electrostatics is a small subset of electromagnetics, and with good cause.
its application is limited to static electric fields only. no current, no
radiation, just static electric fields. so don't try to sell an antenna
based on electrostatics or you will be lumped in with the e/h guys.

coupling between elements of an antenna is a given, you can't have a
conductor in an electromagnetic field without it coupling somehow to the
field and re-radiating. to try to convince anyone otherwise is to ignore
100+ years of electromagnetic research.

also, if you are basing this on new principles you can't expect eznec or ao
or any of the existing finite element programs to do anything reasonable for
it, they will all fall apart like the example you posted and give
unobtainable models because they use classical electromagnetics to do all
their calculations.

as far as patents... i don't trust them any further than i can throw them,
you can patent anything unless it says 'free energy' or 'perpetual motion'
in it. heck there are even patents for faster than light antennas. if you
can't explain the principles well enough to pass a peer review for something
like the ieee a&p proceedings the science isn't right.

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
David listen to me. Please. Gaussian law with respect to electrostatics
is very well known
And you surely are aware that electrostatics is a subset of
electromagnetics.
Now you, because of your education and professional experience know
that the energy radiated can be calculated tho it is laborious to do. I
have given you a Gaussian version where only V=IZ needs to be known
where as other means require coupling factors plus other things.
Gausses law is very simple, the energy provided by the addition of curl
to the contained static electrical particles is equal to the radiation
outside the arbitary border when you add " in a space of time" or
something similar to Gausses law.
Yes it is not in the books because it is new, thats right, new in my
eyes because it provides an array without the addition of elements that
are detuned as with the Yagi. With the Gaussian array you do not have
to make compromises with respect to desirables as shown in Chaptor 2 in
the Antenna handbook. The Gaussian array provides sync between all the
curves over a bandwidth. Over time I have written this patent
application many times because of derision from amateures. But, now I
am appealing to the academics or qualified
engineers. (I once was an engineer but time has messed the mind in some
areas}to help me out so I can finalise things but above all I want
academic facts and not drivel that I get from those who follow Richard.
Is there any other academics out there that can help me out as well as
clarifying what I say for better understanding. Anybody to join David ?
Regards
Art





Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
I recently gave a write up on Gaussian arrays
As a sample which was not directed for any
desirable I laid out the following

All of the elements were placed above each other purely
to make things easier to do plus it being an unusual
arrangement probably never seen before.

Coordinates ( perfect ground) Inches
X Y Z

0 209.46 927.1
0 198.25 973.97
0 172.78 822.86
0 219.83 964.4
0 185.53 922.4

With 1" dia elements
my results were
Impedance 48.5 + j 0.1
Horiz gain 8.12 dbi @ 12 deg
Rc gain 5.11 dbic

Since I am not sure of the capabilities of EZNEC
or other programs
I also supply the following

All elements driven impedances are
6.58 + j56.9
-5.28 - j 37.6
-5.00 -125
9.35 + 58.5
-16.2 - j205

as i pointed out before, and this verifies, you have found one of the
limitations of finite element methods for modeling antennas. very
close
spacings between long elements causes un-realizable results. the
extremely
low real components of the impedance and high reactive values are
symptoms
of this.



David this is just conjecture on your part. I respect your knoweledge
but I am looking for academic proof. Your comments may well be valid in
general terms but I have given
a specific case plus some of my findings. Prove to me the error of my
ways please


Now I need the help from anybody with a engineering degree
which wipes out Richard since his only intent is to ridicule,
or deceive anyway, to confirm the following

For a Gaussian field the energy radiated
by the array as a whole ( feed element 1 )
must equal the sum of the energy
supplied from each individual element.

this is true for any array. O.K. and I gave you all the impedances
that
you would need to prove or disprove what I have said. I would be
interested in what a academic would say
regarding a proof measure based on the figures I've given which I
believe is all that is needed


Questions.
1. Am I correct in saying this?
2. Does the above array rank in any way
as a Gaussian array.?

define 'gaussian array' as it applies to antennas that you are
describing.

that type of array is not defined in my copies of Jackson's or
Ramo-Whinner-VanDuzer's books, nor does my IEEE antenna design
handbook
mention that term. there are references to 'gaussian beams' with
respect
to
the shape of the fields from feed horns for microwave dishes and other
quasi-optical systems. Some searching of the web also seems to refer
to
gaussian arrays, but those all seem to be related to current or power
distribution on elements of an adaptive array.

Yes, these deal with other works of Gauss as he was primarily a
mathematicial and his work is all the vogue now in the communications
world with respect to channels.

No you will not find it in books possibly because of the popularity of
the Yagi were all
that is known about antennas was known. I am absolutely positive that
in time this will be picked up and put in the books because I am making
it known and I gave several paragraphs
that showed the trail of deductions using the word of the masters and
nobody found fault that they could justify academically. Richard is
known to lead people astray and he is doing it again. He, Richard has
no engineering degree, he may have one on geography since he was in the
navy and if you know what hemesphere the Panama canal is, and you get
two shots at it you can get a degree in the mail. When I gave you the
impedances it is the root
of determining the energy supplied by a radiating element where Z1 Z2
etc is all you need
Again I agree that this is not stated in the books but surely you don't
believe all is in the books at the present time ? Electricity is not
immune to new discovery.
I welcome your comments but really I am looking for academic proof
where Richard has muddled things up so much I am beginning to question
myself even tho no facts only words have been offered

unfortunately it is not possible to prove a negative. and you have not
proved your case. I have pointed out the well known failure of finite
element modeling that most of us with engineering degrees do understand
and
avoid. you have simply been misled by software that you don't understand
completely. And no, I don't think everything is in books already, but I
don't believe that someone playing around with software they don't
understand is going to discover a new principle that hasn't been studied
elsewhere. So, again I ask, please define 'Gaussian array', give web
references that explain it if you can't, surely something that is on the
cutting edge of technology will have many web sites trying to promote it,
or
sell antennas based on this design.