Tho the Yagi has been good to communication over
the years it has in fact retarded the advance of antennas.
The biggest reason is the misinterpretation of the term "curl"
where it is termed as a two dimensional vector instead
of a three dimensional vector. The two dimensional term
came about by adding vectors to a static charge where
the vector values are zero i.e time was removed from
equations by reducing the vector to a point for the sake
of mathematical expedience but with a known direction.
This aproach has fastened into the minds of academics that
radiating elements should always be in parallel form and
which the Yagi has perpetuated. The error in this aproach
is that when a time varying field is applied to a static charge
is that the addition of vectors move from a two dimensional
form into a cartesian three dimensional form. With this
concept in mind which is an extension of a Gaussian
antenna aproach, it should be seen that parallism tho good
in terms of manufacture is not the ideal array arrangement
and in fact verticals may well be better off place at an angle
somewhat less than 90 degrees. Ofcourse as always
antennas are compromises and the biggest drawback here is
the lack of symetry for only a small advance in efficiency.
Food for thougtht gentlemen if you have an open mind
Art

art wrote:

Tho the Yagi has been good to communication over
the years it has in fact retarded the advance of antennas.
The biggest reason is the misinterpretation of the term "curl"
where it is termed as a two dimensional vector instead
of a three dimensional vector. The two dimensional term
came about by adding vectors to a static charge where
the vector values are zero i.e time was removed from
equations by reducing the vector to a point for the sake
of mathematical expedience but with a known direction.
This aproach has fastened into the minds of academics that
radiating elements should always be in parallel form and
which the Yagi has perpetuated. The error in this aproach
is that when a time varying field is applied to a static charge
is that the addition of vectors move from a two dimensional
form into a cartesian three dimensional form. With this
concept in mind which is an extension of a Gaussian
antenna aproach, it should be seen that parallism tho good
in terms of manufacture is not the ideal array arrangement
and in fact verticals may well be better off place at an angle
somewhat less than 90 degrees. Ofcourse as always
antennas are compromises and the biggest drawback here is
the lack of symetry for only a small advance in efficiency.
Food for thougtht gentlemen if you have an open mind
Art


How about some real math and equations. You should present some technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant ( parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.

You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

craigm

Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant ( parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant ( parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie

Atta boy Jimmy if only somebody pursued just a little bit of what I
present
we all would gain by a debate but nobody but nobody got off the couch
except one whose aims were dishonest. With respect to patents, very few
if any
is for a miracle it is only a platform for additional ideas to the
present state
of the art which is only generated by the micro steps of information
in any art.
When you apply that small piece of information you are suppling a basic
for the next patent application which is what is called progress
because it
was shared and without sharing achievement is retarded. When people
decry the idea of patents I think back to the fact that many engineers
decried them after the fact but never decried their importance on a
resume,
just like monday morning quarterbacks
Art

Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant ( parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Atta boy Jimmy if only somebody pursued just a little bit of what I
present
we all would gain by a debate but nobody but nobody got off the couch
except one whose aims were dishonest. With respect to patents, very few
if any
is for a miracle it is only a platform for additional ideas to the
present state
of the art which is only generated by the micro steps of information
in any art.
When you apply that small piece of information you are suppling a basic
for the next patent application which is what is called progress
because it
was shared and without sharing achievement is retarded. When people
decry the idea of patents I think back to the fact that many engineers
decried them after the fact but never decried their importance on a
resume,
just like monday morning quarterbacks
Art

Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant (
parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how
one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold
there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the
relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie


Patents are almost useless unless you actually build something. Basically
patents protect ideas and I know a guy who use to do hundreds of applictions
on just ideas. It is not the purpose of a patent to establish that an idea
is workable. It just establishes it as "your idea" Besides I thought we were
talking about antennas, not the value of patents.

Jimmie.

Jimmie D wrote:

...
In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie



Geesh! Something we finally stand in total agreement with.

However, like most things in science, usually what we are hunting is
first "discovered" in a "practical" form, then the math is "found" to
explain, describe, and "predict" it and its "properties" ... such has
always been mankinds' lot--or, thanks for those goofy guys in their
basements with their goofy ideas ...

Still, an excellent and valid statement.

Warmest regards,
JS

Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
this was occurring when the subject has been studied to death over the
years
It was when I reviewed past works of the masters I came across this
error
and you must realise that in the old days decades passed before it was
studied by others. George Green like others such as Gauss had a niche
in mathematics a lot of which came from non uniform studies such that
later reiterations of what they had deduced was shaken around and
rehashed
after death such that if an error was introduced there were few who
could
refute it. Let's face it, if it is seen in a book in present day how
many would
be alert or foolhardy enough to refute it without changing context,
the naysayers
would immediatly shout, not pounce, from their lazy boys knowing full
well it
is easier to ridicule than to think things out for themselves.
Have you ever heard a monday morning quarterback prophesising two days
before the match and repeating it again on monday morning?
Art



John Smith I wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...
In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie



Geesh! Something we finally stand in total agreement with.

However, like most things in science, usually what we are hunting is
first "discovered" in a "practical" form, then the math is "found" to
explain, describe, and "predict" it and its "properties" ... such has
always been mankinds' lot--or, thanks for those goofy guys in their
basements with their goofy ideas ...

Still, an excellent and valid statement.

Warmest regards,
JS

Well, there is the Moxon Rectangle, Discone, Sloper, Delta Loop, Big
Wheel, Circular Loop, Orthogonal loops with periodic feed, Vee,
Rhombic, Helix, Parabolic Dish, Cone with spiral lip, G String, Surface
fed half sphere, BirdCage, Lazy Vee, Moon Bounce, and a bunch of others
that escape me at the moment...

It would seem that many antenna designers, some of whom would not
recognize a real time vector if it poked them in the eye and then
scrawled a table of Naperian Logarithms on the wall paper, have already
gone ahead without waiting on directions from open minds...

denny / k8do

"Denny" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, there is the Moxon Rectangle, Discone, Sloper, Delta Loop, Big
Wheel, Circular Loop, Orthogonal loops with periodic feed, Vee,
Rhombic, Helix, Parabolic Dish, Cone with spiral lip, G String, Surface
fed half sphere, BirdCage, Lazy Vee, Moon Bounce, and a bunch of others
that escape me at the moment...



You left out the King of them all:
http://members.aol.com/ve3bmv/Razors.htm
Da VE3BMV Razor Beam, which may have escaped the Art da Antenna Wiz.
Let's not forget this 3D champion that decimated Yagis and other inferior
contraptions by the antenna gurus and professoirs and scientwists. :-)))

73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors