art wrote:
On 21 Feb, 12:03, "art" wrote:
Some time ago the many pseudo expert on antennas on this
thread PooHoo.d the idea that Static fields and electromechanical
fields
were connected. Any body can go thru the archives of a few weeks ago
to find out who they were. Some have also argued with me over skin
depth
but after the two latest "deep" threads that I posted I realise that
there are
more "pseudo" experts than I thought, Some obviously never got out of
high
school. Pretty much everybody scorned the idea that antennas could be
made better than the yagi because all was known let alone a completely
new
line of designs which were not made up of parassitic elements let
alone of
mainly resonant elements in cluster form for choice of polarity. I was
called
a lot of bad names plus all the put up or shut up by people who
wouldn't
understand it if I did supply the information.A day or so ago I
supplied all
the information albiet in an unprofessional way, on the web for all
to rebut,
especially the so called experts on this newsgroup, but where did they
hide
themselves when the evidence of Gaussian antenna connections was
placed
in front of them?
Where are the experts who refuted the idea of a revelutionary design
series?
On one of the threads I gave the web page such that anybody could
swipe
at me or apologise only to find that this group is not about antennas
it is about
having arguements for arguments sake. Anybody can go to Google and
type
the above thread title in to see the background to which I have been
criticised but the
fact is that if it isnt already in a book then it can't be true, at
least for amateurs.
Gentlemen I am sharing with the amateur community my findings on a new
breed of antennas but it seems that antenna interest has taken a
downswing
when at this point in time there is so much interest in other
polarities to what
the amateurs do not use. As I stated earlier I placed the page on
this newsgroup
\and other readers can get to it if they use this thread title in
google but if guitar
music is what you are looking for then by all means stick around for
somebody
to argue with or get in touch with AUSTRALIA to set up a water
experiment
And my all means bury your head in the sand regarding the connection
between
electrostatic fields and electromagnetic fields and yes David you can
start up
your diatribe all over again on static fields having now enunciated
that the
Corriolis force is ficticious.. Regards less of what you say yabout
what you
do in life and the antenna work you have accomplished in the company
of high
antenna experts as well as the gaurdian of an antenna testing range
you are NOT an expert.
Regards
Art Unwin

Roy that is the sort of posting I would expect from the likes of you.
When everything comes to light you are going to look a real fool,
possibly in your next lifetime to
Always looking for something to smart off about rather than putting on
a thinking cap. And I would remind you about skin depth where you are
screwed up. When you see 1/e in a formula
then you should immediately think of half life which is skin depth in
this case, Remember you cried about me using the term "decay". Waffle
all you want about your Eznec on this newsgroup but you are still
operating in the dark ages in the search of money. You sure would get
upset if people smarted off on your Eznec thread about your
advertising methods and or achievements . True I make errors when I
type
but I would rather you save your comments to those in a wheel chair or
with other afflictions to raise a laugh to get attention. When you get
to the after life there will be many who have been cured that you will
have to answer to face to face

Hey Art,

I'm no expert, but I can hardly read your thread. Wrapping problems,
and apparently only one paragraph per long, long post makes for very
difficult to read stuff.

Perhaps if you opened things up a bit it might help the dummies like me?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Art,

I looked at your webpage at

http://home.insightbb.com/~aunwin/index.htm

I don't understand how you claim that all three elements in your
cluster are resonant given that the drive impedance of two of them is
highly reactive.

Your antenna appears to be a fairly mediocre weird yagi.

You can continue to write science fiction about how radiation is
caused by particles ejected from the conducting material and their
curling action about the element, or whatever it is you're talking
about. Have fun. Sorry if my pseudo-self is going to keep pseudo-
thinking that your antenna is more or less a pseudo-two-element yagi.

Dan

Art,

I looked at your webpage at

http://home.insightbb.com/~aunwin/index.htm

I don't understand how you claim that all three elements in your
cluster are resonant given that the drive impedance of two of them is
highly reactive.

Your antenna appears to be a fairly mediocre weird yagi.

You can continue to write science fiction about how radiation is
caused by particles ejected from the conducting material and their
curling action about the element, or whatever it is you're talking
about. Have fun. Sorry if my pseudo-self is going to keep pseudo-
thinking that your antenna is more or less a pseudo-two-element yagi.

Dan

The structure, as shown on the web site, has the following parameters:

Gain at 10 deg. elevation -- 10.2 dBi
F/B ratio -- 5.5 dB
Input impedance -- 126 + j 171.

Ball park guess 2 element beam at the same elevation.
Driven element 28", reflector, 29.5", and element spacing 7".
Elements 0.2" dia. aluminum:

Gain at 10 deg. elevation -- 12.3 dBi
F/B ratio -- 12 dB
Input impedance -- 35 + j 38

All above simulations using NEC above a perfectly conducting ground.

Regards,

Frank

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

"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)

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

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

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

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

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