Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:33:40 GMT, "Frank's"
wrote:

Gain at 10 deg. elevation -- 10.2 dBi

Gain at 10 deg. elevation -- 12.3 dBi

Hi Frank,

Consistent with past experience with Art's designs, I threw away
2/3rds of it (OK 2 wires) and got 3 dB more gain. Do we blame Gauss
for the original poor performance? Does this validate Art's concept
of static electromechanical waves?

Art, if this is a typo (electromechanical waves), then how many other
typos inhabit your descriptions that corrupt your truths that come out
so tarnished? If we have to sit through another rendition of Hearts
and Flowers about us kicking cripples, stealing from blind newsboys,
defrauding widows, and getting our rewards taken away from us in an
after-life; then maybe you should get a season ticket to the new
moderated group where those soap opera tunes can be sung in their
castrati choir.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard, I was not really serious, but at least wanted to demonstrate
that a simple 2 element array outperformed the fictitious antenna which
must be machined to within +/- 1 micro-inch. I assume it is some kind
of joke, and particularly liked the description of orbiting helium nuclei;
also the presence of beta particles. The elements must be partially
radio-active.

73,

Frank (VE6CB)

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 22 Feb, 13:05, "Frank's"
wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:33:40 GMT, "Frank's"
wrote:

Gain at 10 deg. elevation -- 10.2 dBi

Gain at 10 deg. elevation -- 12.3 dBi

Hi Frank,

Consistent with past experience with Art's designs, I threw away
2/3rds of it (OK 2 wires) and got 3 dB more gain. Do we blame Gauss
for the original poor performance? Does this validate Art's concept
of static electromechanical waves?

Art, if this is a typo (electromechanical waves), then how many other
typos inhabit your descriptions that corrupt your truths that come out
so tarnished? If we have to sit through another rendition of Hearts
and Flowers about us kicking cripples, stealing from blind newsboys,
defrauding widows, and getting our rewards taken away from us in an
after-life; then maybe you should get a season ticket to the new
moderated group where those soap opera tunes can be sung in their
castrati choir.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard, I was not really serious, but at least wanted to demonstrate
that a simple 2 element array outperformed the fictitious antenna which
must be machined to within +/- 1 micro-inch. I assume it is some kind
of joke, and particularly liked the description of orbiting helium nuclei;
also the presence of beta particles. The elements must be partially
radio-active.

73,

Frank (VE6CB)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank, choose your friends! Alpha and Beta were the first two letters
of the alphabet, I do not wish to represent myself as a physicist. On
the multi decimal figures they are computor derived
and I do not feel it to be my place to manipulate figures. On the
ficticious three element beam it was clearly laid out as a sample that
in no way was an extension of a Yagi beamm where all elements were
resonant and not planar or parasitic in form.
Tt clearly laid out the polarity of the gains mentioned which by the
way you did not do. In fact I don't know what you did or where your
figures originated from. The sample beam was drawn up purely to
demonstrate the dexterity of positions plus the multi resonance and it
was accompanied by the process from whence the dimensions came from,
which this group in its entirety stated as implausable some weeks ago.
As an adder I gave swr curves together with gain curves to demonstrate
the absense of parasitics
which for a yagi demands choices of desirebles ( there is a whole
chaptor in the ARRL handbook about this problem.) As an aside I also
included in the array an element which was not only at an angle
relative to that around it but also of a length unrelated to a half
wave length. Now you obviously are not aware of the vagrances of
antennas otherwise you would not have replied like you did with an
example missing details of measurement, phase and to any point that
perhaps you were trying to make. I could have drawn a high gain
antenna of half the length of a yagi with the same gain but that would
have strayed from what I was trying to emphasise i.e. an advance in
science.. You are obviously out of touch with respect to antennas by
what you write
as are others who are declaring their lack of knoweledge by what they
say. What goes around comes around and you will notice that nobody has
faulted the theory espoused for the array other than your word of
ficticious which you never explained. Give me something for the record
please.Do you have a high school diploma?
Art
Art

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:05:49 GMT, "Frank's"
wrote:

Hi Richard, I was not really serious

Hi Frank,

Neither is Art - only passionate.

His being convinced is one thing, but it does nothing to convince
others - except for possibly two more like him on Golgotha. Inevitably
whenever anyone like these two try to chime in, Art pounds more nails
into them.

Art, you can certainly name your critics, and you aren't shy to
enumerate huge lists either. Can you name one poster who can explain
your web page here? It would certainly make for a fresh change - like
the polar cap expanding back out or the Greenland glaciers returning.

Problem here is Art offers this as "PROOF." I note that no one has
bothered to point out that proofs necessarily have a premise to be
proven. When we have to dig for the premise, does it become OUR
proof? Or does the original author then expand his chest and proudly
proclaim "That is what I meant to say!"

When I examine the page at its most fundamental facts, namely that
described as "THREE ELEMENT GAUSSIAN CLUSTERED RADIATING ARRAY" I find
that the picture of the elements is not the same as those described as
the elements. A simple glance reveals the two at the top of the
illustration are orthogonal to the X axis, reviewing the coordinates
proves none are. There is a proof for all that is easily
demonstrated.

When I review the claims of "drive impedance" I find element 1 claims
to be resonant at 200 MHz when it is only 5 or 6 inches long. It
doesn't take computer analysis to destroy that proof. It doesn't work
if the length is in inches, feet, meters, centimeters, yards, chains,
rods, or any "usual" form of linear measurement.

These being technical details, appropriate for discussion in a
technical forum, they will sit cold on the table while flagons of
passionate wine are splashed around filling cups of remorse against
our failure to acknowledge genius.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:05:49 GMT, "Frank's"
wrote:


Hi Richard, I was not really serious


Hi Frank,

Neither is Art - only passionate.

His being convinced is one thing, but it does nothing to convince
others - except for possibly two more like him on Golgotha. Inevitably
whenever anyone like these two try to chime in, Art pounds more nails
into them.

Art, you can certainly name your critics, and you aren't shy to
enumerate huge lists either. Can you name one poster who can explain
your web page here? It would certainly make for a fresh change - like
the polar cap expanding back out or the Greenland glaciers returning.

Problem here is Art offers this as "PROOF." I note that no one has
bothered to point out that proofs necessarily have a premise to be
proven. When we have to dig for the premise, does it become OUR
proof? Or does the original author then expand his chest and proudly
proclaim "That is what I meant to say!"

When I examine the page at its most fundamental facts, namely that
described as "THREE ELEMENT GAUSSIAN CLUSTERED RADIATING ARRAY" I find
that the picture of the elements is not the same as those described as
the elements. A simple glance reveals the two at the top of the
illustration are orthogonal to the X axis, reviewing the coordinates
proves none are. There is a proof for all that is easily
demonstrated.

When I review the claims of "drive impedance" I find element 1 claims
to be resonant at 200 MHz when it is only 5 or 6 inches long. It
doesn't take computer analysis to destroy that proof. It doesn't work
if the length is in inches, feet, meters, centimeters, yards, chains,
rods, or any "usual" form of linear measurement.

These being technical details, appropriate for discussion in a
technical forum, they will sit cold on the table while flagons of
passionate wine are splashed around filling cups of remorse against
our failure to acknowledge genius.

It is your failure to acknowledge what it actually is that is most
remarkable. A visit to Art's website tells the story. Little more
need be said, for that would quite literally be kicking the crippled
man. Consider what John Bradford had to say, Richard.

73, ac6xg

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 22 Feb, 13:55, "art" wrote:
On 22 Feb, 13:05, "Frank's"
wrote:





"Richard Clark" wrote in message

.. .

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:33:40 GMT, "Frank's"
wrote:

Gain at 10 deg. elevation -- 10.2 dBi

Gain at 10 deg. elevation -- 12.3 dBi

Hi Frank,

Consistent with past experience with Art's designs, I threw away
2/3rds of it (OK 2 wires) and got 3 dB more gain. Do we blame Gauss
for the original poor performance? Does this validate Art's concept
of static electromechanical waves?

Art, if this is a typo (electromechanical waves), then how many other
typos inhabit your descriptions that corrupt your truths that come out
so tarnished? If we have to sit through another rendition of Hearts
and Flowers about us kicking cripples, stealing from blind newsboys,
defrauding widows, and getting our rewards taken away from us in an
after-life; then maybe you should get a season ticket to the new
moderated group where those soap opera tunes can be sung in their
castrati choir.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard, I was not really serious, but at least wanted to demonstrate
that a simple 2 element array outperformed the fictitious antenna which
must be machined to within +/- 1 micro-inch. I assume it is some kind
of joke, and particularly liked the description of orbiting helium nuclei;
also the presence of beta particles. The elements must be partially
radio-active.

73,

Frank (VE6CB)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank, choose your friends! Alpha and Beta were the first two letters
of the alphabet, I do not wish to represent myself as a physicist. On
the multi decimal figures they are computor derived
and I do not feel it to be my place to manipulate figures. On the
ficticious three element beam it was clearly laid out as a sample that
in no way was an extension of a Yagi beamm where all elements were
resonant and not planar or parasitic in form.
Tt clearly laid out the polarity of the gains mentioned which by the
way you did not do. In fact I don't know what you did or where your
figures originated from. The sample beam was drawn up purely to
demonstrate the dexterity of positions plus the multi resonance and it
was accompanied by the process from whence the dimensions came from,
which this group in its entirety stated as implausable some weeks ago.
As an adder I gave swr curves together with gain curves to demonstrate
the absense of parasitics
which for a yagi demands choices of desirebles ( there is a whole
chaptor in the ARRL handbook about this problem.) As an aside I also
included in the array an element which was not only at an angle
relative to that around it but also of a length unrelated to a half
wave length. Now you obviously are not aware of the vagrances of
antennas otherwise you would not have replied like you did with an
example missing details of measurement, phase and to any point that
perhaps you were trying to make. I could have drawn a high gain
antenna of half the length of a yagi with the same gain but that would
have strayed from what I was trying to emphasise i.e. an advance in
science.. You are obviously out of touch with respect to antennas by
what you write
as are others who are declaring their lack of knoweledge by what they
say. What goes around comes around and you will notice that nobody has
faulted the theory espoused for the array other than your word of
ficticious which you never explained. Give me something for the record
please.Do you have a high school diploma?
Art
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank, On the net iswa free book on waves and antennas by a professer
at Rutgers University In chapter 21 he plays with a clustr element
that first came about some 60 years ago.
In book the array was changed somewhat to provide an array from which
all the desirables could be determined. This 60 year old array was
solved in various ways but today even more than 60 yearsof existance
did anybody realize the connection to Gaussian law of statics when the
addition of time is added to the law. I am the first to make that
distinction from which a whole new antenna technology will arise. Now
you refer to Richard for some sort of support but he doesn't have a
docterate, he doesn't have a masters and he certainly does not have a
degree in engineering.
Now I know many men in San Fransisco do swear by him as would his
close friends would when he dons his meshnet tights and shows of his
degrees to them which is a 90 degree piroett in front of them
but the fact is that he did attend some university programs as a
guest since he is knoweledgable about Shakesapeare and dancing.Be
carefull of your choice of friends
Art

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

I can't wait for the fractal version of this marvel Goosian whatever!

I inputed it into medioker AZNEC and com-puter it is still running in
cirkles, it is different from the published discloser by the enlightined
autor, but that is to bee expected if one does not get the brilliant idea.
Oh weel!

73 Bada Bum

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On Feb 22, 3:01 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:

It is your failure to acknowledge what it actually is that is most
remarkable. A visit to Art's website tells the story. Little more
need be said, for that would quite literally be kicking the crippled
man. Consider what John Bradford had to say, Richard.

73, ac6xg


Jim
Apart from John Bradford's words your post was a bit too
cryptic for me, could you elaborate

Derek

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

art wrote:


Frank, choose your friends! Alpha and Beta were the first two letters
of the alphabet,

But nucleus and electron would be much clearer to the reader.

I do not wish to represent myself as a physicist.

Don't worry, you don't.

It is clear you don't know how electricity flows in a material.

Your example of the balls on the string is wrong. You state that under high
magnification the middle balls do not move. If this were to be true there
can be no energy transferred from one end to the other. This is a simple
example of elastic collisions and conservation of momentum. High school
physics covers this material.

Your concept of electrons leaving the surface and returning at anything
other than significantly elevated temperatures is fantasy.

You make the extention of Gauss' law to include time. However, from what I
know, Gauss' law applies to electroSTATICS. If this can extended to include
time, and you are the first to observe this, then some sort of rigorous
proof would be appropriate.

You might want to look at a basic book on electromechanics. You need a
better grasp of the fundamentals




On
the multi decimal figures they are computor derived
and I do not feel it to be my place to manipulate figures. On the
ficticious three element beam it was clearly laid out as a sample that
in no way was an extension of a Yagi beamm where all elements were
resonant and not planar or parasitic in form.
Tt clearly laid out the polarity of the gains mentioned which by the
way you did not do. In fact I don't know what you did or where your
figures originated from. The sample beam was drawn up purely to
demonstrate the dexterity of positions plus the multi resonance and it
was accompanied by the process from whence the dimensions came from,
which this group in its entirety stated as implausable some weeks ago.
As an adder I gave swr curves together with gain curves to demonstrate
the absense of parasitics
which for a yagi demands choices of desirebles ( there is a whole
chaptor in the ARRL handbook about this problem.) As an aside I also
included in the array an element which was not only at an angle
relative to that around it but also of a length unrelated to a half
wave length. Now you obviously are not aware of the vagrances of
antennas otherwise you would not have replied like you did with an
example missing details of measurement, phase and to any point that
perhaps you were trying to make. I could have drawn a high gain
antenna of half the length of a yagi with the same gain but that would
have strayed from what I was trying to emphasise i.e. an advance in
science..

To advance science, you would need to provide your evidence in a manner that
could be validated by those knowlegable in the fields of physics and
electrodynamics. However, looking at the first half of your page, there is
nothing but analogies that are not applicable to the concept you try to
present. Actually the facts you try to present are just plain wrong.

You are obviously out of touch with respect to antennas by
what you write
as are others who are declaring their lack of knoweledge by what they
say. What goes around comes around and you will notice that nobody has
faulted the theory espoused for the array other than your word of
ficticious which you never explained.

What theory? Your starting point contains so many misperceptions that
nothing points in a direction that would lead a reader to believe whatever
follows.

You require 'equilibrium' to satisfy your concept at every step of the way.
However an antenna is driven from a transmitter. This input energy would
tend to eliminate any state of equilibrium. Your initial statement of
moving charges in a material and applying Gauss' law and requiring
equilibrium doesn't work. If the charges are moving, where is the
equilibrium? (You also never define equilibrium therefore any assertion of
equilibrium is meaningless. Nobody can tell what you are talking about.)



Give me something for the record
please.Do you have a high school diploma?

I do.

Art
Art

Now, I could be wrong, but from my understanding of engineering, I think
there are serious problems with what you propose.

craigm

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

craigm wrote:
art wrote:


Frank, choose your friends! Alpha and Beta were the first two letters
of the alphabet,

But nucleus and electron would be much clearer to the reader.

I do not wish to represent myself as a physicist.

Don't worry, you don't.

It is clear you don't know how electricity flows in a material.

Your example of the balls on the string is wrong. You state that under high
magnification the middle balls do not move. If this were to be true there
can be no energy transferred from one end to the other. This is a simple
example of elastic collisions and conservation of momentum. High school
physics covers this material.

Your concept of electrons leaving the surface and returning at anything
other than significantly elevated temperatures is fantasy.

You make the extention of Gauss' law to include time. However, from what I
know, Gauss' law applies to electroSTATICS. If this can extended to include
time, and you are the first to observe this, then some sort of rigorous
proof would be appropriate.

You might want to look at a basic book on electromechanics. You need a
better grasp of the fundamentals


This has been mildly, but sadly, amusing. However contorted the actual
antenna might be, the obvious problem is in the premise that somehow
Gauss' Law has been overlooked in the past.

To keep it simple, Gauss' Law is precisely one of the four standard
Maxwell Equations. Gauss' Law has been part of electromagnetics and
antenna theory for eons.

As for electromechanics, who knows?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On Feb 23, 3:07 pm, Gene Fuller wrote:
craigm wrote:
art wrote:

Frank, choose your friends! Alpha and Beta were the first two letters
of the alphabet,

But nucleus and electron would be much clearer to the reader.

I do not wish to represent myself as a physicist.

Don't worry, you don't.

It is clear you don't know how electricity flows in a material.

Your example of the balls on the string is wrong. You state that under high
magnification the middle balls do not move. If this were to be true there
can be no energy transferred from one end to the other. This is a simple
example of elastic collisions and conservation of momentum. High school
physics covers this material.

Your concept of electrons leaving the surface and returning at anything
other than significantly elevated temperatures is fantasy.

You make the extention of Gauss' law to include time. However, from what I
know, Gauss' law applies to electroSTATICS. If this can extended to include
time, and you are the first to observe this, then some sort of rigorous
proof would be appropriate.

You might want to look at a basic book on electromechanics. You need a
better grasp of the fundamentals

This has been mildly, but sadly, amusing. However contorted the actual
antenna might be, the obvious problem is in the premise that somehow
Gauss' Law has been overlooked in the past.

To keep it simple, Gauss' Law is precisely one of the four standard
Maxwell Equations. Gauss' Law has been part of electromagnetics and
antenna theory for eons.

As for electromechanics, who knows?

73,
Gene
W4SZ



Every body knows that laws cannot be broken,but
nobody says they can't be bent.

Derek