|
A request for guidance from academics
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 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. Questions. 1. Am I correct in saying this? 2. Does the above array rank in any way as a Gaussian array.? Frankly, one or more of you is an academic so I really am pointing at you for direction so I can be sure that my program has not somehow become corrupted I am sharing this with you so can you share your input with me? If you prefer to communicate by E mail with me that is fine since we know that the lips of some will spew Art |
A request for guidance from academics
"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. 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. 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. Frankly, one or more of you is an academic so I really am pointing at you for direction so I can be sure that my program has not somehow become corrupted I am sharing this with you so can you share your input with me? If you prefer to communicate by E mail with me that is fine since we know that the lips of some will spew Art |
A request for guidance from academics
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 Best regards Art Frankly, one or more of you is an academic so I really am pointing at you for direction so I can be sure that my program has not somehow become corrupted I am sharing this with you so can you share your input with me? If you prefer to communicate by E mail with me that is fine since we know that the lips of some will spew Art |
A request for guidance from academics
"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. |
A request for guidance from academics
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. |
A request for guidance from academics
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. |
A request for guidance from academics
Dave wrote: 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. David it is not just limited to electrostatics. What Gauss wrote is accepted for what it is a mathematical deduction or law. That mathematical statement has universal use as with George Greens work who did not have one iota of engineering tuition. All I have added to gausses law is the dimension of time which I suspect that a mathematician can connect it to Amperes law or even Kirchoff As far as current is concerned a brief moment of time where a time varying field is applied to an element immediately the electric particles posses directive abilities where the vector value is zero. I may be wrong here but that is called a conservative field with a big but... the inside of the arbitary curve must be in a state of equilibrium where the sign on the particals must be alike and change in unison. This can be done by making the elerments resonant which mine are tho not of the same length. When the time varying field is applied to the cluster we break the equilibrium with an element that does not change in unison with the other elements thus weakening the arbitary border at that point./ When the energy of the internal field breaches the arbitary border it will do it in the vicinity of the added detuned element. It is only when the border is breached does one start generating the near field which is contrary to the yagi. Now with respect to coupling. in mathematics you try to remove some of the variables to make a solution easier, in this cas we removed the variable of coupling by using elements with the same "Q' I am not saying that I get radiation without current or coupling I am saying that I have reduced the design to just ohms law via mathematical aproaches, nothing more. 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. I accept coupling but not generation of a radiating field at the same time. Gausses law revolves around a closed arbitary border where the radiating field does not generate until the border is breached. This is why a detuned element is added to the cluster to weaken the border. 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. No they are not new principles they have existed for a long time Over the years mathematicians have connected many laws of different disciplines purly by mathematical terms, supposition or just going the extra mile with somebody elses work and George Green is a prime example of mathematical genious where his work was connected more than 100 years later to complexc circuitry and other things. 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. Exactly. So I am asking for input from those experienced in the state of the art or a different perspectivebut there doesn't appear to be any out there to add their penny worth. I really believe Dave that the idea of adding curl to a electriostatic charge is what you are resisting and some day you will have to look at that afresh or at least poke academic holes in the aproach I am taking or a different perspective for me to mull over, a mathematical aproach requires not amateurs but those experienced in the art such as yourself. At least you gave it a shot Dave for which I thank you. I can give you another arbitary array where the elements are not as close to each other if you wish or the same array where the elements are rotated into a star fashion for vertical radiation to remove this close coupling which seems to be alarming you. I only supplied such an arbitary placed array to catch the imagination of those who are really inquisitive, nothing more Will another person knoweledgable in the field join in with us other than an amateur who knoweledge only extends to the ARRL examinations, anyone ? Surely since this is an antenna group somebody must have studied these things in college even tho it may have been a long time ago. Regards Art "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. |
A request for guidance from academics
On 14 Dec 2006 16:15:22 -0800, "art" wrote:
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. Hi Art, You've repeated my name more times than Gauss. That sure gives it a lift. ;-) Is there any other academics out there that can help me out as well as clarifying what I say for better understanding. The clarification I offered was: Throw away 4 of the 5 wires and you improve both the gain and the match. If you dismiss this as drivel (a perverse contempt in this forum dedicated to gain and matching) then there is no clarification to be gained. As Dave pointed out, submit to a judged journal and show us the citation when it publishes. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
A request for guidance from academics
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. 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. 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, +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ David, since you referenced the above book may I bring to your attention to Potentials used with varying charges and currents with the sub heading A "possible" my quotes set of potentials for time -varying field paying attention to the significance of "possible" Deeper in the chaptor he refers to static fields. I know his use of the word 'possible' does not endorse anything but he didn't rule it out In addition page 70 refers in depth with respect to Gauss's law where he supplies a drawing of a partial surface of a volume ( arbitary surrounding surface is the statement ) where the charge is a projection on the surface without reference to what it is projected from. In my case it is a projection from a cluster of elements) definitions and concepts, without any furtherexperimental information He also goes on to state Gauss law in his own words and then goes on to say It has been derived from Coulombs force by the introduction of new definitions and concepts I am just adding to the concept by adding a third dimension which when looking at the drawing given reflects the original Gaussian thinking tho current thinking uses a two dimension section in describing electrostatics.I suppose a good proof would be to compare Pointings vector formulae with what I have put forward but perhaps that is too presumtious of me. All in all the array represents a band pass filter where effort is made for constant gain across a band of frequencies which is a different requirement from the Yagi where amateurs are only interested in gain without due referance to constancy across the frequency span or with regard to the corresponding beam width Any way the above should provide some food for thought Bed time calls Best regards Art Unwin 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. Frankly, one or more of you is an academic so I really am pointing at you for direction so I can be sure that my program has not somehow become corrupted I am sharing this with you so can you share your input with me? If you prefer to communicate by E mail with me that is fine since we know that the lips of some will spew Art |
A request for guidance from academics
On 14 Dec 2006 21:04:08 -0800, "art" wrote:
All in all the array represents a band pass filter where effort is made for constant gain across a band of frequencies Hi Art, D.E. Isbell did this 46 years ago. which is a different requirement from the Yagi It has been used for TV antennas for lo those same 46 years and to any casual view looks like a Yagi. where amateurs are only interested in gain without due referance to constancy across the frequency span or with regard to the corresponding beam width Isbell got that too. It was, afterall, everyone's goal and he got: 1. More gain; 2. Better match; 3. More bandwidth; than 5 un-optimized wires hanging in the air. Isbell understood Gaus, Maxwell, McGuffey, and the rest and never appealed to bundles to explain his design (which really bore no more relation to his antenna than explaining why a car works in terms of how zippo lighters create a flame). D.E. Isbell's antenna is included free as an example with every copy of EZNEC. It contains 5 wires and exhibits: 1. 10% BW 2. 10 dBi gain 3. a serviceable match Isbell wrote the design up, submitted it to his peers, a jury passed on his work, it was published, it was patented (3210767) and it has stood the test of time. Isbell also explained how to achieve different: 1. Gains; 2. Matches; 3. Bandwidths; in terms that others could actually build working models. In regard to this last, I am sure amateur publications offer simple formula to achieve these goals too. However, if all one has to read is a book about fields, Isbell's invention may come as a surprise. Ramo and the boys don't really talk all that much about "antennas," so citing them as authorities on the subject makes as much sense as crediting Jane Goodall for the Theory of Evolution. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
A request for guidance from academics
Do you guys know how to edit a message when you are replying to it so
a reader doesn't have to wade through 3 screens of previously posted material to find the section you added? It really isn't rocket science. |
A request for guidance from academics
sorry, it just doesn't work that way. gauss' law for electrostatics just
can't be extended to handle time varying fields, as soon as you do that its not statics any more and you have to take into account currents and magnetic fields which then give you the coupling to the other elements. that is what eznec and the other antenna modellers make use of... so don't try to model your antenna with any existing program, you have to come up with your own model and calculation method to show what it does. oh, and one important part of a patent is the claims section... what are your claims for this new type of antenna?? "art" wrote in message oups.com... Dave wrote: 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. David it is not just limited to electrostatics. What Gauss wrote is accepted for what it is a mathematical deduction or law. That mathematical statement has universal use as with George Greens work who did not have one iota of engineering tuition. All I have added to gausses law is the dimension of time which I suspect that a mathematician can connect it to Amperes law or even Kirchoff As far as current is concerned a brief moment of time where a time varying field is applied to an element immediately the electric particles posses directive abilities where the vector value is zero. I may be wrong here but that is called a conservative field with a big but... the inside of the arbitary curve must be in a state of equilibrium where the sign on the particals must be alike and change in unison. This can be done by making the elerments resonant which mine are tho not of the same length. When the time varying field is applied to the cluster we break the equilibrium with an element that does not change in unison with the other elements thus weakening the arbitary border at that point./ When the energy of the internal field breaches the arbitary border it will do it in the vicinity of the added detuned element. It is only when the border is breached does one start generating the near field which is contrary to the yagi. Now with respect to coupling. in mathematics you try to remove some of the variables to make a solution easier, in this cas we removed the variable of coupling by using elements with the same "Q' I am not saying that I get radiation without current or coupling I am saying that I have reduced the design to just ohms law via mathematical aproaches, nothing more. 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. I accept coupling but not generation of a radiating field at the same time. Gausses law revolves around a closed arbitary border where the radiating field does not generate until the border is breached. This is why a detuned element is added to the cluster to weaken the border. 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. No they are not new principles they have existed for a long time Over the years mathematicians have connected many laws of different disciplines purly by mathematical terms, supposition or just going the extra mile with somebody elses work and George Green is a prime example of mathematical genious where his work was connected more than 100 years later to complexc circuitry and other things. 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. Exactly. So I am asking for input from those experienced in the state of the art or a different perspectivebut there doesn't appear to be any out there to add their penny worth. I really believe Dave that the idea of adding curl to a electriostatic charge is what you are resisting and some day you will have to look at that afresh or at least poke academic holes in the aproach I am taking or a different perspective for me to mull over, a mathematical aproach requires not amateurs but those experienced in the art such as yourself. At least you gave it a shot Dave for which I thank you. I can give you another arbitary array where the elements are not as close to each other if you wish or the same array where the elements are rotated into a star fashion for vertical radiation to remove this close coupling which seems to be alarming you. I only supplied such an arbitary placed array to catch the imagination of those who are really inquisitive, nothing more Will another person knoweledgable in the field join in with us other than an amateur who knoweledge only extends to the ARRL examinations, anyone ? Surely since this is an antenna group somebody must have studied these things in college even tho it may have been a long time ago. Regards Art "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. |
A request for guidance from academics
David
we totally disagree, you have a hang up on applying a time varying field to a electric charge. There is absolute no reason that you can take a stand on that. You say that you worked in space communication well ask for a second opinion from one of your former associates or even ckeck with your Alma Mata before you dig a hole that is to deep to get out of.Remember that as we get older we all have senior moments and I may well be having more than you so hang in there! Regarding the need for a new program that just can't be true, NEC is based on known mathematical laws period. When programs first came out I struggled with that but I then realised that NEC is NOT based on empirical data so what you are saying is just not correct. I urge you to rethink that one out again. As far as a patent goes I am struggling with that because it must be a physical description so basically it would seem that I would have to run the gamut of different arrangements until one is found that has significant value and that will take an awefull long time. I may have to look at buying Metlab for comparison purposes or get somebody to do it. I think the main factor in all this is vector pre direction can be deturmined and that we can have two vectors in the forward direction which the Yagi does not do. But then you point to what is apparent to me is a real problem. If I could have the sample given solved by Metlab I am absolutely positive it will match up to the results that I gave earlier on this thread,, if it doesn't then I will have to think things out again. As far as your comments are concerned I am completely blown away by you declaring that a time varying field cannot be applied to an static electrical charge, blown away especially when you have stated that you have worked in space communications for years. But then again you are the only one who has the required qualifications to make comment. For some reason I thought that many of the group taught at coillege from their demenior but now I am not sure who is an engineer and who is none other than a Richard The idea that no one other than yourself was willing to walk the walk on an antenna subject on this RRAA is so surprising since it would appear they are not comfortable in the subject to stand up. So David you get the honours as the only one willing to walk the walk when the chips were down which suggests others are lemmings, for that I really thank you. Another thought is I could consult Tom a proven expert on antennas and knowelegable with Metlab. He is curious about this sort of thing so it may well interest him. At the moment I am trying to sort out the element coordinates of a similar array that I sent you so I can then calculate using my concept to compare results since that author obviously knows his mathematics so If mine matches his then it is QED but I havent been able to resolve that yet. Best Regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG Dave wrote: sorry, it just doesn't work that way. gauss' law for electrostatics just can't be extended to handle time varying fields, as soon as you do that its not statics any more and you have to take into account currents and magnetic fields which then give you the coupling to the other elements. that is what eznec and the other antenna modellers make use of... so don't try to model your antenna with any existing program, you have to come up with your own model and calculation method to show what it does. oh, and one important part of a patent is the claims section... what are your claims for this new type of antenna?? "art" wrote in message oups.com... Dave wrote: 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. David it is not just limited to electrostatics. What Gauss wrote is accepted for what it is a mathematical deduction or law. That mathematical statement has universal use as with George Greens work who did not have one iota of engineering tuition. All I have added to gausses law is the dimension of time which I suspect that a mathematician can connect it to Amperes law or even Kirchoff As far as current is concerned a brief moment of time where a time varying field is applied to an element immediately the electric particles posses directive abilities where the vector value is zero. I may be wrong here but that is called a conservative field with a big but... the inside of the arbitary curve must be in a state of equilibrium where the sign on the particals must be alike and change in unison. This can be done by making the elerments resonant which mine are tho not of the same length. When the time varying field is applied to the cluster we break the equilibrium with an element that does not change in unison with the other elements thus weakening the arbitary border at that point./ When the energy of the internal field breaches the arbitary border it will do it in the vicinity of the added detuned element. It is only when the border is breached does one start generating the near field which is contrary to the yagi. Now with respect to coupling. in mathematics you try to remove some of the variables to make a solution easier, in this cas we removed the variable of coupling by using elements with the same "Q' I am not saying that I get radiation without current or coupling I am saying that I have reduced the design to just ohms law via mathematical aproaches, nothing more. 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. I accept coupling but not generation of a radiating field at the same time. Gausses law revolves around a closed arbitary border where the radiating field does not generate until the border is breached. This is why a detuned element is added to the cluster to weaken the border. 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. No they are not new principles they have existed for a long time Over the years mathematicians have connected many laws of different disciplines purly by mathematical terms, supposition or just going the extra mile with somebody elses work and George Green is a prime example of mathematical genious where his work was connected more than 100 years later to complexc circuitry and other things. 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. Exactly. So I am asking for input from those experienced in the state of the art or a different perspectivebut there doesn't appear to be any out there to add their penny worth. I really believe Dave that the idea of adding curl to a electriostatic charge is what you are resisting and some day you will have to look at that afresh or at least poke academic holes in the aproach I am taking or a different perspective for me to mull over, a mathematical aproach requires not amateurs but those experienced in the art such as yourself. At least you gave it a shot Dave for which I thank you. I can give you another arbitary array where the elements are not as close to each other if you wish or the same array where the elements are rotated into a star fashion for vertical radiation to remove this close coupling which seems to be alarming you. I only supplied such an arbitary placed array to catch the imagination of those who are really inquisitive, nothing more Will another person knoweledgable in the field join in with us other than an amateur who knoweledge only extends to the ARRL examinations, anyone ? Surely since this is an antenna group somebody must have studied these things in college even tho it may have been a long time ago. Regards Art "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. |
A request for guidance from academics
"art" wrote in message ups.com... David we totally disagree, you have a hang up on applying a time varying field to a electric charge. There is absolute no reason that you can take a stand on that. of course i can, rf is a time varying phenomenon by definition. you can't communicate via static fields, by definition, so they are of no use in this discussion. You say that you worked in space communication well ask for a second opinion from one of your former associates or even ckeck with your Alma Mata before you dig a hole that is to deep to get out of.Remember that as we get older we all have senior moments and I may well be having more than you so hang in there! no, i don't work in space communications other than occasionally listening to ariss. Regarding the need for a new program that just can't be true, NEC is based on known mathematical laws period. When programs first came out I struggled with that but I then realised that NEC is NOT based on empirical data so what you are saying is just not correct. I urge you to rethink that one out again. of course it's true. nec and other existing antenna modelling software is all based on maxwell's equations so by definition it assumes time varying fields and coupling between all the elements of the antenna. if you are trying to do something and ignore that coupling then none of the existing programs will work for you. As far as a patent goes I am struggling with that because it must be a physical description so basically it would seem that I would have to run the gamut of different arrangements until one is found that has significant value and that will take an awefull long time. I may have to look at buying patents don't have to have significant value, only a new idea, a description of how it may be implemented, and claims. exactly what are you claiming your new idea will do that is unique? you have given a couple examples now of stacking elements, but to what end? is that arrangement supposed to have gain in some direction? is it supposed to be more efficient than existing antennas somehow? just what is it supposed to do that is worthy of a patent? Metlab for comparison purposes or get somebody to do it. I think the main factor in all this is vector pre direction can be deturmined and that we can have two vectors in the forward direction which the Yagi does not do. But then you point to what is apparent to me is a real problem. If I could have the sample given solved by Metlab I am absolutely positive it will match up to the results that I gave earlier on this thread,, if it doesn't then I will have to think things out again. As far as your comments are concerned I am completely blown away by you declaring that a time varying field cannot be applied to an static electrical charge, blown away especially when you have stated that you have worked in space communications for years. But then again you are the only one who has the required qualifications to make comment. For some reason I thought that many of the group taught at coillege from their demenior but now I am not sure who is an engineer and who is none other than a Richard The idea that no one other than yourself was willing to walk the walk on an antenna subject on this RRAA is so surprising since it would appear they are not comfortable in the subject to stand up. unfortunately for you, i am an engineer... and as such an interested in practical applications. so far you have only done some handwaving and not produced even a claim of what your method will do that is different than randomly positioning pieces of wire. So David you get the honours as the only one willing to walk the walk when the chips were down which suggests others are lemmings, for that I really thank you. Another thought is I could consult Tom a proven expert on antennas and knowelegable with Metlab. He is curious about this sort of thing so it may well interest him. At the moment I am trying to sort out the element coordinates of a similar array that I sent you so I can then calculate using my concept to compare results since that author obviously knows his mathematics so If mine matches his then it is QED but I havent been able to resolve that yet. Best Regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG Dave wrote: sorry, it just doesn't work that way. gauss' law for electrostatics just can't be extended to handle time varying fields, as soon as you do that its not statics any more and you have to take into account currents and magnetic fields which then give you the coupling to the other elements. that is what eznec and the other antenna modellers make use of... so don't try to model your antenna with any existing program, you have to come up with your own model and calculation method to show what it does. oh, and one important part of a patent is the claims section... what are your claims for this new type of antenna?? "art" wrote in message oups.com... Dave wrote: 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. David it is not just limited to electrostatics. What Gauss wrote is accepted for what it is a mathematical deduction or law. That mathematical statement has universal use as with George Greens work who did not have one iota of engineering tuition. All I have added to gausses law is the dimension of time which I suspect that a mathematician can connect it to Amperes law or even Kirchoff As far as current is concerned a brief moment of time where a time varying field is applied to an element immediately the electric particles posses directive abilities where the vector value is zero. I may be wrong here but that is called a conservative field with a big but... the inside of the arbitary curve must be in a state of equilibrium where the sign on the particals must be alike and change in unison. This can be done by making the elerments resonant which mine are tho not of the same length. When the time varying field is applied to the cluster we break the equilibrium with an element that does not change in unison with the other elements thus weakening the arbitary border at that point./ When the energy of the internal field breaches the arbitary border it will do it in the vicinity of the added detuned element. It is only when the border is breached does one start generating the near field which is contrary to the yagi. Now with respect to coupling. in mathematics you try to remove some of the variables to make a solution easier, in this cas we removed the variable of coupling by using elements with the same "Q' I am not saying that I get radiation without current or coupling I am saying that I have reduced the design to just ohms law via mathematical aproaches, nothing more. 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. I accept coupling but not generation of a radiating field at the same time. Gausses law revolves around a closed arbitary border where the radiating field does not generate until the border is breached. This is why a detuned element is added to the cluster to weaken the border. 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. No they are not new principles they have existed for a long time Over the years mathematicians have connected many laws of different disciplines purly by mathematical terms, supposition or just going the extra mile with somebody elses work and George Green is a prime example of mathematical genious where his work was connected more than 100 years later to complexc circuitry and other things. 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. Exactly. So I am asking for input from those experienced in the state of the art or a different perspectivebut there doesn't appear to be any out there to add their penny worth. I really believe Dave that the idea of adding curl to a electriostatic charge is what you are resisting and some day you will have to look at that afresh or at least poke academic holes in the aproach I am taking or a different perspective for me to mull over, a mathematical aproach requires not amateurs but those experienced in the art such as yourself. At least you gave it a shot Dave for which I thank you. I can give you another arbitary array where the elements are not as close to each other if you wish or the same array where the elements are rotated into a star fashion for vertical radiation to remove this close coupling which seems to be alarming you. I only supplied such an arbitary placed array to catch the imagination of those who are really inquisitive, nothing more Will another person knoweledgable in the field join in with us other than an amateur who knoweledge only extends to the ARRL examinations, anyone ? Surely since this is an antenna group somebody must have studied these things in college even tho it may have been a long time ago. Regards Art "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. |
A request for guidance from academics
Dave wrote: "art" wrote in message ups.com... David we totally disagree, you have a hang up on applying a time varying field to a electric charge. There is absolute no reason that you can take a stand on that. of course i can, rf is a time varying phenomenon by definition. you can't communicate via static fields, by definition, so they are of no use in this discussion. David, it stops being a static field alone if a time varying fiels is applied You say that you worked in space communication well ask for a second opinion from one of your former associates or even ckeck with your Alma Mata before you dig a hole that is to deep to get out of.Remember that as we get older we all have senior moments and I may well be having more than you so hang in there! no, i don't work in space communications other than occasionally listening to ariss. Regarding the need for a new program that just can't be true, NEC is based on known mathematical laws period. When programs first came out I struggled with that but I then realised that NEC is NOT based on empirical data so what you are saying is just not correct. I urge you to rethink that one out again. of course it's true. nec and other existing antenna modelling software is all based on maxwell's equations so by definition it assumes time varying fields and coupling between all the elements of the antenna. if you are trying to do something and ignore that coupling then none of the existing programs will work for you. David, I never said there is no coupling, in mathematics there are ways of removing avariable by the use of simultaneous equations. If you can't get around it then ofcourse you have to go the labourious route for full determination and that is compicated Going the Gaussian rout removes all that laborious mathematical work. Look at any mathematical sample of such an array and it all comes down to ZI of the elements involved, nothing more is needed and coupling is part of the journey but not of the solution and the solution by my method goes straight to the the solution by using the same laws that have been in existant for years. As far as a patent goes I am struggling with that because it must be a physical description so basically it would seem that I would have to run the gamut of different arrangements until one is found that has significant value and that will take an awefull long time. I may have to look at buying patents don't have to have significant value, only a new idea, a description of how it may be implemented, and claims. exactly what are you claiming your new idea will do that is unique? you have given a couple examples now of stacking elements, but to what end? is that arrangement supposed to have gain in some direction? is it supposed to be more efficient than existing antennas somehow? just what is it supposed to do that is worthy of a patent? Metlab for comparison purposes or get somebody to do it. I think the main factor in all this is vector pre direction can be deturmined and that we can have two vectors in the forward direction which the Yagi does not do. But then you point to what is apparent to me is a real problem. If I could have the sample given solved by Metlab I am absolutely positive it will match up to the results that I gave earlier on this thread,, if it doesn't then I will have to think things out again. As far as your comments are concerned I am completely blown away by you declaring that a time varying field cannot be applied to an static electrical charge, blown away especially when you have stated that you have worked in space communications for years. But then again you are the only one who has the required qualifications to make comment. For some reason I thought that many of the group taught at coillege from their demenior but now I am not sure who is an engineer and who is none other than a Richard The idea that no one other than yourself was willing to walk the walk on an antenna subject on this RRAA is so surprising since it would appear they are not comfortable in the subject to stand up. unfortunately for you, i am an engineer... and as such an interested in practical applications. so far you have only done some handwaving and not produced even a claim of what your method will do that is different than randomly positioning pieces of wire. Big deal, a lot of us were professioinal engineers before we retired. I have not waved my arms I gave samples that apply plus the method of solving. Anybody can use what ever they want to disprove it and I would welcome it but so far no body has been able to accomplishthis. Now what does this sort of arrangement do for you? If you have a copy of any antenna handbook look at chaptor 2 where the discussion of compromise comes to the fore. The yagi can be very efficient compared to other arrays when seeking one desirable but when seeking more than one desirable you have to make compromises and that is part of the joy in making antennas. Why the need to compromise? Well the yagi uses detuned elements which are reactive which is not helpfull with respect to SWR which controls bandwidth plus one would like all desirables to be in sync witheach other as one moves away from the frequency of use. By formulating an array around elements that are resonant and of the same "Q" you remove this problem. In addition by the use of "Q": one can determine indivudual impedances of any element in the cluster purely by the use of other laws of the masters. I don't expect you to understand all this but that is how it is. There is nothing wrong with using a piece of wire to communicate but if you are seeking knoweledge of the where's and why's of radiation then this is another link in the chain. You can deny it all youi wish but facts are facts and sooner or later it will be printed in technical books used for teaching engineers.and then by rote it becomes accepted Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ..........XG So David you get the honours as the only one willing to walk the walk when the chips were down which suggests others are lemmings, for that I really thank you. Another thought is I could consult Tom a proven expert on antennas and knowelegable with Metlab. He is curious about this sort of thing so it may well interest him. At the moment I am trying to sort out the element coordinates of a similar array that I sent you so I can then calculate using my concept to compare results since that author obviously knows his mathematics so If mine matches his then it is QED but I havent been able to resolve that yet. Best Regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG Dave wrote: sorry, it just doesn't work that way. gauss' law for electrostatics just can't be extended to handle time varying fields, as soon as you do that its not statics any more and you have to take into account currents and magnetic fields which then give you the coupling to the other elements. that is what eznec and the other antenna modellers make use of... so don't try to model your antenna with any existing program, you have to come up with your own model and calculation method to show what it does. oh, and one important part of a patent is the claims section... what are your claims for this new type of antenna?? "art" wrote in message oups.com... Dave wrote: 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. David it is not just limited to electrostatics. What Gauss wrote is accepted for what it is a mathematical deduction or law. That mathematical statement has universal use as with George Greens work who did not have one iota of engineering tuition. All I have added to gausses law is the dimension of time which I suspect that a mathematician can connect it to Amperes law or even Kirchoff As far as current is concerned a brief moment of time where a time varying field is applied to an element immediately the electric particles posses directive abilities where the vector value is zero. I may be wrong here but that is called a conservative field with a big but... the inside of the arbitary curve must be in a state of equilibrium where the sign on the particals must be alike and change in unison. This can be done by making the elerments resonant which mine are tho not of the same length. When the time varying field is applied to the cluster we break the equilibrium with an element that does not change in unison with the other elements thus weakening the arbitary border at that point./ When the energy of the internal field breaches the arbitary border it will do it in the vicinity of the added detuned element. It is only when the border is breached does one start generating the near field which is contrary to the yagi. Now with respect to coupling. in mathematics you try to remove some of the variables to make a solution easier, in this cas we removed the variable of coupling by using elements with the same "Q' I am not saying that I get radiation without current or coupling I am saying that I have reduced the design to just ohms law via mathematical aproaches, nothing more. 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. I accept coupling but not generation of a radiating field at the same time. Gausses law revolves around a closed arbitary border where the radiating field does not generate until the border is breached. This is why a detuned element is added to the cluster to weaken the border. 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. No they are not new principles they have existed for a long time Over the years mathematicians have connected many laws of different disciplines purly by mathematical terms, supposition or just going the extra mile with somebody elses work and George Green is a prime example of mathematical genious where his work was connected more than 100 years later to complexc circuitry and other things. 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. Exactly. So I am asking for input from those experienced in the state of the art or a different perspectivebut there doesn't appear to be any out there to add their penny worth. I really believe Dave that the idea of adding curl to a electriostatic charge is what you are resisting and some day you will have to look at that afresh or at least poke academic holes in the aproach I am taking or a different perspective for me to mull over, a mathematical aproach requires not amateurs but those experienced in the art such as yourself. At least you gave it a shot Dave for which I thank you. I can give you another arbitary array where the elements are not as close to each other if you wish or the same array where the elements are rotated into a star fashion for vertical radiation to remove this close coupling which seems to be alarming you. I only supplied such an arbitary placed array to catch the imagination of those who are really inquisitive, nothing more Will another person knoweledgable in the field join in with us other than an amateur who knoweledge only extends to the ARRL examinations, anyone ? Surely since this is an antenna group somebody must have studied these things in college even tho it may have been a long time ago. Regards Art "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. |
A request for guidance from academics
"art" wrote in message ups.com... Dave wrote: "art" wrote in message ups.com... David we totally disagree, you have a hang up on applying a time varying field to a electric charge. There is absolute no reason that you can take a stand on that. of course i can, rf is a time varying phenomenon by definition. you can't communicate via static fields, by definition, so they are of no use in this discussion. David, it stops being a static field alone if a time varying fiels is applied You say that you worked in space communication well ask for a second opinion from one of your former associates or even ckeck with your Alma Mata before you dig a hole that is to deep to get out of.Remember that as we get older we all have senior moments and I may well be having more than you so hang in there! no, i don't work in space communications other than occasionally listening to ariss. Regarding the need for a new program that just can't be true, NEC is based on known mathematical laws period. When programs first came out I struggled with that but I then realised that NEC is NOT based on empirical data so what you are saying is just not correct. I urge you to rethink that one out again. of course it's true. nec and other existing antenna modelling software is all based on maxwell's equations so by definition it assumes time varying fields and coupling between all the elements of the antenna. if you are trying to do something and ignore that coupling then none of the existing programs will work for you. David, I never said there is no coupling, in mathematics there are ways of removing avariable by the use of simultaneous equations. If you can't get around it then ofcourse you have to go the labourious route for full determination and that is compicated Going the Gaussian rout removes all that laborious mathematical work. Look at any mathematical sample of such an array and it all comes down to ZI of the elements involved, nothing more is needed and coupling is part of the journey but not of the solution and the solution by my method goes straight to the the solution by using the same laws that have been in existant for years. then you have nothing new and you should be made aware of the limitations of the software you are using so that you don't get misled any further. unfortunately i don't believe that you have really found anything new, you are probably just ignoring important parts of the solution because you think you can incorrectly apply a static case simplification to a time varying one... sorry, that doesn't work. you may find some examples in certain cases where it looks like it works, but in general it won't. |
A request for guidance from academics
So David we come to the end of the debate where you and probably others
who are members of this newsgroup state you can't impose a time varying field on a array of static charges which is contrary to what I say. Thus a standard of education has been set for the many engineers in this group and where I am just a group of one. So be it Regards Art Dave wrote: "art" wrote in message ups.com... Dave wrote: "art" wrote in message ups.com... David we totally disagree, you have a hang up on applying a time varying field to a electric charge. There is absolute no reason that you can take a stand on that. of course i can, rf is a time varying phenomenon by definition. you can't communicate via static fields, by definition, so they are of no use in this discussion. David, it stops being a static field alone if a time varying fiels is applied You say that you worked in space communication well ask for a second opinion from one of your former associates or even ckeck with your Alma Mata before you dig a hole that is to deep to get out of.Remember that as we get older we all have senior moments and I may well be having more than you so hang in there! no, i don't work in space communications other than occasionally listening to ariss. Regarding the need for a new program that just can't be true, NEC is based on known mathematical laws period. When programs first came out I struggled with that but I then realised that NEC is NOT based on empirical data so what you are saying is just not correct. I urge you to rethink that one out again. of course it's true. nec and other existing antenna modelling software is all based on maxwell's equations so by definition it assumes time varying fields and coupling between all the elements of the antenna. if you are trying to do something and ignore that coupling then none of the existing programs will work for you. David, I never said there is no coupling, in mathematics there are ways of removing avariable by the use of simultaneous equations. If you can't get around it then ofcourse you have to go the labourious route for full determination and that is compicated Going the Gaussian rout removes all that laborious mathematical work. Look at any mathematical sample of such an array and it all comes down to ZI of the elements involved, nothing more is needed and coupling is part of the journey but not of the solution and the solution by my method goes straight to the the solution by using the same laws that have been in existant for years. then you have nothing new and you should be made aware of the limitations of the software you are using so that you don't get misled any further. unfortunately i don't believe that you have really found anything new, you are probably just ignoring important parts of the solution because you think you can incorrectly apply a static case simplification to a time varying one... sorry, that doesn't work. you may find some examples in certain cases where it looks like it works, but in general it won't. |
A request for guidance from academics
yep, thats it. a time varying field makes charges move, so they are no
longer static... that is how coupling works and its a fact of life. maybe you should try sci.physics.electromag or alt.sci.physics.new-theories, they are more open to theoretical questions. "art" wrote in message oups.com... So David we come to the end of the debate where you and probably others who are members of this newsgroup state you can't impose a time varying field on a array of static charges which is contrary to what I say. Thus a standard of education has been set for the many engineers in this group and where I am just a group of one. So be it Regards Art Dave wrote: "art" wrote in message ups.com... Dave wrote: "art" wrote in message ups.com... David we totally disagree, you have a hang up on applying a time varying field to a electric charge. There is absolute no reason that you can take a stand on that. of course i can, rf is a time varying phenomenon by definition. you can't communicate via static fields, by definition, so they are of no use in this discussion. David, it stops being a static field alone if a time varying fiels is applied You say that you worked in space communication well ask for a second opinion from one of your former associates or even ckeck with your Alma Mata before you dig a hole that is to deep to get out of.Remember that as we get older we all have senior moments and I may well be having more than you so hang in there! no, i don't work in space communications other than occasionally listening to ariss. Regarding the need for a new program that just can't be true, NEC is based on known mathematical laws period. When programs first came out I struggled with that but I then realised that NEC is NOT based on empirical data so what you are saying is just not correct. I urge you to rethink that one out again. of course it's true. nec and other existing antenna modelling software is all based on maxwell's equations so by definition it assumes time varying fields and coupling between all the elements of the antenna. if you are trying to do something and ignore that coupling then none of the existing programs will work for you. David, I never said there is no coupling, in mathematics there are ways of removing avariable by the use of simultaneous equations. If you can't get around it then ofcourse you have to go the labourious route for full determination and that is compicated Going the Gaussian rout removes all that laborious mathematical work. Look at any mathematical sample of such an array and it all comes down to ZI of the elements involved, nothing more is needed and coupling is part of the journey but not of the solution and the solution by my method goes straight to the the solution by using the same laws that have been in existant for years. then you have nothing new and you should be made aware of the limitations of the software you are using so that you don't get misled any further. unfortunately i don't believe that you have really found anything new, you are probably just ignoring important parts of the solution because you think you can incorrectly apply a static case simplification to a time varying one... sorry, that doesn't work. you may find some examples in certain cases where it looks like it works, but in general it won't. |
A request for guidance from academics
On 16 Dec 2006 10:44:03 -0800, "art" wrote:
members of this newsgroup state you can't impose a time varying field on a array of static charges Hi Art, In point of fact you are the only member of this group to have made that statement. What is being discussed is your inability to come to terms with the simple matter that time varying fields come from dynamic charges which are imposing a force on all charges to react to their change - hence there is nothing static in a field and all charges are coupled. The only thing to measure is the degree of coupling which leads to Q (by a tortuous path of math). which is contrary to what I say. What you say and what you mean is separated by at least one abyss - Gauss did NOT mean static was the noise he heard on his radio while trying to listen to the traffic report. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC p.s. How do you get 50 Ohms out of 5 wires? p.p.s. How do you measure Z in a static field? |
A request for guidance from academics
art wrote: Dave wrote: "art" wrote in message ups.com... David we totally disagree, you have a hang up on applying a time varying field to a electric charge. There is absolute no reason that you can take a stand on that. of course i can, rf is a time varying phenomenon by definition. you can't communicate via static fields, by definition, so they are of no use in this discussion. David, it stops being a static field alone if a time varying fiels is applied You say that you worked in space communication well ask for a second opinion from one of your former associates or even ckeck with your Alma Mata before you dig a hole that is to deep to get out of.Remember that as we get older we all have senior moments and I may well be having more than you so hang in there! no, i don't work in space communications other than occasionally listening to ariss. Regarding the need for a new program that just can't be true, NEC is based on known mathematical laws period. When programs first came out I struggled with that but I then realised that NEC is NOT based on empirical data so what you are saying is just not correct. I urge you to rethink that one out again. of course it's true. nec and other existing antenna modelling software is all based on maxwell's equations so by definition it assumes time varying fields and coupling between all the elements of the antenna. if you are trying to do something and ignore that coupling then none of the existing programs will work for you. David, I never said there is no coupling, in mathematics there are ways of removing avariable by the use of simultaneous equations. If you can't get around it then ofcourse you have to go the labourious route for full determination and that is compicated Going the Gaussian rout removes all that laborious mathematical work. Look at any mathematical sample of such an array and it all comes down to ZI of the elements involved, nothing more is needed and coupling is part of the journey but not of the solution and the solution by my method goes straight to the the solution by using the same laws that have been in existant for years. As far as a patent goes I am struggling with that because it must be a physical description so basically it would seem that I would have to run the gamut of different arrangements until one is found that has significant value and that will take an awefull long time. I may have to look at buying patents don't have to have significant value, only a new idea, a description of how it may be implemented, and claims. exactly what are you claiming your new idea will do that is unique? you have given a couple examples now of stacking elements, but to what end? is that arrangement supposed to have gain in some direction? is it supposed to be more efficient than existing antennas somehow? just what is it supposed to do that is worthy of a patent? Metlab for comparison purposes or get somebody to do it. I think the main factor in all this is vector pre direction can be deturmined and that we can have two vectors in the forward direction which the Yagi does not do. But then you point to what is apparent to me is a real problem. If I could have the sample given solved by Metlab I am absolutely positive it will match up to the results that I gave earlier on this thread,, if it doesn't then I will have to think things out again. As far as your comments are concerned I am completely blown away by you declaring that a time varying field cannot be applied to an static electrical charge, blown away especially when you have stated that you have worked in space communications for years. But then again you are the only one who has the required qualifications to make comment. For some reason I thought that many of the group taught at coillege from their demenior but now I am not sure who is an engineer and who is none other than a Richard The idea that no one other than yourself was willing to walk the walk on an antenna subject on this RRAA is so surprising since it would appear they are not comfortable in the subject to stand up. unfortunately for you, i am an engineer... and as such an interested in practical applications. so far you have only done some handwaving and not produced even a claim of what your method will do that is different than randomly positioning pieces of wire. Big deal, a lot of us were professioinal engineers before we retired. I have not waved my arms I gave samples that apply plus the method of solving. Anybody can use what ever they want to disprove it and I would welcome it but so far no body has been able to accomplishthis. Now what does this sort of arrangement do for you? If you have a copy of any antenna handbook look at chaptor 2 where the discussion of compromise comes to the fore. The yagi can be very efficient compared to other arrays when seeking one desirable but when seeking more than one desirable you have to make compromises and that is part of the joy in making antennas. Why the need to compromise? Well the yagi uses detuned elements which are reactive which is not helpfull with respect to SWR which controls bandwidth plus one would like all desirables to be in sync witheach other as one moves away from the frequency of use. By formulating an array around elements that are resonant and of the same "Q" you remove this problem. In addition by the use of "Q": one can determine indivudual impedances of any element in the cluster purely by the use of other laws of the masters. I don't expect you to understand all this but that is how it is. There is nothing wrong with using a piece of wire to communicate but if you are seeking knoweledge of the where's and why's of radiation then this is another link in the chain. You can deny it all youi wish but facts are facts and sooner or later it will be printed in technical books used for teaching engineers.and then by rote it becomes accepted Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ..........XG So David you get the honours as the only one willing to walk the walk when the chips were down which suggests others are lemmings, for that I really thank you. Another thought is I could consult Tom a proven expert on antennas and knowelegable with Metlab. He is curious about this sort of thing so it may well interest him. At the moment I am trying to sort out the element coordinates of a similar array that I sent you so I can then calculate using my concept to compare results since that author obviously knows his mathematics so If mine matches his then it is QED but I havent been able to resolve that yet. Best Regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG Dave wrote: sorry, it just doesn't work that way. gauss' law for electrostatics just can't be extended to handle time varying fields, as soon as you do that its not statics any more and you have to take into account currents and magnetic fields which then give you the coupling to the other elements. that is what eznec and the other antenna modellers make use of... so don't try to model your antenna with any existing program, you have to come up with your own model and calculation method to show what it does. oh, and one important part of a patent is the claims section... what are your claims for this new type of antenna?? "art" wrote in message oups.com... Dave wrote: 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. David it is not just limited to electrostatics. What Gauss wrote is accepted for what it is a mathematical deduction or law. That mathematical statement has universal use as with George Greens work who did not have one iota of engineering tuition. All I have added to gausses law is the dimension of time which I suspect that a mathematician can connect it to Amperes law or even Kirchoff As far as current is concerned a brief moment of time where a time varying field is applied to an element immediately the electric particles posses directive abilities where the vector value is zero. I may be wrong here but that is called a conservative field with a big but... the inside of the arbitary curve must be in a state of equilibrium where the sign on the particals must be alike and change in unison. This can be done by making the elerments resonant which mine are tho not of the same length. When the time varying field is applied to the cluster we break the equilibrium with an element that does not change in unison with the other elements thus weakening the arbitary border at that point./ When the energy of the internal field breaches the arbitary border it will do it in the vicinity of the added detuned element. It is only when the border is breached does one start generating the near field which is contrary to the yagi. Now with respect to coupling. in mathematics you try to remove some of the variables to make a solution easier, in this cas we removed the variable of coupling by using elements with the same "Q' I am not saying that I get radiation without current or coupling I am saying that I have reduced the design to just ohms law via mathematical aproaches, nothing more. 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. I accept coupling but not generation of a radiating field at the same time. Gausses law revolves around a closed arbitary border where the radiating field does not generate until the border is breached. This is why a detuned element is added to the cluster to weaken the border. 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. No they are not new principles they have existed for a long time Over the years mathematicians have connected many laws of different disciplines purly by mathematical terms, supposition or just going the extra mile with somebody elses work and George Green is a prime example of mathematical genious where his work was connected more than 100 years later to complexc circuitry and other things. 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. Exactly. So I am asking for input from those experienced in the state of the art or a different perspectivebut there doesn't appear to be any out there to add their penny worth. I really believe Dave that the idea of adding curl to a electriostatic charge is what you are resisting and some day you will have to look at that afresh or at least poke academic holes in the aproach I am taking or a different perspective for me to mull over, a mathematical aproach requires not amateurs but those experienced in the art such as yourself. At least you gave it a shot Dave for which I thank you. I can give you another arbitary array where the elements are not as close to each other if you wish or the same array where the elements are rotated into a star fashion for vertical radiation to remove this close coupling which seems to be alarming you. I only supplied such an arbitary placed array to catch the imagination of those who are really inquisitive, nothing more Will another person knoweledgable in the field join in with us other than an amateur who knoweledge only extends to the ARRL examinations, anyone ? Surely since this is an antenna group somebody must have studied these things in college even tho it may have been a long time ago. Regards Art "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. |
A request for guidance from academics
wrote in message oups.com... art wrote: Dave wrote: "art" wrote in message ups.com... David we totally disagree, you have a hang up on applying a time varying field to a electric charge. There is absolute no reason that you can take a stand on that. of course i can, rf is a time varying phenomenon by definition. you can't communicate via static fields, by definition, so they are of no use in this discussion. David, it stops being a static field alone if a time varying fiels is applied You say that you worked in space communication well ask for a second opinion from one of your former associates or even ckeck with your Alma Mata before you dig a hole that is to deep to get out of.Remember that as we get older we all have senior moments and I may well be having more than you so hang in there! no, i don't work in space communications other than occasionally listening to ariss. Regarding the need for a new program that just can't be true, NEC is based on known mathematical laws period. When programs first came out I struggled with that but I then realised that NEC is NOT based on empirical data so what you are saying is just not correct. I urge you to rethink that one out again. of course it's true. nec and other existing antenna modelling software is all based on maxwell's equations so by definition it assumes time varying fields and coupling between all the elements of the antenna. if you are trying to do something and ignore that coupling then none of the existing programs will work for you. David, I never said there is no coupling, in mathematics there are ways of removing avariable by the use of simultaneous equations. If you can't get around it then ofcourse you have to go the labourious route for full determination and that is compicated Going the Gaussian rout removes all that laborious mathematical work. Look at any mathematical sample of such an array and it all comes down to ZI of the elements involved, nothing more is needed and coupling is part of the journey but not of the solution and the solution by my method goes straight to the the solution by using the same laws that have been in existant for years. As far as a patent goes I am struggling with that because it must be a physical description so basically it would seem that I would have to run the gamut of different arrangements until one is found that has significant value and that will take an awefull long time. I may have to look at buying patents don't have to have significant value, only a new idea, a description of how it may be implemented, and claims. exactly what are you claiming your new idea will do that is unique? you have given a couple examples now of stacking elements, but to what end? is that arrangement supposed to have gain in some direction? is it supposed to be more efficient than existing antennas somehow? just what is it supposed to do that is worthy of a patent? Metlab for comparison purposes or get somebody to do it. I think the main factor in all this is vector pre direction can be deturmined and that we can have two vectors in the forward direction which the Yagi does not do. But then you point to what is apparent to me is a real problem. If I could have the sample given solved by Metlab I am absolutely positive it will match up to the results that I gave earlier on this thread,, if it doesn't then I will have to think things out again. As far as your comments are concerned I am completely blown away by you declaring that a time varying field cannot be applied to an static electrical charge, blown away especially when you have stated that you have worked in space communications for years. But then again you are the only one who has the required qualifications to make comment. For some reason I thought that many of the group taught at coillege from their demenior but now I am not sure who is an engineer and who is none other than a Richard The idea that no one other than yourself was willing to walk the walk on an antenna subject on this RRAA is so surprising since it would appear they are not comfortable in the subject to stand up. unfortunately for you, i am an engineer... and as such an interested in practical applications. so far you have only done some handwaving and not produced even a claim of what your method will do that is different than randomly positioning pieces of wire. Big deal, a lot of us were professioinal engineers before we retired. I have not waved my arms I gave samples that apply plus the method of solving. Anybody can use what ever they want to disprove it and I would welcome it but so far no body has been able to accomplishthis. Now what does this sort of arrangement do for you? If you have a copy of any antenna handbook look at chaptor 2 where the discussion of compromise comes to the fore. The yagi can be very efficient compared to other arrays when seeking one desirable but when seeking more than one desirable you have to make compromises and that is part of the joy in making antennas. Why the need to compromise? Well the yagi uses detuned elements which are reactive which is not helpfull with respect to SWR which controls bandwidth plus one would like all desirables to be in sync witheach other as one moves away from the frequency of use. By formulating an array around elements that are resonant and of the same "Q" you remove this problem. In addition by the use of "Q": one can determine indivudual impedances of any element in the cluster purely by the use of other laws of the masters. I don't expect you to understand all this but that is how it is. There is nothing wrong with using a piece of wire to communicate but if you are seeking knoweledge of the where's and why's of radiation then this is another link in the chain. You can deny it all youi wish but facts are facts and sooner or later it will be printed in technical books used for teaching engineers.and then by rote it becomes accepted Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ..........XG So David you get the honours as the only one willing to walk the walk when the chips were down which suggests others are lemmings, for that I really thank you. Another thought is I could consult Tom a proven expert on antennas and knowelegable with Metlab. He is curious about this sort of thing so it may well interest him. At the moment I am trying to sort out the element coordinates of a similar array that I sent you so I can then calculate using my concept to compare results since that author obviously knows his mathematics so If mine matches his then it is QED but I havent been able to resolve that yet. Best Regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG Dave wrote: sorry, it just doesn't work that way. gauss' law for electrostatics just can't be extended to handle time varying fields, as soon as you do that its not statics any more and you have to take into account currents and magnetic fields which then give you the coupling to the other elements. that is what eznec and the other antenna modellers make use of... so don't try to model your antenna with any existing program, you have to come up with your own model and calculation method to show what it does. oh, and one important part of a patent is the claims section... what are your claims for this new type of antenna?? "art" wrote in message oups.com... Dave wrote: 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. David it is not just limited to electrostatics. What Gauss wrote is accepted for what it is a mathematical deduction or law. That mathematical statement has universal use as with George Greens work who did not have one iota of engineering tuition. All I have added to gausses law is the dimension of time which I suspect that a mathematician can connect it to Amperes law or even Kirchoff As far as current is concerned a brief moment of time where a time varying field is applied to an element immediately the electric particles posses directive abilities where the vector value is zero. I may be wrong here but that is called a conservative field with a big but... the inside of the arbitary curve must be in a state of equilibrium where the sign on the particals must be alike and change in unison. This can be done by making the elerments resonant which mine are tho not of the same length. When the time varying field is applied to the cluster we break the equilibrium with an element that does not change in unison with the other elements thus weakening the arbitary border at that point./ When the energy of the internal field breaches the arbitary border it will do it in the vicinity of the added detuned element. It is only when the border is breached does one start generating the near field which is contrary to the yagi. Now with respect to coupling. in mathematics you try to remove some of the variables to make a solution easier, in this cas we removed the variable of coupling by using elements with the same "Q' I am not saying that I get radiation without current or coupling I am saying that I have reduced the design to just ohms law via mathematical aproaches, nothing more. 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. I accept coupling but not generation of a radiating field at the same time. Gausses law revolves around a closed arbitary border where the radiating field does not generate until the border is breached. This is why a detuned element is added to the cluster to weaken the border. 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. No they are not new principles they have existed for a long time Over the years mathematicians have connected many laws of different disciplines purly by mathematical terms, supposition or just going the extra mile with somebody elses work and George Green is a prime example of mathematical genious where his work was connected more than 100 years later to complexc circuitry and other things. 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. Exactly. So I am asking for input from those experienced in the state of the art or a different perspectivebut there doesn't appear to be any out there to add their penny worth. I really believe Dave that the idea of adding curl to a electriostatic charge is what you are resisting and some day you will have to look at that afresh or at least poke academic holes in the aproach I am taking or a different perspective for me to mull over, a mathematical aproach requires not amateurs but those experienced in the art such as yourself. At least you gave it a shot Dave for which I thank you. I can give you another arbitary array where the elements are not as close to each other if you wish or the same array where the elements are rotated into a star fashion for vertical radiation to remove this close coupling which seems to be alarming you. I only supplied such an arbitary placed array to catch the imagination of those who are really inquisitive, nothing more Will another person knoweledgable in the field join in with us other than an amateur who knoweledge only extends to the ARRL examinations, anyone ? Surely since this is an antenna group somebody must have studied these things in college even tho it may have been a long time ago. Regards Art "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. |
A request for guidance from academics
Jimmie D wrote: wrote in message oups.com... That was a quiver in the force.. I had hit the wrong button and sent the post by mistake. I deleted it at once, but I guess your server got it anyway. I didn't actually have any comment on the subject matter. My cat has mittens when it comes to this "new fangled" miracle whip antenna theory. MK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com