Gaussian law and time varying fields
 

Jerry I am unenmployed, have been for more than 15 years
but fortunately I have no need for money or things like that since I
accumulated
all that I could possibly need during my life. Have a very old Mercedes
in one of the garages that I am hoping to put back on the road soon, if
I remember rightly it has about 300,000 miles
on it but frankly I enjoy driving that than my newere model. When I was
working I traveled quite a bit both in Europe and the Carribean but now
I have no interest in leaving the home space. So there you have it now
you know all about me Oh yes I am a former immigrant from the U.K. and
a company brought me and my family over on a contract so I suppose you
can say I also talk a bit funny since I was born in the East end of
London. Lived in various houses during the war years as Goering did his
best to get a lot of Londoners but there was always another bomb
damaged house that one can move into. Did some time in the Military,
the British army but that was a really waste of time. Best place I have
been to , that would be Biaritz which is at the southwest part of
France, spent some time there over the years nestled at the base of the
pyrennees with france at one side, spain on the other side, the other
way was the ocean and ofcourse the mountains. Havent done any
programming in years but used to work with basic and Fortran in the old
days but now everything I play with is canned. Now you ask what I did
when I was employed, well I worked for G.E. as a so called senior
engineer but that was a long time ago but they are very genorous with
respect to their pensions. Now as I get older I suffer from various
medical problems like heart attackes which required balloon procedured,
open heart and pacemaker type of ornaments, a gall bladder that eroded
to paper thicknes that bustedand had to be taken out the hard way and
ofcourse my memory has taken a bashing as a result of the heart
misbehaving which is probably the reason people like to make a stab at
me.
But the bottom line is that I am a very happy man and satisfied with my
present surroundings and life. Lets face it many have not had even a
short space in time where they were at peace with the world for no
fault of their own and yet I was given a lifetime of the good life,
why?
Go figure.
Regards
Art



Jerry Martes wrote:
Oh nuts, Art, I cant even read properly. I thought you told me that you
werent computer literate and that you werent able to define the antenna you
are proposing to be a "CLUSTER". I can only apologize for being so dumb
that I cant seem to make sense out of your posts. I'll leave you to
discuss your "CLUSTER" with those bright guys who can read and understand
your text.

You seem to have implied that you think ""EZNEC deals with parallel
elements probably must be in line"". It isnt true that EZNEC is limited to
either "parallel" elements nor "in line" elements.

Obviously I am far too easily satisfied with computer programs for
modeling antennas. I really like EZNEC and found it really easy to learn
how to navigate in it. Art, I could never discuss antenna theory or
operation with you are far too wise and knowledgeable for me.

Do you mind my asking what kind of profession you are employed in??

Jerry



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

Jerry Martes wrote:
Hi Art

It really surprises me to earn that you know about Roy's program and
then
dismiss it. I thought you had explained that you werent able to use it
to
the satisfaction of some other Antenna guys.

Don't know where you got that idea but EZNEC is one of the oldest
programs around
but science has moved on. Eznec is about the basic program you can find
as well as one of the oldest. It cannot emulate what the majority of
programs available today On the other hand many of the brightest people
have left this group over the years and moved away from the few on this
group who do use EZNEC and thus we have only a few people a miniscule
amount of people who have stayed on with Roy and Co and the perenial
slamming contests
which is why the group is the way it is, the majority of knoweledgable
hams have left


I included a question within your post where I ask if you really want a
computer modeling progran to tell you where to locate elements.


But of course eznec only deals with parallel elements probably must be
in line.
I want a program that allows investigation of random placed elements in
random positions
with wider beamwidths and a single lobe to the fore Eznec is not built
for that sort of thing, it is built purely to add up the numbers of a
predrawn array whereas there are lots of programs available that have
advanced features far beyond what Eznec can supply because the latter
has stagnated over the years with respect to computor advantages
utelised by other programs. EZNEC is cheap and you get only what you
pay for Others supply features that blow EZNEC back to the middle ages
but for these advances you have to pay for.






Is it true that there is a computer modeling program that is superior
(for
HAM/Amateur use) to EZNEC??? I'll go look for METLAB on the Internet.
It depends on what hams want to do, Most would piddle with a antenna
program for a week or two and then move on to other things, after all
it gets boring drawing yagis day after day.
If you want something cheap to draw yagis with then I doubt that EZNEC
can be beaten
If you want to move ahead with the science of the day then your needs
are a lot, lot bigger than eznec can supply. The old adage reigns you
only get what you pay for and stale bread is always cheaper.
Regards
Art



Jerry




"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jerry I am sure that a lot of people are happy with the purchase of
EZNEC
but it doesn't suit my purposes True I paid a lot more money that it
would cost to buy EZNEC but I wanted a program that would teach me more
than what a design provides.
For instance if an element could be placed in a more desirable position
I want it to move it.
If the program determines to bend the element in a more desirable way
then I want it to have the freedom to do it.

Art, do you really mean what you seem to have said??? Do you want a
computer modeling program that *tells you* where to locate elements??


In other words I need a
program that helps me not just shrug its shoulders emphasising the
dumbness of the program. If you really want to get into modelling then
have a go with MATLAB which is extremely versatile and gaining in use
by the pro's On the other hand if you want to design a yagi it will
respond to your needs, not what you want it to do but to add up the
numbers for the array that you provide it and nothing more.
Best regards
Art




Jerry Martes wrote:
OK Art, if you say that you arent actually "pulling my leg", perhaps
*I*
can help *you*. It doesnt require computer literacy to be able to
use
Roy's EZNEC. I am perhaps the least computer savy reader of this
News
Group. But, I am beginning to learn things with this antenna
modeling
program. I suggest to you that you will benefit so much as the
result
of
buying Roy's program that you will thank me for having suggested it to
you.
I dont consider it appropriate to use the free EZNEC program. The
"paid
for" version has somewhat improved capabilities. And the cost of
that
program is far less than the excellent test equipment you now have.
It
just seems Right to buy from Roy since he took so much time to make
such
a
capable tool for us.

Go to Roy and buy the program best suited for analyzing your
concept.
It
is actually fun to see that program at work. You wont regret having
EZNEC
in your "tool box". Value per dollar, there is no tool available to
the
antenna designer that is better than EZNEC.

Try it, you'll like it.
Jerry



"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
No Jerry You couldn't be more wrong. I am not talking down to you
I am responding in a way that didn't involve technical terms but
evolved
around the every day world. I could have quoted the law of every
action has an equal and opposite reaction but I didn't think that
fitted in with your request. Some people measure work as being the
amount moved rather than the release of energy so I wanted to
portray
an amount of contained energy or potential energy which when allowed
escapes the hold of equilibrium so the radiation process can start.
I
used the magnetised bearing to follow up where the retaining surface
was not visible but still there as a magnetic field. I don't know of
another way of explaining it unless I want to be preyed apon by
spam.
Jerry I am sharing things so people can participate in my journey.
You
must know I am very interested in what I am pursueing otherwise I
would
have just collapsed in the face of the naysayers. if you wish to
pursue
my line of thought but are concerned how others view you then keep
everything to a private Email. It does not serve me well to make
enemies in this group if my idea is to debate my thought though some
do
enjoy the thinking that the result elevates their iwn status and you
learn to live with that. I responded to you in a lengthy dialogue
which
was in kind with your request which did not provide animosity of any
sort which provided me the impetus to respond in the same manner.
Jerry
you haven't attacked me
you were polite so have a rethink about this debate, I am sharing
not
taking
Very best regards
Art


Jerry Martes wrote:
Hi Art

I have to tell you that I am beginning to loose interest in this
thread.
I read about "equilibrium" and began to wonder what that meant in a
discussion about a cluster of radiators. Then, when you explained
equilibrium in terms of balloons, ball bearings and sweat, I began
to
wonder if you are pulling my leg.

Now, I really feel like a guy who went snipe hunting and got left
out
alone all night. You are playing with me, aren't you?? I asked
for
data
and dimensions so I could work *with* you to better understand your
"Cluster"
You reply to my request for information with sentences like
his --

Sound simple but there are difficulties, when you weaken the
enclosing
force it does produce a major hole for directive purposes however
at
the same time multiple fissures open in other areas which
provides a
leakage trail for the swerling innards such that radiative energy
on
a
smaller scale still escaopes to form radiation in other areas
than
the
forward direction envisioned.


If your goal is to show that I am too stupid to know when I am
being
tricked, you won.

Jerry



"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
Jerry,
Let me take the opportunity of explaning the term equilibrium in
a
folksy sort of way
to give you a better idea or insight to what it is really about.
Basicaly when we talk of equilibrium we are talking about things
that
are somehow bound together. You often see in antenna books the
squeezed
ballon to show how energy is pushed from the rear to the front of
the
antenna, in that case the balloon is reacting or holding back the
pressure inside the balloon so you can see in that case that the
inside
is in equilibrium by virtue of the holding power of the balloon.
Another way of looking at equyilibrium is by placing a bunch of
magnetised ball bearings that no matter how you juggle with them
they
stay together but you can't see any bag holding them together.
Well
in
this case it is the magnetic energy holding things together
instead
of
gravity taking over and pulling them apart one after the other.
So
how
can we use this equilibrium glue thing when dealing with
antennas?
well
you can see now that equoilibrium is really a stand off in
forces,
two
people pushing against each other yet nothing is moving yet it is
evident by the sweat that both men are working hard. Same way
with
the
balloon that is holding all that radiation energy together and
where
the balloon is applying pressure on the energy inside of the
balloon
and like two men pushing there is no movement going on. If the
balloon
weakens somewhere you will see that the balloon will swoosh away
in
an
undetermined direction but wait a minite if it is radiation
energy
we
would sure like to push it all in the forward direction for
maximum
gain. So if we have a bunch of resonant elements in equilibrium
containing the means for radiation we have to find a method of
providing the break in a ideal position so that the innards are
directed the same way. Well what we do with the bunch of
radiating
elements that are in equilibrium is to place another element into
the
bunch that is not resonant like it doesn't belong. What we find
by
doing thid is that all the radiation energy will swirl around
striving
to get to the weak part remembering that it is only when the
energy
escapes thru the hole can it start to produce a electrical and
magnetic
field which creates radiation , where as with a yagi the near
field
is
produced immediatly the driven energy is provided and where the
fields
generate new field around each element it meets on its journey.
So
with
equilibrium we can break it at any place we want to to provide
directivenes where as with a yagi the radiation begins to start
forming
even tho it is being directed in many different directions.
Naturally
you can see the advantages of energy going in a single direction
versus
energy being bounced around
until it sees daylight. So back to the beginning we have a bunch
of
elements that are resonant inside a surface like a balloon where
if
energy is applied to one of the elements it is sharedf with the
other
ele4ments immediatly without commensing the radiation trail and
by
placing a detuned element in the cluster we can chose the
directiopn
than the energy of each element takes and where it follows its
predessesor in releasing its radiative energy.
Sound simple but there are difficulties, when you weaken the
enclosing
force it does produce a major hole for directive purposes however
at
the same time multiple fissures open in other areas which
provides a
leakage trail for the swerling innards such that radiative energy
on
a
smaller scale still escaopes to form radiation in other areas
than
the
forward direction envisioned. The next person to come along will
address this problem I am sure once presentented with the
incentive
that this new concept provides. No miricals but one step forward
makes
all things possible
Regards
Art
art wrote:
Jerh each otherry
What I am doing is to get away from inline coupling of elements.
The
Yagi antenna is one of these where all the elements are in line.
What
I
am doing is to arrange a a bunch of elements in a group or
cluster
such
that each and all elements couple with each other rather than
the
the
two elements along side. By doing this and yet making the bunch
of
elements resonant on their own as well as being driven by one
element
as with the normal antenna you have to make changes in either
the
length, dia or material of each element to compensate for all
the
other
factors implanted on them by the proximity of all the other
elements
in
the bunch or cluster. When this is done correctly the bunch of
elements
are in equilibrium with each other and where each element
impedance
is
devoid or has reactance minimised. The reason for this aproach
is
the
two resistances that you encounter are the resistance of the
material
used for the element which is where the current flows below the
surface
and the radiation resistance which is from the current that
flows
on
top of the surface
to produce radiation. Since it is radiation that we are
concerned
with
only true resistance is of importance and where reactiveness in
the
impedances provide no benefit to radiation.
The bottom line is that we want to avoid reactivenes whereas the
yagi
by coupling elements
that are untuned or not resonant promotes reactiveness. An
example
of
what this reactiveness does to an array is to make the value
curves
for
gain, back to front and swr all peaking at different frequencies
where
as the ideal arrangement is to have all the curves peak near the
same
frequency so that when using the antenna across the band you
have a
fairly consistent gain figure instead of having to cut it at the
high
or low end of the band in a compromising effort. When building
such
an
array you take advantage of height in the turning radius of the
beam
since you dont have to place all elements in a single line as
with
a
yagi which imposes limits on antenna length. by utilising height
of
the
array you can have a smaller rotating radius with the same gain
of
a
yagi with a larger turning radius together with a bandwidth with
smoothed variables.
Hope that helps and clears some of the mystery away from
clustered
arrays. This aproach by the way also applies to vertical arrays
from
which you can get horizontal, vertical and circular radiation
where
each has its special place of use. Use of academic terms was
only
provided because some academics don't like change and want to
see
the
same things they see in books and for some reason were taught
that
talk
of statics in the same room as electromagnetics is blasphamy yet
they
cannot bring forward anything in the books that say they are
totally
separable. By the way I mentioned Nagy where as it should have
been
Brown who did so much in recent years in broadcasting and T.V.
Have fun with antennas and don't get intimidated by those who
learned
things in College only to memorise and pass exams instead of
using
knoweledge to advance the quality of life.
Best regards
Art


Jerry Martes wrote:
Hi Art

Thanks for taking your time to direct me to some very
complex
thinking.
But, I'm a rather simple guy who isnt well educated. You
apparently
expect
a "just regular guy" like me to understand the ccomplex
convoluted
theoretical stuff that you write about.
When I did work as an antenna design engineer, years ago, I
saw
some
of my
buddies working on the distribution of energy across apertures
in
an
effort
to shape beams. One of their considerations was to decrease
the
power
to
the elements as they were more distant from the center of the
array.
I
remember reading that when the power is tapered to provide a
distribution
about equivalent to a Gaussian Distribution, the side lobes
were
minimal.

I really enjoy thinking about real antenna construction
projects.
but,
when it gets to the Maxwell's Equation kind of analysis, I get
lost.
I
dont
even know what a Vector is.
You may have the wrong impression about me, Art, I'm an old
guy
who
wants
to have fun with antennas. It isnt necessary for you to tell
me
to
"get
back
to basics". I dont have interest in the "basics" you refer
to.

Is it possible for you to tell us (me) what you are
referring
to
without
referring to Vectors, Gauss's law, Lorentz, "Nagi", and even
elementary
calculus? Frankly, Art, you confuse me when you write such
scholarly
paragraphs. You and I are so far removed from each other
intellectually
that I can never keep up with your texts.

Jerry


"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jerry, get back to basics and look up a conservative field
relative
to
Gaussian law.
Step 1
It is a group of electric charges with an addition vector of
zero.
So
move backwards and remove that vector if you wish and you
have
a
gaussian field of electrical charges which in the case of a
bunch
of
resonant elements can be seen as all positive or all
negative
charges
and we also know that Gaussian law is valid even for
enclosed
charges
in motion.

Step 2 The vector that we removed is known as curl but at
this
time
nit
has no valu is the samee tho the vector direction is known.
Step 3 Faraday's law of Induced electromotive force. This is
somewhat
opposite to the consevative field in terms of rotation but
in
relative
terms it where the consevative field is revolving around a
magnetic
field ( hopefully you can visualise this) So we have a
charge q
in
an
element of length ds, which element, at the instant
considered
has
velocity u,experiences a force. Now I know some have
difficulty
with
what I said earlier with respect to adding " at an instant
of
time)
to
Gausses law which is the same length of time referred to
above
as
"
at
the instant considered "

Gtep 4 We then examine Lorentz equation which refers to an
induced
electric field which is present when, for example the
magnetic
field
is
changing with time such that
v1 = 1/q integral F.ds. You can now see that any
CONSERVATIVE
force
that might be included in F would integrate to zero thus
ommiting
any
electrostatic field that might be present Note again
faradays
law,
it
is valid regardloess of the nature of the factor or factors
responsible
for change in magnetic flux. So now the overview of the
cluster
of
resonant elements projected a conservative field with a
magnetic
vector
of zero reflecting" an instant of time" with respect to
resonant
elements and where the magnetic field will provide
motion to the electrostatic field where all charges will
exibit
the
same direction of charge and will change in unison

Now no amount of writing will get you to understand this
flow
of
concept if you are not willing to have an open mind or think
around
something that at the present time you fail to understand
and
are
not
willing to rethink thing, possibly in a different way than I
presented
it.

If you are so inclined you can go back further in history
and
play
with
the 4 vertical array of elements formed by Nagi to obtain
possible
insights since he also worked with an array of vertical
elements
all
of
which were resonant. His work has been rechecked via Matlab
and
found
to be correct so you have a viable path to follow if you
have a
modicom
of interest in this new concept. It must be noted that the
above
is
only a partial description of the concept
because I have yet to add a detuned element for directional
purposes
for the radiation field.

There is nothing more that I can add that will persuade you
to
follow
thru with this concept
so I believe I have now reached the Rubicon with respect to
this
vision
of mine. If you can't understand it now put it down to me
not
being
smart enough to explain clearly electromagnetics to those
skilled
in
the art which I am now finding to be a hopeless task at
least
here
in
the U.S. unless one can read it in a book and memorise it so
one
can
pass an exam..
Art








Jerry Martes wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
In the thread Rain static I referred to a closed
surface
which
is
clearly
defined by Gauss's law.

Gauss's law doesn't define a surface, the surface is any
arbitrary
surface
surrounding a charge.

Let us now look at a time vary field applied to

a dielectric. I fht efield is applied for the shortest
of
time
the
charges
will stay on the surface. If time is longer than the
shortest
space
of
time

you make it sound like there is some 'shortest' time
where
charges
won't
move. this is not true. no matter how short you make
the
time
it
will
move
the charges.

then charges will openetrate the closed surface. If
the
surface
is
an
insulator type then it takes a long while to penetrate
but
if
the
surface

Here you mix up 'surface' and 'surface'. the gauss's
law
'surface' is
a
mathematically useful construction around a charge, it
does
not
have
any
charge 'on' it, nor is there any 'penetration' of it by
charge
in
gauss's
law. it is strictly a non-material thing that is used
only
for
calculation
purposes.

is a good conductor then the charges will penetrate
very
quickly so
we can associate the time constant of penetration to
the
subject of
skin depth. If we are to associate the time varying
field
to
a
gaussian field

you have yet to define a 'gaussian field'. gauss's law
applies
to
electric
fields and their relation to charges.

all the excess charges must be on the surface by law.

only in a 'perfect' conductor. dielectrics and 'empty'
space
can
have
distributed charges throughout.

Or in other words
the time evolved must be shorter than the time
required
to
begin
penetration.

huh? it just goes down hill from here. write some
equations,
do
some
drawings, publish a manuscript. all the rest is empty
handwaving
based
on
incorrect assumptions and missing definitions.

Thus for a short space of time all charges are on the
surface
and
the
charges
have a magnhe radiating eneetic and electric field
vectors.
Just
having
charges is not enough to convert to a gaussian field
in
that
a
gaussian
field must be in equilibrium thus a cluster of
elements
must have the direction of the surface charges change
in
unison. For
a
cluster of elements to do this they must all be
resonant
such
that
the
charges reach the ends of the elements at the same
time.
Resonance
of
an element is determined by its diameter and its
length
and
because
it
is coupled to other elements in the cluster the
coupling
must
be
taken
into account to secure resonance of not only the
individual
elements
but of the cluster as a whole. When this is
accomplished
the
charges
on
the surface of the closed volume are in equilibrium
but
onty
for
that
shortest of short time and where that time is added to
the
gaussian
formulae for the transition to be complete. For the
Gaussian
field
or
volume we can say the energy inside the gaussian field
is
equal
to
that
supplied by flux to the outside of the border and
remember
the
flux
inside consists of magnetic and electric vectoirs. We
now
can
say
that
in a moment of time the flux produced from each
element
that
breaches
the border in summation with the other elements is
equal
to
the
radiating field outside of the border when each
element
energy
makes
the transmittion. Thus the summation of each of the
clustered
elements
individual energy when the vectors are given a value
must equal the flux on the outside of the border that
produces
radiation. We also know that if we have a cluster of
elements
that
are
clustered together we can obtain radiation by just
applying
a
time
varing field to just one of the elements and by virtue
of
intercoupling
all the radiating energy
will leave the near field. Thus we have two different
methods
of
determining the value of the radiated field
! radiation from the clustered within a Gaussian
field
and
2 radiation from an array of coupled elements
Since the elements within the cluster are all of the
same
"Q'"
the
determination of all factors
in the resulting equation are simplified to Ohms law
and
where
the
laborious coupling calculations
are omitted. The above describes in first principles
as
to
how
a
Gaussian field in a short space of time can be equated
to
a
radiating
cluster using existing laws of the masters which also
embraces
NEC
code. Now many have said I have no understanding of
radiation
concepts
so go ahead and tear this apart and have a merry Xmas
doing
it
Art Unwin KB9MZ..........XG


It appears Art has picked up some phrases haphazardly and
is
trying to
apply them to antennas some how, If I remember correctly
doesnt
Gaussian field apply to statistical distribution. Been a
long
time
since I had statistical analysis back in the early 70s
but I
think
this
is also refered to as a "normal distribution".

Hi Jimmy

By my standards, you are *Right On* on all you wrote.
I'm
pretty
sure
Gaussian distribution of power across a radiating plane
results
(theoretically) in zero side lobes, That is also a very
poor
distribution
when gain is a goal. I think the term Normal is
synonymous
with
Gaussian
when referring to aperture distribution.

Jerry

Gaussian law and time varying fields
 

Well, Art, You and I are probably about the same age. I'm 75, so I was
too young to fight in WWII. Also like you I spent time in the service.
I spent 4 wonderful years as a radio operator and repairman in the USAF
during the Korean conflict. I considered that experience to be extremely
rewarding. I also got an engineering degree and worked as an antenna
design engineer for 15 years, but got layed off in 1969 because I wasnt
quite good enough at it to be considered essential.

If you ever get around to sketching the approximate details of your
"cluster" of radiators, send it to me. I'll try to model it. I'm OK at
reading sketches, but not nearly as good at reading and understanding your
written text descriptions. Maybe I should have studied more when I was
young. Then, maybe, I could fathom your text.

Jerry





"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jerry I am unenmployed, have been for more than 15 years
but fortunately I have no need for money or things like that since I
accumulated
all that I could possibly need during my life. Have a very old Mercedes
in one of the garages that I am hoping to put back on the road soon, if
I remember rightly it has about 300,000 miles
on it but frankly I enjoy driving that than my newere model. When I was
working I traveled quite a bit both in Europe and the Carribean but now
I have no interest in leaving the home space. So there you have it now
you know all about me Oh yes I am a former immigrant from the U.K. and
a company brought me and my family over on a contract so I suppose you
can say I also talk a bit funny since I was born in the East end of
London. Lived in various houses during the war years as Goering did his
best to get a lot of Londoners but there was always another bomb
damaged house that one can move into. Did some time in the Military,
the British army but that was a really waste of time. Best place I have
been to , that would be Biaritz which is at the southwest part of
France, spent some time there over the years nestled at the base of the
pyrennees with france at one side, spain on the other side, the other
way was the ocean and ofcourse the mountains. Havent done any
programming in years but used to work with basic and Fortran in the old
days but now everything I play with is canned. Now you ask what I did
when I was employed, well I worked for G.E. as a so called senior
engineer but that was a long time ago but they are very genorous with
respect to their pensions. Now as I get older I suffer from various
medical problems like heart attackes which required balloon procedured,
open heart and pacemaker type of ornaments, a gall bladder that eroded
to paper thicknes that bustedand had to be taken out the hard way and
ofcourse my memory has taken a bashing as a result of the heart
misbehaving which is probably the reason people like to make a stab at
me.
But the bottom line is that I am a very happy man and satisfied with my
present surroundings and life. Lets face it many have not had even a
short space in time where they were at peace with the world for no
fault of their own and yet I was given a lifetime of the good life,
why?
Go figure.
Regards
Art



Jerry Martes wrote:
Oh nuts, Art, I cant even read properly. I thought you told me that you
werent computer literate and that you werent able to define the antenna
you
are proposing to be a "CLUSTER". I can only apologize for being so dumb
that I cant seem to make sense out of your posts. I'll leave you to
discuss your "CLUSTER" with those bright guys who can read and understand
your text.

You seem to have implied that you think ""EZNEC deals with parallel
elements probably must be in line"". It isnt true that EZNEC is limited
to
either "parallel" elements nor "in line" elements.

Obviously I am far too easily satisfied with computer programs for
modeling antennas. I really like EZNEC and found it really easy to
learn
how to navigate in it. Art, I could never discuss antenna theory or
operation with you are far too wise and knowledgeable for me.

Do you mind my asking what kind of profession you are employed in??

Jerry



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

Jerry Martes wrote:
Hi Art

It really surprises me to earn that you know about Roy's program and
then
dismiss it. I thought you had explained that you werent able to use
it
to
the satisfaction of some other Antenna guys.

Don't know where you got that idea but EZNEC is one of the oldest
programs around
but science has moved on. Eznec is about the basic program you can find
as well as one of the oldest. It cannot emulate what the majority of
programs available today On the other hand many of the brightest people
have left this group over the years and moved away from the few on this
group who do use EZNEC and thus we have only a few people a miniscule
amount of people who have stayed on with Roy and Co and the perenial
slamming contests
which is why the group is the way it is, the majority of knoweledgable
hams have left


I included a question within your post where I ask if you really
want a
computer modeling progran to tell you where to locate elements.


But of course eznec only deals with parallel elements probably must be
in line.
I want a program that allows investigation of random placed elements in
random positions
with wider beamwidths and a single lobe to the fore Eznec is not built
for that sort of thing, it is built purely to add up the numbers of a
predrawn array whereas there are lots of programs available that have
advanced features far beyond what Eznec can supply because the latter
has stagnated over the years with respect to computor advantages
utelised by other programs. EZNEC is cheap and you get only what you
pay for Others supply features that blow EZNEC back to the middle ages
but for these advances you have to pay for.






Is it true that there is a computer modeling program that is
superior
(for
HAM/Amateur use) to EZNEC??? I'll go look for METLAB on the
Internet.
It depends on what hams want to do, Most would piddle with a antenna
program for a week or two and then move on to other things, after all
it gets boring drawing yagis day after day.
If you want something cheap to draw yagis with then I doubt that EZNEC
can be beaten
If you want to move ahead with the science of the day then your needs
are a lot, lot bigger than eznec can supply. The old adage reigns you
only get what you pay for and stale bread is always cheaper.
Regards
Art



Jerry




"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jerry I am sure that a lot of people are happy with the purchase of
EZNEC
but it doesn't suit my purposes True I paid a lot more money that it
would cost to buy EZNEC but I wanted a program that would teach me
more
than what a design provides.
For instance if an element could be placed in a more desirable
position
I want it to move it.
If the program determines to bend the element in a more desirable
way
then I want it to have the freedom to do it.

Art, do you really mean what you seem to have said??? Do you want
a
computer modeling program that *tells you* where to locate elements??


In other words I need a
program that helps me not just shrug its shoulders emphasising the
dumbness of the program. If you really want to get into modelling
then
have a go with MATLAB which is extremely versatile and gaining in
use
by the pro's On the other hand if you want to design a yagi it will
respond to your needs, not what you want it to do but to add up the
numbers for the array that you provide it and nothing more.
Best regards
Art




Jerry Martes wrote:
OK Art, if you say that you arent actually "pulling my leg",
perhaps
*I*
can help *you*. It doesnt require computer literacy to be able to
use
Roy's EZNEC. I am perhaps the least computer savy reader of this
News
Group. But, I am beginning to learn things with this antenna
modeling
program. I suggest to you that you will benefit so much as the
result
of
buying Roy's program that you will thank me for having suggested it
to
you.
I dont consider it appropriate to use the free EZNEC program. The
"paid
for" version has somewhat improved capabilities. And the cost of
that
program is far less than the excellent test equipment you now have.
It
just seems Right to buy from Roy since he took so much time to make
such
a
capable tool for us.

Go to Roy and buy the program best suited for analyzing your
concept.
It
is actually fun to see that program at work. You wont regret
having
EZNEC
in your "tool box". Value per dollar, there is no tool available
to
the
antenna designer that is better than EZNEC.

Try it, you'll like it.
Jerry



"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
No Jerry You couldn't be more wrong. I am not talking down to you
I am responding in a way that didn't involve technical terms but
evolved
around the every day world. I could have quoted the law of every
action has an equal and opposite reaction but I didn't think that
fitted in with your request. Some people measure work as being
the
amount moved rather than the release of energy so I wanted to
portray
an amount of contained energy or potential energy which when
allowed
escapes the hold of equilibrium so the radiation process can
start.
I
used the magnetised bearing to follow up where the retaining
surface
was not visible but still there as a magnetic field. I don't know
of
another way of explaining it unless I want to be preyed apon by
spam.
Jerry I am sharing things so people can participate in my
journey.
You
must know I am very interested in what I am pursueing otherwise I
would
have just collapsed in the face of the naysayers. if you wish to
pursue
my line of thought but are concerned how others view you then
keep
everything to a private Email. It does not serve me well to make
enemies in this group if my idea is to debate my thought though
some
do
enjoy the thinking that the result elevates their iwn status and
you
learn to live with that. I responded to you in a lengthy dialogue
which
was in kind with your request which did not provide animosity of
any
sort which provided me the impetus to respond in the same manner.
Jerry
you haven't attacked me
you were polite so have a rethink about this debate, I am sharing
not
taking
Very best regards
Art


Jerry Martes wrote:
Hi Art

I have to tell you that I am beginning to loose interest in
this
thread.
I read about "equilibrium" and began to wonder what that meant
in a
discussion about a cluster of radiators. Then, when you
explained
equilibrium in terms of balloons, ball bearings and sweat, I
began
to
wonder if you are pulling my leg.

Now, I really feel like a guy who went snipe hunting and got
left
out
alone all night. You are playing with me, aren't you?? I
asked
for
data
and dimensions so I could work *with* you to better understand
your
"Cluster"
You reply to my request for information with sentences like
his --

Sound simple but there are difficulties, when you weaken the
enclosing
force it does produce a major hole for directive purposes
however
at
the same time multiple fissures open in other areas which
provides a
leakage trail for the swerling innards such that radiative
energy
on
a
smaller scale still escaopes to form radiation in other areas
than
the
forward direction envisioned.


If your goal is to show that I am too stupid to know when I am
being
tricked, you won.

Jerry



"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
Jerry,
Let me take the opportunity of explaning the term equilibrium
in
a
folksy sort of way
to give you a better idea or insight to what it is really
about.
Basicaly when we talk of equilibrium we are talking about
things
that
are somehow bound together. You often see in antenna books the
squeezed
ballon to show how energy is pushed from the rear to the front
of
the
antenna, in that case the balloon is reacting or holding back
the
pressure inside the balloon so you can see in that case that
the
inside
is in equilibrium by virtue of the holding power of the
balloon.
Another way of looking at equyilibrium is by placing a bunch
of
magnetised ball bearings that no matter how you juggle with
them
they
stay together but you can't see any bag holding them together.
Well
in
this case it is the magnetic energy holding things together
instead
of
gravity taking over and pulling them apart one after the
other.
So
how
can we use this equilibrium glue thing when dealing with
antennas?
well
you can see now that equoilibrium is really a stand off in
forces,
two
people pushing against each other yet nothing is moving yet it
is
evident by the sweat that both men are working hard. Same way
with
the
balloon that is holding all that radiation energy together and
where
the balloon is applying pressure on the energy inside of the
balloon
and like two men pushing there is no movement going on. If the
balloon
weakens somewhere you will see that the balloon will swoosh
away
in
an
undetermined direction but wait a minite if it is radiation
energy
we
would sure like to push it all in the forward direction for
maximum
gain. So if we have a bunch of resonant elements in
equilibrium
containing the means for radiation we have to find a method of
providing the break in a ideal position so that the innards
are
directed the same way. Well what we do with the bunch of
radiating
elements that are in equilibrium is to place another element
into
the
bunch that is not resonant like it doesn't belong. What we
find
by
doing thid is that all the radiation energy will swirl around
striving
to get to the weak part remembering that it is only when the
energy
escapes thru the hole can it start to produce a electrical and
magnetic
field which creates radiation , where as with a yagi the near
field
is
produced immediatly the driven energy is provided and where
the
fields
generate new field around each element it meets on its
journey.
So
with
equilibrium we can break it at any place we want to to provide
directivenes where as with a yagi the radiation begins to
start
forming
even tho it is being directed in many different directions.
Naturally
you can see the advantages of energy going in a single
direction
versus
energy being bounced around
until it sees daylight. So back to the beginning we have a
bunch
of
elements that are resonant inside a surface like a balloon
where
if
energy is applied to one of the elements it is sharedf with
the
other
ele4ments immediatly without commensing the radiation trail
and
by
placing a detuned element in the cluster we can chose the
directiopn
than the energy of each element takes and where it follows its
predessesor in releasing its radiative energy.
Sound simple but there are difficulties, when you weaken the
enclosing
force it does produce a major hole for directive purposes
however
at
the same time multiple fissures open in other areas which
provides a
leakage trail for the swerling innards such that radiative
energy
on
a
smaller scale still escaopes to form radiation in other areas
than
the
forward direction envisioned. The next person to come along
will
address this problem I am sure once presentented with the
incentive
that this new concept provides. No miricals but one step
forward
makes
all things possible
Regards
Art
art wrote:
Jerh each otherry
What I am doing is to get away from inline coupling of
elements.
The
Yagi antenna is one of these where all the elements are in
line.
What
I
am doing is to arrange a a bunch of elements in a group or
cluster
such
that each and all elements couple with each other rather than
the
the
two elements along side. By doing this and yet making the
bunch
of
elements resonant on their own as well as being driven by one
element
as with the normal antenna you have to make changes in either
the
length, dia or material of each element to compensate for all
the
other
factors implanted on them by the proximity of all the other
elements
in
the bunch or cluster. When this is done correctly the bunch
of
elements
are in equilibrium with each other and where each element
impedance
is
devoid or has reactance minimised. The reason for this
aproach
is
the
two resistances that you encounter are the resistance of the
material
used for the element which is where the current flows below
the
surface
and the radiation resistance which is from the current that
flows
on
top of the surface
to produce radiation. Since it is radiation that we are
concerned
with
only true resistance is of importance and where reactiveness
in
the
impedances provide no benefit to radiation.
The bottom line is that we want to avoid reactivenes whereas
the
yagi
by coupling elements
that are untuned or not resonant promotes reactiveness. An
example
of
what this reactiveness does to an array is to make the value
curves
for
gain, back to front and swr all peaking at different
frequencies
where
as the ideal arrangement is to have all the curves peak near
the
same
frequency so that when using the antenna across the band you
have a
fairly consistent gain figure instead of having to cut it at
the
high
or low end of the band in a compromising effort. When
building
such
an
array you take advantage of height in the turning radius of
the
beam
since you dont have to place all elements in a single line as
with
a
yagi which imposes limits on antenna length. by utilising
height
of
the
array you can have a smaller rotating radius with the same
gain
of
a
yagi with a larger turning radius together with a bandwidth
with
smoothed variables.
Hope that helps and clears some of the mystery away from
clustered
arrays. This aproach by the way also applies to vertical
arrays
from
which you can get horizontal, vertical and circular radiation
where
each has its special place of use. Use of academic terms was
only
provided because some academics don't like change and want to
see
the
same things they see in books and for some reason were taught
that
talk
of statics in the same room as electromagnetics is blasphamy
yet
they
cannot bring forward anything in the books that say they are
totally
separable. By the way I mentioned Nagy where as it should
have
been
Brown who did so much in recent years in broadcasting and
T.V.
Have fun with antennas and don't get intimidated by those who
learned
things in College only to memorise and pass exams instead of
using
knoweledge to advance the quality of life.
Best regards
Art


Jerry Martes wrote:
Hi Art

Thanks for taking your time to direct me to some very
complex
thinking.
But, I'm a rather simple guy who isnt well educated. You
apparently
expect
a "just regular guy" like me to understand the ccomplex
convoluted
theoretical stuff that you write about.
When I did work as an antenna design engineer, years ago,
I
saw
some
of my
buddies working on the distribution of energy across
apertures
in
an
effort
to shape beams. One of their considerations was to
decrease
the
power
to
the elements as they were more distant from the center of
the
array.
I
remember reading that when the power is tapered to provide
a
distribution
about equivalent to a Gaussian Distribution, the side lobes
were
minimal.

I really enjoy thinking about real antenna construction
projects.
but,
when it gets to the Maxwell's Equation kind of analysis, I
get
lost.
I
dont
even know what a Vector is.
You may have the wrong impression about me, Art, I'm an
old
guy
who
wants
to have fun with antennas. It isnt necessary for you to
tell
me
to
"get
back
to basics". I dont have interest in the "basics" you
refer
to.

Is it possible for you to tell us (me) what you are
referring
to
without
referring to Vectors, Gauss's law, Lorentz, "Nagi", and
even
elementary
calculus? Frankly, Art, you confuse me when you write
such
scholarly
paragraphs. You and I are so far removed from each other
intellectually
that I can never keep up with your texts.

Jerry


"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jerry, get back to basics and look up a conservative
field
relative
to
Gaussian law.
Step 1
It is a group of electric charges with an addition vector
of
zero.
So
move backwards and remove that vector if you wish and you
have
a
gaussian field of electrical charges which in the case of
a
bunch
of
resonant elements can be seen as all positive or all
negative
charges
and we also know that Gaussian law is valid even for
enclosed
charges
in motion.

Step 2 The vector that we removed is known as curl but at
this
time
nit
has no valu is the samee tho the vector direction is
known.
Step 3 Faraday's law of Induced electromotive force. This
is
somewhat
opposite to the consevative field in terms of rotation
but
in
relative
terms it where the consevative field is revolving around
a
magnetic
field ( hopefully you can visualise this) So we have a
charge q
in
an
element of length ds, which element, at the instant
considered
has
velocity u,experiences a force. Now I know some have
difficulty
with
what I said earlier with respect to adding " at an
instant
of
time)
to
Gausses law which is the same length of time referred to
above
as
"
at
the instant considered "

Gtep 4 We then examine Lorentz equation which refers to
an
induced
electric field which is present when, for example the
magnetic
field
is
changing with time such that
v1 = 1/q integral F.ds. You can now see that any
CONSERVATIVE
force
that might be included in F would integrate to zero thus
ommiting
any
electrostatic field that might be present Note again
faradays
law,
it
is valid regardloess of the nature of the factor or
factors
responsible
for change in magnetic flux. So now the overview of the
cluster
of
resonant elements projected a conservative field with a
magnetic
vector
of zero reflecting" an instant of time" with respect to
resonant
elements and where the magnetic field will provide
motion to the electrostatic field where all charges will
exibit
the
same direction of charge and will change in unison

Now no amount of writing will get you to understand this
flow
of
concept if you are not willing to have an open mind or
think
around
something that at the present time you fail to understand
and
are
not
willing to rethink thing, possibly in a different way
than I
presented
it.

If you are so inclined you can go back further in history
and
play
with
the 4 vertical array of elements formed by Nagi to obtain
possible
insights since he also worked with an array of vertical
elements
all
of
which were resonant. His work has been rechecked via
Matlab
and
found
to be correct so you have a viable path to follow if you
have a
modicom
of interest in this new concept. It must be noted that
the
above
is
only a partial description of the concept
because I have yet to add a detuned element for
directional
purposes
for the radiation field.

There is nothing more that I can add that will persuade
you
to
follow
thru with this concept
so I believe I have now reached the Rubicon with respect
to
this
vision
of mine. If you can't understand it now put it down to me
not
being
smart enough to explain clearly electromagnetics to those
skilled
in
the art which I am now finding to be a hopeless task at
least
here
in
the U.S. unless one can read it in a book and memorise it
so
one
can
pass an exam..
Art








Jerry Martes wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
In the thread Rain static I referred to a closed
surface
which
is
clearly
defined by Gauss's law.

Gauss's law doesn't define a surface, the surface is
any
arbitrary
surface
surrounding a charge.

Let us now look at a time vary field applied to

a dielectric. I fht efield is applied for the
shortest
of
time
the
charges
will stay on the surface. If time is longer than
the
shortest
space
of
time

you make it sound like there is some 'shortest' time
where
charges
won't
move. this is not true. no matter how short you make
the
time
it
will
move
the charges.

then charges will openetrate the closed surface. If
the
surface
is
an
insulator type then it takes a long while to
penetrate
but
if
the
surface

Here you mix up 'surface' and 'surface'. the gauss's
law
'surface' is
a
mathematically useful construction around a charge,
it
does
not
have
any
charge 'on' it, nor is there any 'penetration' of it
by
charge
in
gauss's
law. it is strictly a non-material thing that is
used
only
for
calculation
purposes.

is a good conductor then the charges will penetrate
very
quickly so
we can associate the time constant of penetration
to
the
subject of
skin depth. If we are to associate the time varying
field
to
a
gaussian field

you have yet to define a 'gaussian field'. gauss's
law
applies
to
electric
fields and their relation to charges.

all the excess charges must be on the surface by
law.

only in a 'perfect' conductor. dielectrics and
'empty'
space
can
have
distributed charges throughout.

Or in other words
the time evolved must be shorter than the time
required
to
begin
penetration.

huh? it just goes down hill from here. write some
equations,
do
some
drawings, publish a manuscript. all the rest is
empty
handwaving
based
on
incorrect assumptions and missing definitions.

Thus for a short space of time all charges are on
the
surface
and
the
charges
have a magnhe radiating eneetic and electric field
vectors.
Just
having
charges is not enough to convert to a gaussian
field
in
that
a
gaussian
field must be in equilibrium thus a cluster of
elements
must have the direction of the surface charges
change
in
unison. For
a
cluster of elements to do this they must all be
resonant
such
that
the
charges reach the ends of the elements at the same
time.
Resonance
of
an element is determined by its diameter and its
length
and
because
it
is coupled to other elements in the cluster the
coupling
must
be
taken
into account to secure resonance of not only the
individual
elements
but of the cluster as a whole. When this is
accomplished
the
charges
on
the surface of the closed volume are in equilibrium
but
onty
for
that
shortest of short time and where that time is added
to
the
gaussian
formulae for the transition to be complete. For the
Gaussian
field
or
volume we can say the energy inside the gaussian
field
is
equal
to
that
supplied by flux to the outside of the border and
remember
the
flux
inside consists of magnetic and electric vectoirs.
We
now
can
say
that
in a moment of time the flux produced from each
element
that
breaches
the border in summation with the other elements is
equal
to
the
radiating field outside of the border when each
element
energy
makes
the transmittion. Thus the summation of each of the
clustered
elements
individual energy when the vectors are given a
value
must equal the flux on the outside of the border
that
produces
radiation. We also know that if we have a cluster
of
elements
that
are
clustered together we can obtain radiation by just
applying
a
time
varing field to just one of the elements and by
virtue
of
intercoupling
all the radiating energy
will leave the near field. Thus we have two
different
methods
of
determining the value of the radiated field
! radiation from the clustered within a Gaussian
field
and
2 radiation from an array of coupled elements
Since the elements within the cluster are all of
the
same
"Q'"
the
determination of all factors
in the resulting equation are simplified to Ohms
law
and
where
the
laborious coupling calculations
are omitted. The above describes in first
principles
as
to
how
a
Gaussian field in a short space of time can be
equated
to
a
radiating
cluster using existing laws of the masters which
also
embraces
NEC
code. Now many have said I have no understanding of
radiation
concepts
so go ahead and tear this apart and have a merry
Xmas
doing
it
Art Unwin KB9MZ..........XG


It appears Art has picked up some phrases haphazardly
and
is
trying to
apply them to antennas some how, If I remember
correctly
doesnt
Gaussian field apply to statistical distribution. Been
a
long
time
since I had statistical analysis back in the early 70s
but I
think
this
is also refered to as a "normal distribution".

Hi Jimmy

By my standards, you are *Right On* on all you wrote.
I'm
pretty
sure
Gaussian distribution of power across a radiating plane
results
(theoretically) in zero side lobes, That is also a
very
poor
distribution
when gain is a goal. I think the term Normal is
synonymous
with
Gaussian
when referring to aperture distribution.

Jerry

Gaussian law and time varying fields
 

"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
I do have a lot of equipment but I realise that it is of little use if
you cannot rely on the results you obtain, that is the beauty of
computor programs as most of the human frailties
have been removed.

and this is his downfall... first, computer programs are written by humans.
often by humans who don't understand the complete problem and are being fed
requirements that may or may not be properly stated. and then of course
they have to be used by humans who understand the limitations that were
built into the programs, something art doesn't understand. computer
programs are only as good as the people who wrote them, AND the people who
use them, you can't substitute a design program for understanding of the
problem.

Gaussian law and time varying fields
 

David,

You have done a lot of talking but no walking. You have never said or
showed why my concept must be wrong, just possible this or possible
that. With all your books that you have does it say anywhere that
static equations cannot be used for electromagnetic problems? Have you
a book that says you cannot add curl to a Gaussian field ? I challenge
you to find such a quote anywhere. You have never supplied anything
that supports your views used to disparaged mine not one. Now David are
you familiar with the NEC format antenna programs or familiar with
matlab? I think that these are sufficiently disimmilar to show that if
they arrive at the same conclusion it is not a fluke. Do you own any
computor program of any sort? Frankly I have the idea that you don't
own one and have never played with one but then you may have one tucked
away that you never use. What program were you capable of using, that
you can now use even tho you are of advanced age?
I am willing to give you the opportunity of doing just a little walk to
prove your personal abilities. I can give you a dimensioned array that
proves my concept and no matter what program you use you are welcome to
insert my array and thus shoot me to pieces and enhance your own statue
within the group. Your chance to show off your superiority with respect
to electromechanics, A simple way that affords you the chance to blow
your trumpet where it can really can be heard and appreciated.
So which way do you want to go,show a quotation that denies the
possibility of my concept or simply apply a dimensional drawing to any
program of you choice?
I really wanted to wait for a person to come along that I could trust
because of prior knoweledge, but I am getting tired of these assaults
that have no grounding so I give up and will submit.
I talked the talk and I walked the walk, in response you have only
talked and for what reason?

YOU HAVE WON,
I AM WILLING TO PROVIDE YOU AN ARRAY THAT DEMONSTRATES
MY ASSERTIONS AND WHERE USING ANY MEANS THAT YOU WISH YOU CAN
PUSH ME BACK TO THE STONE AGES AND STOP THIS NONSENSE

SHOW EVERYBODY WHAT YOU ARE REALLY MADE OF
WHAT IS REALLY BEHIND THAT FACELESS MASK?

Art Unwin KB9MZ








Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
I do have a lot of equipment but I realise that it is of little use if
you cannot rely on the results you obtain, that is the beauty of
computor programs as most of the human frailties
have been removed.

and this is his downfall... first, computer programs are written by humans.
often by humans who don't understand the complete problem and are being fed
requirements that may or may not be properly stated. and then of course
they have to be used by humans who understand the limitations that were
built into the programs, something art doesn't understand. computer
programs are only as good as the people who wrote them, AND the people who
use them, you can't substitute a design program for understanding of the
problem.

Gaussian law and time varying fields
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
David,

You have done a lot of talking but no walking. You have never said or
showed why my concept must be wrong, just possible this or possible
that. With all your books that you have does it say anywhere that
static equations cannot be used for electromagnetic problems?

yes, all of them.

Have you a book that says you cannot add curl to a Gaussian field ?

you may add whatever you want, but it doesn't make physical sense assuming
your 'Gaussian' field is actually the 'Electric'.

I challenge
you to find such a quote anywhere. You have never supplied anything
that supports your views used to disparaged mine not one. Now David are
you familiar with the NEC format antenna programs or familiar with
matlab?

yes, i am the writter of a modeling program for lightning on high voltage
power lines that uses similar techniques to NEC and other large finite
element programs. And i am intimitately familiar with modeling systems in
matlab, simulink, and easy5. none of them will give you the answer you want
if you use them properly. use any of them improperly as you have been and
you can get any answer you want, even ones that aren't physically
realizable.


I think that these are sufficiently disimmilar to show that if
they arrive at the same conclusion it is not a fluke. Do you own any
computor program of any sort?

i have AO and YO here, which are adequate for modeling amateur antennas. i
have used nec2, emtp, matlab, simulink, easy5, ansoft's 2d and 3d
eletrostatic and dynamic field analysis modules, written software for GE,
LM, GD, Chrysler, several US Navy projects, and EPRI. and am presently
gainfully employed working on a very large modeling project.

Frankly I have the idea that you don't
own one and have never played with one but then you may have one tucked
away that you never use. What program were you capable of using, that
you can now use even tho you are of advanced age?

pick one, but they are only as good as the input they are given.

I am willing to give you the opportunity of doing just a little walk to
prove your personal abilities. I can give you a dimensioned array that
proves my concept and no matter what program you use you are welcome to

no, you can't.

insert my array and thus shoot me to pieces and enhance your own statue
within the group. Your chance to show off your superiority with respect
to electromechanics, A simple way that affords you the chance to blow
your trumpet where it can really can be heard and appreciated.
So which way do you want to go,show a quotation that denies the
possibility of my concept or simply apply a dimensional drawing to any
program of you choice?
I really wanted to wait for a person to come along that I could trust
because of prior knoweledge, but I am getting tired of these assaults
that have no grounding so I give up and will submit.
I talked the talk and I walked the walk, in response you have only
talked and for what reason?

YOU HAVE WON,
I AM WILLING TO PROVIDE YOU AN ARRAY THAT DEMONSTRATES
MY ASSERTIONS AND WHERE USING ANY MEANS THAT YOU WISH YOU CAN
PUSH ME BACK TO THE STONE AGES AND STOP THIS NONSENSE

then build it and have it tested. that is better than any modeling that you
can do with existing programs, because none of them are going to prove your
concept... it just isn't physically realizable. i pointed that out on the
first example you gave and you never did seem to grasp the problem, go by
all means go back to the stone age, apply some heat to metal and build your
magic array.


SHOW EVERYBODY WHAT YOU ARE REALLY MADE OF
WHAT IS REALLY BEHIND THAT FACELESS MASK?

its only faceless to those who don't want to gaze upon it and understand.

Gaussian law and time varying fields
 

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:58:19 -0000, "Dave" wrote:

I can give you a dimensioned array that
proves my concept and no matter what program you use you are welcome to

no, you can't.

Hi Dave,

Now this will descend into parsing. To short cut that:
I can give you a dimensioned array
He's done that
that proves my concept and no matter what program you use
and has abandoned that (Art hasn't even proven it using whatever
program he uses).

What has been provided - 5 wires scattered in the air - have proven to
have been poorly documented vis-a-vis reportedly 50 Ohms non-reactive
when each and every wire has very little resistance and a huge
reactance. Also reporting gain (unsubstantiated) that in the face of
discarding 4 of those wires, that reported gain is trounced by the
gain of the one remaining wire (this must be extremely humiliating,
and why we rarely encounter any factual details from Art).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian law and time varying fields
 

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

You have done a lot of talking but no walking. You have never said or
showed why my concept must be wrong, just possible this or possible
that. With all your books that you have does it say anywhere that
static equations cannot be used for electromagnetic problems?

yes, all of them.

Have you a book that says you cannot add curl to a Gaussian field ?

you may add whatever you want, but it doesn't make physical sense assuming
your 'Gaussian' field is actually the 'Electric'.

I challenge
you to find such a quote anywhere. You have never supplied anything
that supports your views used to disparaged mine not one. Now David are
you familiar with the NEC format antenna programs or familiar with
matlab?

yes, i am the writter of a modeling program for lightning on high voltage
power lines that uses similar techniques to NEC and other large finite
element programs. And i am intimitately familiar with modeling systems in
matlab, simulink, and easy5. none of them will give you the answer you want
if you use them properly. use any of them improperly as you have been and
you can get any answer you want, even ones that aren't physically
realizable.


I think that these are sufficiently disimmilar to show that if
they arrive at the same conclusion it is not a fluke. Do you own any
computor program of any sort?

i have AO and YO here, which are adequate for modeling amateur antennas. i
have used nec2, emtp, matlab, simulink, easy5, ansoft's 2d and 3d
eletrostatic and dynamic field analysis modules, written software for GE,
LM, GD, Chrysler, several US Navy projects, and EPRI. and am presently
gainfully employed working on a very large modeling project.

Frankly I have the idea that you don't
own one and have never played with one but then you may have one tucked
away that you never use. What program were you capable of using, that
you can now use even tho you are of advanced age?

pick one, but they are only as good as the input they are given.

I am willing to give you the opportunity of doing just a little walk to
prove your personal abilities. I can give you a dimensioned array that
proves my concept and no matter what program you use you are welcome to

no, you can't.
Wow, you disappoint me no, you probably disapoint Richard and Roy who
over the years have set the tone of this group that got rid of the
likes of Tom, Gary and a few other
well known amaateurs that knew what they are talking about. But you
haven't turned out as successfull as they have with others, you melted
away in the face of challenged and you didn't resort to bad language
when you were unable to sustain your engineering status and now fall
flat on your face.
All this talk about how good you were and your knoweledge of computor
programs and now you say that if you used it it would be worthless. I
sort of believe that your work revolved around a testing range but it
is looking more and more like you were the gateman or caretaker. For
the others on the newsgroup take a lesson from this
if you wonder why so many well known hams are not patrons of this
newsgroup. Only Cecil
has taken their jabs over the years but stood his ground. Now after a
straight forward challenge with no restrictions as to what they use to
discredit me they have shown that they have no backbone and are
basically the reason over the years that this newsgroup has fallen into
the gutter.their efforts Rest assured that Richard and co will continue
with their effort even tho David failed them. I suppose I could say to
David to put up or shut up but it doesn't really matter anymore since
we all now know who he is and what he is, a nothing,
a plain nothing who thought he could succeed by just mouthing of and
telling how good he is
and I pulled the rope in a bit more and he continued as Richard and co
cheered from the side lines to give you more confidence. Then I put out
the rope a little bit more and with false confidence you came further
in only to find that I had dropped the rope and faced you head on with
a challenge. OIfcourse it was a shock and you ran like hell with your
tail between your legs in the face of a challenge to your so called
technical claims. True those triumps may have been made when you were
younger whereas now old age has placed chains around your brain and
this does happen but in future don't be taken in by those who like to
stir things and then back off when the fighting starts because they
have no interest in you or your failure as they have shown over the
years that it is easy to get somebody else. David I am sorry for you
but surely you knew that in the face of your relentless challenge there
was always the danger that things could turn around where with you lack
of engineering knoweledge you wouls eventually exposed. But take heart
you can still enjoy the hobby and the people that you meet, it is not
really necessary for you to posture as knoweledgable about antennas
because the majority of hams are not really impressed with such talk
and quickly recognise the face behind the mask, try just being yourself
and break loose from Roy and Richard who try to reign over this
newsgroup
Art







insert my array and thus shoot me to pieces and enhance your own statue
within the group. Your chance to show off your superiority with respect
to electromechanics, A simple way that affords you the chance to blow
your trumpet where it can really can be heard and appreciated.
So which way do you want to go,show a quotation that denies the
possibility of my concept or simply apply a dimensional drawing to any
program of you choice?
I really wanted to wait for a person to come along that I could trust
because of prior knoweledge, but I am getting tired of these assaults
that have no grounding so I give up and will submit.
I talked the talk and I walked the walk, in response you have only
talked and for what reason?

YOU HAVE WON,
I AM WILLING TO PROVIDE YOU AN ARRAY THAT DEMONSTRATES
MY ASSERTIONS AND WHERE USING ANY MEANS THAT YOU WISH YOU CAN
PUSH ME BACK TO THE STONE AGES AND STOP THIS NONSENSE

then build it and have it tested. that is better than any modeling that you
can do with existing programs, because none of them are going to prove your
concept... it just isn't physically realizable. i pointed that out on the
first example you gave and you never did seem to grasp the problem, go by
all means go back to the stone age, apply some heat to metal and build your
magic array.


SHOW EVERYBODY WHAT YOU ARE REALLY MADE OF
WHAT IS REALLY BEHIND THAT FACELESS MASK?

its only faceless to those who don't want to gaze upon it and understand.

Gaussian law and time varying fields
 

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
I suppose I could say to
David to put up or shut up

thats what i said to you. put up or shut up, but since i know you can't,
there is no use continuing.

Gaussian law and time varying fields
 

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...

Massive snip of pseudo-bafflegab

insert my array and thus shoot me to pieces and enhance your own statue
within the group. Your chance to show off your superiority with respect
to electromechanics, A simple way that affords you the chance to blow
your trumpet where it can really can be heard and appreciated.
So which way do you want to go,show a quotation that denies the
possibility of my concept or simply apply a dimensional drawing to any
program of you choice?
I really wanted to wait for a person to come along that I could trust
because of prior knoweledge, but I am getting tired of these assaults
that have no grounding so I give up and will submit.
I talked the talk and I walked the walk, in response you have only
talked and for what reason?

Further snip of rant

Art: The stuff you're putting in the holiday eggnog doesn't seem to be
helping,
rather, you are blithering louder and longer. Please look after yourself, as
many of us lurkers
find this thread of considerable entertainment value.

Mike W5CHR

Gaussian law and time varying fields
 

"Mike Lucas" wrote in message
. ..

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...

Massive snip of pseudo-bafflegab

insert my array and thus shoot me to pieces and enhance your own
statue
within the group. Your chance to show off your superiority with
respect
to electromechanics, A simple way that affords you the chance to blow
your trumpet where it can really can be heard and appreciated.
So which way do you want to go,show a quotation that denies the
possibility of my concept or simply apply a dimensional drawing to any
program of you choice?
I really wanted to wait for a person to come along that I could trust
because of prior knoweledge, but I am getting tired of these assaults
that have no grounding so I give up and will submit.
I talked the talk and I walked the walk, in response you have only
talked and for what reason?

Further snip of rant

Art: The stuff you're putting in the holiday eggnog doesn't seem to be
helping,
rather, you are blithering louder and longer. Please look after yourself,
as many of us lurkers
find this thread of considerable entertainment value.

Mike W5CHR

then you better get in here and contribute, I've got better things to do
this weekend than argue with a lost cause. he's not even that much fun, its
deteriorating into personal attacks instead of trying to explain his
erroneous theories.