbitary boundary is going to break out and where? Gauss I am sure thought of a buble knowing that if he placed a pin in the miniscus it would surely burst so the contents ie flux emminating from the held charges. Well he didn't go the pin route as he was smarter than that in that he saw that the true reason the arbitary border burst was because the socalled meniscus was given a displacement in shape that made it the weakest point. Getting back to the cluster of charges held within what I really should not be calling a miniscus he placed a separate charge in the cluster marked with a - which provided a weak spot in the arbitary boundary and thus the escaping flux will now escape at a known point with some sort of velocity.... OOOps dinner is coming, refresh yourself with Gausses law until I get back but dont get to swamped with mathematics. |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
"art" wrote in message ps.com... massive snip Art: Do you know what a blithering idiot is??? Well, you're starting to blither pretty often. Mike W5CHR Memphis |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Pray tell me what is it in my posting that inflamed you as a self
chosen judge to pass judgement on me? Mike Lucas wrote: "art" wrote in message ps.com... massive snip Art: Do you know what a blithering idiot is??? Well, you're starting to blither pretty often. Mike W5CHR Memphis |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
"art" wrote in message oups.com... Pray tell me what is it in my posting that inflamed you as a self chosen judge to pass judgement on me? Mike Lucas wrote: "art" wrote in message ps.com... massive snip Art: Do you know what a blithering idiot is??? Well, you're starting to blither pretty often. Mike W5CHR Memphis Hi Art I sure wouldnt pass judgment on you thru a news group. And I dont think Mike should be "self appointed". So, if it ever comes to a vote, he's getting my vote Jerry. |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
O.K. where was I
Ah, we now have in front of us where all the enclosed charges are of a like sign. So now visualise that you are looking at a cluster of could be radiating elements side on and think that each charge that appears on the surface of the enclosed border eminated somehow from a dipole behind it First thing to understand that behind the charge direction sign we have a dipole which like all the other charges must be in equilibrium with all the other charges dipoles so the first requirement is to make every dipole resonant and since they are in cluster form the interacting coupling effects destroy the equilibrium unless we ensure that all the dipoles are resonant despite outher forces. To do this we ofcourse have to adjust the lengths of each dipole such that it is still resonant despite the positional arrangement we put them in which means the dipooles will not be of the same length but still reonant in situ to maiantain equilibrium. Up to now we have beenmanipulating a Gaussion law that applies to electrostatics, a subset of electro magnetics where in mathematical terms time must be taken into account so we have to go back to the Gaussian field and add another tem to the Gaussian law like " in a small space of time " or something like that. We can do this because what Gauss found and put into mathematical form is a law not a theorem in that it blends with laws of nature and the universe as proven mathematically. So for an instant of time we can place the clustered elements in a short burst of a time varying field where each of the enclosed charges have a directional vector added to it in the form of phase possesion which is often times referred to as Curl if you come across that term later. Now for equilibrium all charges must change in unison which they will do as we made the length of elements resonant in situ. Now looking at the Gaussian field it can be seen that for a short moment in time each of the charges/dipole elements have formed directional mean for the time varying charges but without breaking out from the arbitary border or having to radiate in any way to another element. So at this point we have a cluster of elements that have not started the process of radiating/E.H. field generation and where by virtue of all elements being of the same "Q' we have avoided the cumbersome job of determining the intercoupling forces. At this point we can say we are dealing with lumped constants and eligable for adaptation by RLC or complex circuitry methods. I think you will need a bit of time to absorb what I have stated before we move on to an actual radiating array since there is more work to be done before I get to that point.See you later art wrote: Pray tell me what is it in my posting that inflamed you as a self chosen judge to pass judgement on me? Mike Lucas wrote: "art" wrote in message ps.com... massive snip Art: Do you know what a blithering idiot is??? Well, you're starting to blither pretty often. Mike W5CHR Memphis |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Jerry, Are you concurring with his judgement that I am a blithering
idiot and he gets your vote? I find it so hard to believe that engineers need only to read the first page of anything and determine from that and with their perceived knowledge they can trash a complete paper. I am trying to state things in an extremely elementary way so that aspiring hams on the side lines can get an understanding of my scheme of things with respect to this new antenna array aproach which differs from that of a yagi and whose benefits I will get to later if I am allowed to Jerry Martes wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.com... Pray tell me what is it in my posting that inflamed you as a self chosen judge to pass judgement on me? Mike Lucas wrote: "art" wrote in message ps.com... massive snip Art: Do you know what a blithering idiot is??? Well, you're starting to blither pretty often. Mike W5CHR Memphis Hi Art I sure wouldnt pass judgment on you thru a news group. And I dont think Mike should be "self appointed". So, if it ever comes to a vote, he's getting my vote Jerry. |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Art,
You'd get a lot more people who would be able to listen to what you're saying if you drew a picture and posted it somewhere. Dan |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
|
A gaussian style radiating antenna
"art" wrote in message oups.com... Jerry, Are you concurring with his judgement that I am a blithering idiot and he gets your vote? I find it so hard to believe that engineers need only to read the first page of anything and determine from that and with their perceived knowledge they can trash a complete paper. I am trying to state things in an extremely elementary way so that aspiring hams on the side lines can get an understanding of my scheme of things with respect to this new antenna array aproach which differs from that of a yagi and whose benefits I will get to later if I am allowed to Hi Art Show me some numbers and some data and I'll change my mind. I never said that you were a blithering idiot. I am not qualified to make a statement like that about someone I dont know. But, you do write alot of text in which you apparently dont care about anyone being able to understand. Blithering idiots do that too. Please be aware, I really like real technical challenges that dont require alot of theoretical math type proofs. But, when the challenge is to prove you wrong (or right) about the "Efficiency" of a Yagi I'd anticipate there would be some data (measured or calculated) coming from you. I havent seen the data. I too find it hard to believe that engineers (in general)need to read only the first page of a paper in order to understand the entire text. I used to work with alot of engineers. I really admire their ability to think analytically. I consider engineers to be smart people , but reading only one page of a mulitpage document then be sure the entire paper is trash. I do believe that a perspicacious, experienced engineer has to be able to perceive if the rest of any paper is worth reading if the first page is written as though it was authored by a blithering idiot. Otherwise that engineer could waste alot of valuable time. I am not an aspiring HAM, but I once was. Now I'm an old, kinda ignorant, HAM. They are probably quite similar. But, Art, I just have alot of difficulty trying to understand your posts. Maybe you have a "paper" that I could study. Tell me where I can read it. I still like to learn new things. My advice to you, Art, is Pay close attention to the advice of the really good engineers that post here on this forum. If you cant identify them, ask Richard Clark. He's one of them. |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Dan, all of that is in the PTO application which I have held back on
because of all the nasty comments I got from the experts before I lift a finger. When I last explained a patented idea I has some time ago stones were coming from all directions from those who thought of me as a person who thinks outside the box must be looney. When I first starterd to turn the subject around to this new aproach for radiating antennas the harping started not only from those without a contribution but also from experts that are much wiser than I with repect to radiation. This time whether thru hell or high water I am going to explain it in the simplest way possible because I know that there are some hams throwing stones who haven't got the faintest idea about radiation other than arranging elements in spear shape fashion and point it where you want. Now I will tell you something, this aproach works out using a antenna program that is related but not the same as standard formd i.e. AO professional. A separate individual took my figures and applied them to the NEC4 program which is more universally accepted and where it validated my findings. Ofcourse nI could have used the computor program incorrectly so I dug into the books to find what I thought constituted a reasonable mathematical sequence to explain what I found. Ofcourse By doing this I am opening myself to a lot of name calling because over the years it has been assumed that everything about antennas was known and the Yaqgi was king. Well I look at things differently like looking at the cutting room floor to see what was discarded by the producers even tho they are clips from experts. I then take hold of these clips to try to get into the minds of those who produced them and by learning this I apply there work where the producer didn't. So In a way I am trying to duplicate the originators mind and take things to the next step which is sometimes called thinking outside the box since the text is unwritten and one is not learning by rote....I might aded that I offered all this to RADCOM of England of which I am a member..........didn't see the light of day so it can still prove to be a gastly idea from a blithering idiot ..UMMMM enough said wrote: Art, You'd get a lot more people who would be able to listen to what you're saying if you drew a picture and posted it somewhere. Dan |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
O.K. Jerry so you are having problems with me and I can understand
that. So are you saying I should put an end to this thread before I get deeper into a hole? I am a nothing now tho one time I worked for G.E. as an engineer to get a retirement pension but that is in the past because I also am old and have the normal frailties that come with old age and where maybe I should consider myself past it and fade away! Many have said that so perhaps I should fade away gracefully and continue the hobby in isolation Jerry Martes wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.com... Jerry, Are you concurring with his judgement that I am a blithering idiot and he gets your vote? I find it so hard to believe that engineers need only to read the first page of anything and determine from that and with their perceived knowledge they can trash a complete paper. I am trying to state things in an extremely elementary way so that aspiring hams on the side lines can get an understanding of my scheme of things with respect to this new antenna array aproach which differs from that of a yagi and whose benefits I will get to later if I am allowed to Hi Art Show me some numbers and some data and I'll change my mind. I never said that you were a blithering idiot. I am not qualified to make a statement like that about someone I dont know. But, you do write alot of text in which you apparently dont care about anyone being able to understand. Blithering idiots do that too. Please be aware, I really like real technical challenges that dont require alot of theoretical math type proofs. But, when the challenge is to prove you wrong (or right) about the "Efficiency" of a Yagi I'd anticipate there would be some data (measured or calculated) coming from you. I havent seen the data. I too find it hard to believe that engineers (in general)need to read only the first page of a paper in order to understand the entire text. I used to work with alot of engineers. I really admire their ability to think analytically. I consider engineers to be smart people , but reading only one page of a mulitpage document then be sure the entire paper is trash. I do believe that a perspicacious, experienced engineer has to be able to perceive if the rest of any paper is worth reading if the first page is written as though it was authored by a blithering idiot. Otherwise that engineer could waste alot of valuable time. I am not an aspiring HAM, but I once was. Now I'm an old, kinda ignorant, HAM. They are probably quite similar. But, Art, I just have alot of difficulty trying to understand your posts. Maybe you have a "paper" that I could study. Tell me where I can read it. I still like to learn new things. My advice to you, Art, is Pay close attention to the advice of the really good engineers that post here on this forum. If you cant identify them, ask Richard Clark. He's one of them. |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Is there anybody else that is having the same problem as Jerry or is
anybody upto speed with me? May be this would be a good time to pause so we can smooth out some of these difficulties before we move on and thus salvage something from this new aproach to antennas art wrote: O.K. Jerry so you are having problems with me and I can understand that. So are you saying I should put an end to this thread before I get deeper into a hole? I am a nothing now tho one time I worked for G.E. as an engineer to get a retirement pension but that is in the past because I also am old and have the normal frailties that come with old age and where maybe I should consider myself past it and fade away! Many have said that so perhaps I should fade away gracefully and continue the hobby in isolation Jerry Martes wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.com... Jerry, Are you concurring with his judgement that I am a blithering idiot and he gets your vote? I find it so hard to believe that engineers need only to read the first page of anything and determine from that and with their perceived knowledge they can trash a complete paper. I am trying to state things in an extremely elementary way so that aspiring hams on the side lines can get an understanding of my scheme of things with respect to this new antenna array aproach which differs from that of a yagi and whose benefits I will get to later if I am allowed to Hi Art Show me some numbers and some data and I'll change my mind. I never said that you were a blithering idiot. I am not qualified to make a statement like that about someone I dont know. But, you do write alot of text in which you apparently dont care about anyone being able to understand. Blithering idiots do that too. Please be aware, I really like real technical challenges that dont require alot of theoretical math type proofs. But, when the challenge is to prove you wrong (or right) about the "Efficiency" of a Yagi I'd anticipate there would be some data (measured or calculated) coming from you. I havent seen the data. I too find it hard to believe that engineers (in general)need to read only the first page of a paper in order to understand the entire text. I used to work with alot of engineers. I really admire their ability to think analytically. I consider engineers to be smart people , but reading only one page of a mulitpage document then be sure the entire paper is trash. I do believe that a perspicacious, experienced engineer has to be able to perceive if the rest of any paper is worth reading if the first page is written as though it was authored by a blithering idiot. Otherwise that engineer could waste alot of valuable time. I am not an aspiring HAM, but I once was. Now I'm an old, kinda ignorant, HAM. They are probably quite similar. But, Art, I just have alot of difficulty trying to understand your posts. Maybe you have a "paper" that I could study. Tell me where I can read it. I still like to learn new things. My advice to you, Art, is Pay close attention to the advice of the really good engineers that post here on this forum. If you cant identify them, ask Richard Clark. He's one of them. |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Hi Art Since you top post I guess it is appropriate for me to do so also. I assume you make the comment about "fade away" without really expecting to do so. I still want to see data, any data that applies to your statement that Yagiis are inefficient antennas. As far as I know, you are correct about Yagi efficiency. I have been trying to understand how it can be determined that Yagiis are inefficient. At the beginning of this thread, I anticipated reading some data that I could understand. I have begun to think that data on Yagi efficiency probably doesnt exist. I encourage to show that I'm wrong about the data. Jerry "art" wrote in message ups.com... O.K. Jerry so you are having problems with me and I can understand that. So are you saying I should put an end to this thread before I get deeper into a hole? I am a nothing now tho one time I worked for G.E. as an engineer to get a retirement pension but that is in the past because I also am old and have the normal frailties that come with old age and where maybe I should consider myself past it and fade away! Many have said that so perhaps I should fade away gracefully and continue the hobby in isolation Jerry Martes wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.com... Jerry, Are you concurring with his judgement that I am a blithering idiot and he gets your vote? I find it so hard to believe that engineers need only to read the first page of anything and determine from that and with their perceived knowledge they can trash a complete paper. I am trying to state things in an extremely elementary way so that aspiring hams on the side lines can get an understanding of my scheme of things with respect to this new antenna array aproach which differs from that of a yagi and whose benefits I will get to later if I am allowed to Hi Art Show me some numbers and some data and I'll change my mind. I never said that you were a blithering idiot. I am not qualified to make a statement like that about someone I dont know. But, you do write alot of text in which you apparently dont care about anyone being able to understand. Blithering idiots do that too. Please be aware, I really like real technical challenges that dont require alot of theoretical math type proofs. But, when the challenge is to prove you wrong (or right) about the "Efficiency" of a Yagi I'd anticipate there would be some data (measured or calculated) coming from you. I havent seen the data. I too find it hard to believe that engineers (in general)need to read only the first page of a paper in order to understand the entire text. I used to work with alot of engineers. I really admire their ability to think analytically. I consider engineers to be smart people , but reading only one page of a mulitpage document then be sure the entire paper is trash. I do believe that a perspicacious, experienced engineer has to be able to perceive if the rest of any paper is worth reading if the first page is written as though it was authored by a blithering idiot. Otherwise that engineer could waste alot of valuable time. I am not an aspiring HAM, but I once was. Now I'm an old, kinda ignorant, HAM. They are probably quite similar. But, Art, I just have alot of difficulty trying to understand your posts. Maybe you have a "paper" that I could study. Tell me where I can read it. I still like to learn new things. My advice to you, Art, is Pay close attention to the advice of the really good engineers that post here on this forum. If you cant identify them, ask Richard Clark. He's one of them. |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:55:50 GMT, "Jerry Martes"
wrote: I have been trying to understand how it can be determined that Yagiis are inefficient. Hi Jerry, That, in fact, is quite very simple. Allow that every living person on this planet (arbitrarily assign that number to be 6 Billion) has a receiver that is receiving you with arm chair copy (arbitrarily assign that to be 10dB over S-9) to your signal (arbitrarily assign that to be 100W) applied to your antenna (arbitrarily assumed to be a Yagi). What is the Yagi efficiency? S-9 is 50µV into 50 Ohms and through various mental gymnastics we can pin that down to being 50 picoWatts - but wait! There's 10dB more! call it ½ nanoWatt.... Aggregate that over the entire Earth's total population eagerly awaiting the news of your power efficiency. 3W total absorption. 3% efficient. Now, try something simple like raising that efficiency one notch, and still hitting ALL 6 Billion people. Hint, the Yagi couldn't satisfy this in the first place because of a property called directivity, so a design that is "more efficient" is even more mythical ;-) I dare say no one here can prove to be 0.001% efficient in these terms. [Must be validated through QSL cards.] Efficiency: Can't live with it; Can't live without it! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:55:50 GMT, "Jerry Martes" wrote: I have been trying to understand how it can be determined that Yagiis are inefficient. Hi Jerry, That, in fact, is quite very simple. Allow that every living person on this planet (arbitrarily assign that number to be 6 Billion) has a receiver that is receiving you with arm chair copy (arbitrarily assign that to be 10dB over S-9) to your signal (arbitrarily assign that to be 100W) applied to your antenna (arbitrarily assumed to be a Yagi). What is the Yagi efficiency? S-9 is 50µV into 50 Ohms and through various mental gymnastics we can pin that down to being 50 picoWatts - but wait! There's 10dB more! call it ½ nanoWatt.... Aggregate that over the entire Earth's total population eagerly awaiting the news of your power efficiency. 3W total absorption. 3% efficient. Now, try something simple like raising that efficiency one notch, and still hitting ALL 6 Billion people. Hint, the Yagi couldn't satisfy this in the first place because of a property called directivity, so a design that is "more efficient" is even more mythical ;-) I dare say no one here can prove to be 0.001% efficient in these terms. [Must be validated through QSL cards.] Efficiency: Can't live with it; Can't live without it! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi Richard All kidding aside, I have actually learned things thru this thread. I had previously considered Efficiency to be a term applied to I squared R losses. Sure, I know about Aperture Efficiency, but I never knew about Beam Efficiency till someone presented a reference to a site mentioning it. But, if that previous thread referred to a Yagi as being inefficient due to its I squared R losses, I want to see the data supporting that claim. Incidentally, Pico Blvd doesnt go thru Watts |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Wow, this thread has gone way past my minute understanding of charges
and fields.. I'm always amazed everytime a refrigerator magnet sticks... Where is Dick Feinman when I need him to explain all this... As far as I can tell Art, you intend to load up a balloon until it bursts... That's gotta be hard on the amp when it goes... denny / k8do |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Denny wrote:
Wow, this thread has gone way past my minute understanding of charges and fields.. I'm always amazed everytime a refrigerator magnet sticks... Where is Dick Feinman when I need him to explain all this... You can purchase and download a lot of his physics lectures as pod casts from Apple's Itunes. - Galen, W8LNA |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
art wrote:
[snip] this aproach works out using a antenna program that is related but not the same as standard formd i.e. AO professional. A separate individual took my figures and applied them to the NEC4 program which is more universally accepted and where it validated my findings. [snip] Hi Art, I don't want to get into the details of your new antenna concept. However, consider this. Your antenna, whatever it is, seems to be modeled correctly by both AO Pro and by NEC4. Both of those programs are based on completely conventional electromagnetic theory that has been in use for over a century. In that case it is most unlikely that you have discovered any new electromagnetic science. It is quite possible that your antenna configuration is novel, and it is even possible that your method of informally describing the antenna is new and useful. However, new science it ain't. 73, Gene W4SZ |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Gene the programs are different tho created by similar means. For
instance sharp corners in elements creat different things, uneven distribution of measurement point of closely aligned elements also can creat differences. By using NEC$ to double check illuminates problems created by an individual programmer Now as far as a new science Ive previously stated that I concentrate on what the masters have found and try to take things further in that it supports what I found by accident. No Iam not introducing anything that is new just something that has been bypassed for over 100 years. As far as not getting in to details wide statements can mean anything but in life it is the details where the difficulties come to light Gene Fuller wrote: art wrote: [snip] this aproach works out using a antenna program that is related but not the same as standard formd i.e. AO professional. A separate individual took my figures and applied them to the NEC4 program which is more universally accepted and where it validated my findings. [snip] Hi Art, I don't want to get into the details of your new antenna concept. However, consider this. Your antenna, whatever it is, seems to be modeled correctly by both AO Pro and by NEC4. Both of those programs are based on completely conventional electromagnetic theory that has been in use for over a century. In that case it is most unlikely that you have discovered any new electromagnetic science. It is quite possible that your antenna configuration is novel, and it is even possible that your method of informally describing the antenna is new and useful. However, new science it ain't. 73, Gene W4SZ |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:56:40 GMT, "Jerry Martes"
wrote: But, if that previous thread referred to a Yagi as being inefficient due to its I squared R losses, I want to see the data supporting that claim. Hi Jerry, You may as well abandon that expectation and everything related to it. Incidentally, Pico Blvd doesnt go thru Watts Does it cross de Gallo? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
O.K. I have a few minuits before I start my day so I will use it to
describe in more detail that word "curl" that I spoke about earlier where we just added a straight line arrow to the enclosed charges and yet we called it a "curl". Remembe we only applied a time varing field for just a moment so the arbitary border would not breach and this movement can be likened ti a corkscrew that turns around and around but yet it eneters just one small hole. If we view a charge of being on the surface of the corkscrew we can visulise it going round and round like a stone in Davids sling. But we only supplied energy to the gaussian fiels for a short moment and David who also stopped the stone in the sling flew outwards in a straight line with its potential energy changing to kinetic energy. So that is why the charges had an arrow attached which is what appears when the charge whirles around with phase changes until it is released , so tho we represented the "curl" addition by a straight arrow or vector one can see that this is a result of the curling action of the charge around a dipole when a time varying field is applied. Remember this particular addition to Gausses law provides the means of connection to Ampere and Kirchoffs work that evolved with electromagnetics. Next time I will explain how a law of nature allowed us to move out of the electrostics sphere and move towards the creation of a radiating field. Hope that helps without confusion. O.K. where was I Ah, we now have in front of us where all the enclosed charges are of a like sign. So now visualise that you are looking at a cluster of could be radiating elements side on and think that each charge that appears on the surface of the enclosed border eminated somehow from a dipole behind it First thing to understand that behind the charge direction sign we have a dipole which like all the other charges must be in equilibrium with all the other charges dipoles so the first requirement is to make every dipole resonant and since they are in cluster form the interacting coupling effects destroy the equilibrium unless we ensure that all the dipoles are resonant despite outher forces. To do this we ofcourse have to adjust the lengths of each dipole such that it is still resonant despite the positional arrangement we put them in which means the dipooles will not be of the same length but still reonant in situ to maiantain equilibrium. Up to now we have beenmanipulating a Gaussion law that applies to electrostatics, a subset of electro magnetics where in mathematical terms time must be taken into account so we have to go back to the Gaussian field and add another tem to the Gaussian law like " in a small space of time " or something like that. We can do this because what Gauss found and put into mathematical form is a law not a theorem in that it blends with laws of nature and the universe as proven mathematically. So for an instant of time we can place the clustered elements in a short burst of a time varying field where each of the enclosed charges have a directional vector added to it in the form of phase possesion which is often times referred to as Curl if you come across that term later. Now for equilibrium all charges must change in unison which they will do as we made the length of elements resonant in situ. Now looking at the Gaussian field it can be seen that for a short moment in time each of the charges/dipole elements have formed directional mean for the time varying charges but without breaking out from the arbitary border or having to radiate in any way to another element. So at this point we have a cluster of elements that have not started the process of radiating/E.H. field generation and where by virtue of all elements being of the same "Q' we have avoided the cumbersome job of determining the intercoupling forces. At this point we can say we are dealing with lumped constants and eligable for adaptation by RLC or complex circuitry methods. I think you will need a bit of time to absorb what I have stated before we move on to an actual radiating array since there is more work to be done before I get to that point.See you later art wrote: Pray tell me what is it in my posting that inflamed you as a self chosen judge to pass judgement on me? Mike Lucas wrote: "art" wrote in message ps.com... massive snip Art: Do you know what a blithering idiot is??? Well, you're starting to blither pretty often. Mike W5CHR Memphis |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
It is quite possible that your antenna configuration is novel, ... I'll bet it can't hold a candle to my 24 dBi omni at: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/SUPRGAIN.EZ :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
I'll bet it can't hold a candle to my 24 dBi omni at:
http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/SUPRGAIN.EZ Wow! EZNEC average gain test shows +18dB... lessee... that means it's about 630% efficient! Good work! |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Cecil, I can't get this on my computor just a mix of letters here and
there Any suggestions Art Cecil Moore wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: It is quite possible that your antenna configuration is novel, ... I'll bet it can't hold a candle to my 24 dBi omni at: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/SUPRGAIN.EZ :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
art wrote:
Cecil, I can't get this on my computor just a mix of letters here and there Any suggestions Art Cecil Moore wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: It is quite possible that your antenna configuration is novel, ... I'll bet it can't hold a candle to my 24 dBi omni at: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/SUPRGAIN.EZ :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com It is an eznec file. You must import it into eznec ... JS |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
John, about being a"nut" when you think out of the box people havent
got a book to study up on you So many people in the past were labelled "nuts" long after they had passed away. George Green a mathematicician from Nottingham was not in with the no alls and yet nowadays his work is still in use in engineering but others have polished up some of what he found and laid claim to it. Very few people now a days knows of this George Green. Then there was that guy more than two thousand years ago who found a round stone that was flat on both sides and the guy wheeled that thing around while his friends called him "nuts" One day he tried rolling the thing uphill until a dinasaw came along and ofcourse he ran like hell but the stone cought up with him and killed him. So the guy who invented the wheel and was called a "nut" passed away And the name of the man that invented the wheel remains a mystery for ever, even tho his nuts were preserved to be used a few centuries later to make a vehicle by Henry Ford. There is no glory to be obtained by thinking outside the box! John Smith wrote: wrote: Art, You'd get a lot more people who would be able to listen to what you're saying if you drew a picture and posted it somewhere. Dan Dan: I think we have arrived at the quantum/nano level here, you know, entangled particles, particles which can be in two places at once, particles which exceed the speed of light, it is a no mans land. Indeed, it takes guts to just attempt a discussion on the subject ... We tend to think at large levels, wavelengths traversing long stretches of conductors, whole capacitor plates, etc. Naturally, even if one is stating correct facts on a quantum level he is going to called an idiot--if he attempts to even advance a theory which encompasses the above, who can resist laughing? None-the-less, it is true, the world of physics becomes upside down (apparently, with our present understanding.) Who can tell a "nut" at this level, everyone is going to look the same here. grin Regards, JS |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
art wrote:
John, about being a"nut" when you think out of the box people havent Art: Lighten up. I am not afraid to be termed a "nut", if there is some sort of evidence there is something which needs to be looked at, discussed, thought about--I'll be right there up to my arm pits. The nay sayers, those who claim everything has already been discovered, those who claim we already have all the answers and all is understood--they stand as chaff in the wind to me. Many you deal with here are technicians. They are well versed in standard formulas, techniques and methods. I hear them saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" To a certain extent, they are quite correct. Thinking is just a hobby with me, as is amateur radio and electronics. I work in software for a living, thinking out of the box is a not a luxury here, it is a requirement. Unless there is good reason you do something unique/different/quicker/shorter/more efficient/more compact/etc. they will hand your job to china or india! Take all I say with a grain of salt ... Regards, JS |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
art wrote:
Cecil, I can't get this on my computor just a mix of letters here and there Any suggestions Is your email address in your heading correct? If so, I'll email the file to you. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
You obviously do what I and my son do. He works as a consultant at
Southern Cal and he was the one that got Biology work bench off the ground where others could not bring it together when he was at Illinois U. Now he really thinks outside the box. On the otherhand my sisters boy who is a director on the Rupert Murdock set up is about strictly following a particular line Go figure John Smith wrote: art wrote: John, about being a"nut" when you think out of the box people havent Art: Lighten up. I am not afraid to be termed a "nut", if there is some sort of evidence there is something which needs to be looked at, discussed, thought about--I'll be right there up to my arm pits. The nay sayers, those who claim everything has already been discovered, those who claim we already have all the answers and all is understood--they stand as chaff in the wind to me. Many you deal with here are technicians. They are well versed in standard formulas, techniques and methods. I hear them saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" To a certain extent, they are quite correct. Thinking is just a hobby with me, as is amateur radio and electronics. I work in software for a living, thinking out of the box is a not a luxury here, it is a requirement. Unless there is good reason you do something unique/different/quicker/shorter/more efficient/more compact/etc. they will hand your job to china or india! Take all I say with a grain of salt ... Regards, JS |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
"art" wrote in message
snip quasi-techno-babble where can i get some of whatever you are on?? |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
Yes, thankyou
Art Cecil Moore wrote: art wrote: Cecil, I can't get this on my computor just a mix of letters here and there Any suggestions Is your email address in your heading correct? If so, I'll email the file to you. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
O.K. I believe i left things as a Gaussian field with what can look
like a bunch of pencils tightly held together inside a arbitary boundary which is very closely shaped like the periphery of the bunch of pencils. Now each of these pencils represent a charge running along a resonant element and at a specific point in time each of these resonant elements have a like charge as all the other resonant elements together with a direction arrow representing the phase of the charge at a particular point in time. Now all these charges are in equilibrium so when the cluster is excited with a time varying field each charge is going to seek the easiest way thru the arbitary boundary but the question is where? It would apear that the arbitary boundary is strong every where around the periphery of the charges. Ideally we would like to chose fore ourselves where the leakage points occur so that we know which directing the radiating vectors are. If we look closely at the phases of the individual charges you will not that there are two pointing to the same direction which ideally is where we want the main lobe to be so we have to make a weakness in the wall or arbitary border to have a weakness where one of the vectors need to breach the border. To do this we insert a detuned element near the point we want the vector to escape . The vector that we are aiding to escape is the summattion of the radiation that normally would radiate out of the rear of the array but we are trying to harvest this radiation to complement the other forward vector in a similar way that a stack antenna does but ofcourse we only have one feed point. When we feed one of the enclosed resonant elements the charges will breach the boundary in two places in a common direction and when breaching the border the Eand H field transformation starts. I.e. the directive vectors both point the same way until the internal charges are depleted./ Sounds perfect....... except for one thing, we don't want to put a lot of elements up into the air as a cluster infact four or five will do us fine. Thus with just five charges within the gaussian field it can be seen that the strength of the border is very shaky and tho we still have two vectors pointing the same way some of the reaward radiation is going to escape tho some will make it to form a second vector. As soon as the gaussian field is excited with a time varying field there will be two vectors emerjing in the predesigned direction i.e. forward and there will be a scattering of leakage vectors to the rear all of whichare off to generate a radiative field in their exit direction. So instead of a yagi type array that is bound to a common plane with detuned elements that are coupled to arrive at a final direction and at the same time generating E/H fields the Gaussian style really has a single dipole represented by the Gaussian cluster which has predesigned directional abilities at the instance of applying a time variant field. Of course one can decide to add detuned elements around the array but basically the arrays work is already done. So what has this Gaussian array done for us? If you look in the antenna handbook you will find a whole chapter that laments about the fact that compromises must be made with Yagi designs and even if you arranged for maximum gain over a stretch of frequency something comes along that takes some of that gain away from you.The interesting point about the Gaussian array is that the gain curve is relatively flat across the band in question and more important the SWR curve is pretty much a mirror of the gain curve, something I suppose like a band pass filter. Another point to notice is that the placement of elements in such an array is one of choice and not limited to a single plane as per the yagi and also not limited in the individual direction of the element cluster. For a simple illustration of a Gaussian antenna we will place five elements parallel to each other and on the same mast. Since it is difficult for most programs to come up with thye resonant length of the element cluster I will provide a sample which really is only using two of the X Y Z dimensions of the computor program. Center Frequency of use 14.25 MHz element length height 1 209.46 927.1 feed element 2 198.25 973.97 3 172.78 822.86 4 219.83 964.4 5 185.53 922.4 Note you can readily see which element is detuned but note the varience of the other elements in length where each is resonant! Element diameters were 1.3 inches tapered and all dimensions are in inches The above will give you something to play with and I believe EZNEC is available for sample purposes. When you make this type of array it is not only different horizontal and vertical patterns you can get but also circular and with field of different shapes. Bearing in mind that the element placements are random try the above array but swinging each element around progressively to form a star shape when viewed from above tho ofcourse element lengths will have to change to assume equilibrium status. For the more adventurous you can have an arrangement similar to a yagi that stretches out horizontaly though not necessarily on a single plane or if your program is limited in size just play around with two or three elements. As you know I use the AO program by Beasely which really is not tied in anyway solely to a yagi design and will infact determine element lengths ,positions etc simply by asking for maximum gain or whatever and ofcourse start at 50 ohms impedance since unlike the Yagi you wont find yourself with terrific gain but only a few ohms impedance. So have at it and play with it a bit to see exactly what such an array can do Again I use the AO set up which makes the above antennas a breeze to design and I haven't begun to probe all the variations Art KB9MZ...........XG snip |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
"art" wrote in message ps.com... technobabble snipped Center Frequency of use 14.25 MHz element length height 1 209.46 927.1 feed element 2 198.25 973.97 3 172.78 822.86 4 219.83 964.4 5 185.53 922.4 ok, if i am reading this right the elements are stacked vertically above and below the fed element? assuming the distances are in inches, your element 5 is about 5" from the fed element? and elements 2 and 4 are about 8" apart?? assuming the above is correct, you have probably rediscovered the hazards of runaway optimizations. aka: how to get super gain without really trying! you will most likely find that the bandwidths are unusually narrow, and the feed point impedance is extremely low or highly reactive... all signs of a design that can't be fed without extremely high losses... and would only work on one frequency, if at all. |
A gaussian style radiating antenna
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:19:01 -0000, "Dave" wrote:
you have probably rediscovered the hazards of runaway optimizations. aka: how to get super gain without really trying! Hi Dave, Super gain? I improved the gain and the feed Z by throwing away 4 wires. I hope "AO program by Beasely" is not slurred by this example. Center Frequency of use 14.25 MHz element length height 1 209.46 927.1 feed element 2 198.25 973.97 3 172.78 822.86 4 219.83 964.4 5 185.53 922.4 specification for a classical waste of time. [However, it is certainly the poster child for first establishing a reference against which improvement is measured.] 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com