Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

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

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

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. . .

What's an "electromechanical field"? An electrical field acted upon by
the Coriolis effect?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

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

Art
Art

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

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 -

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

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

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On Feb 21, 2:03 pm, "art" wrote:
Any body can go thru the archives of a few weeks ago
to find out who they were.
Regards
Art Unwin

My cat has mittens.
MK

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

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

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

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

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "art" wrote:


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...

[snip]

At least Roy is going to wait a while. You on the other hand....

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 22 Feb, 06:27, "Wes" wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "art" wrote:



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...

[snip]

At least Roy is going to wait a while. You on the other hand....

Possibly true as my health is not that good but you never know what
can happen at the next hamfest. I know americans tell the world that
if you are not with us then you are against us
and that shows O so true with this newsgroup. It wasn't that long ago
that you all lined up like lemmings castigating the idea of static
fields and it connection to electomagnetic fields and yes insulting
names flew. You ask to be given stuff as a right and when you succeed
the atmospere gets even worse. I remember about ten years ago that Roy
stated himself as the pervayer of truth with respect to ham radio and
in the following decade many real experts have come and gone because
of intolerance on this newsgroup such there is now just one or two
left and where we lost out on a lot of experience purely because of
Roy and others.
Now you have inrefutable truth laid out in front of you regarding the
Gaussian field which leads to a new breed of antennas especially with
regard to polarities outside the horizontal and vertical polarities
which consumes hams.
The facts are now out with respect to Gaussian antennas and you can't
possibly suppress it by portraying only yourselves as the pervayors of
truth,. Industry desires more compact antennas,
industry demands antennas where fields are variable. Industry demands
antennas where there is purity of polarity and diversity and no amount
of decrying by hams are going to deny this entrance to antenna theory.
I know many take the hint from Roy and a couple of others as to when
to turn it on and many are willing to follow but Gaussian antennas
have arrived and tho the future may not be known Roy's denials of the
validity just doesn't stand up in the world outside this very small
group. You can't halt the advance of science by saying THAT YOU ARE
WITH AMERICA OR AGAINST US by purely diminishing the number of true
experts in this group to make yourself more dominant.Yess I am
vulnerable to many because of poor health but I may yet outlast Roy
in this world that changes so rapidly!
Honis soir que maly pence( Royal Army Ordinance Corp of the U.K)

Art

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

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 23 Feb, 15:07, 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.
Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

art wrote:



Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.

You really need to learn how to communicate your ideas. You don't know or
won't say the author or the title of the book, or you would just have us
guess.


Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have

that should be "had", the page is Gone.

expoused on my page.



He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 23 Feb, 19:15, craigm wrote:
art wrote:

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.

You really need to learn how to communicate your ideas. You don't know or
won't say the author or the title of the book, or you would just have us
guess.

Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have

that should be "had", the page is Gone.



expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am getting a bit tired of your demeanior to me, try being more
polite if you need assistance.
go to Google and put in the key words I gave you
ie Rutgers fields waves, now you know what to do in the future
instead of bitching
Art

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

art wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:07, Gene Fuller wrote:


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

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.
Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art


Art,

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

AAALLLLLL antennas, regardless of structure, material, efficiency,
resonance, location, or phase of the moon are Gaussian. Gauss' Law is an
integral part of classical electromagnetics. Nothing can escape.

No, I do not have an engineering degree, but I do have several degrees
in physics. Unfortunately, I am significantly dumber than a rock, so I
have no more to offer in this thread.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 23 Feb, 20:05, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:07, Gene Fuller wrote:

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

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.
Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art

Art,

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

AAALLLLLL antennas, regardless of structure, material, efficiency,
resonance, location, or phase of the moon are Gaussian. Gauss' Law is an
integral part of classical electromagnetics. Nothing can escape.

No, I do not have an engineering degree, but I do have several degrees
in physics. Unfortunately, I am significantly dumber than a rock, so I
have no more to offer in this thread.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Watch out Gene, I stated that Statics was a subset of electromagnetics
and I caught hell from everybody. Seems like things are infectional
around here.The book that I proferred would really be to much for a
lot of people no matter how much they over estimate their abilities
especially when they try to debate reasons why the writer is incorrect!
When I asked for academic help regarding research I got an Email from
a guy at the space antenna agency who referred me to chapter 1 and 21.
I never dreamt that I would find an actual array with all elements
resonant being discussed

Art

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 23 Feb 2007 20:35:50 -0800, "art" wrote:

I never dreamt that I would find an actual array with all elements
resonant being discussed

You don't have to dream, we've discussed many multi resonant arrays.
I've pointed you to a site with 100's of them, and Roy is the author
on the best of them, four squares. It's quite conventional discussion
here actually, but few coming to this group know how to manage the
mutual coupling (something that Gauss wrote about). The many
differences between Roy's writing and yours is that he supplies
accurate design details, complete models, references, coupling
parameters, and characteristics, all that are repeatedly VERIFIED.

There is only one question that remains, really, what is IT that you
are claiming?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.

You really need to learn how to communicate your ideas. You don't know or
won't say the author or the title of the book, or you would just have us
guess.


Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have

Could this be the book?

http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 23 Feb, 20:05, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:07, Gene Fuller wrote:

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

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.
Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art

Art,

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

AAALLLLLL antennas, regardless of structure, material, efficiency,
resonance, location, or phase of the moon are Gaussian. Gauss' Law is an
integral part of classical electromagnetics. Nothing can escape.

No, I do not have an engineering degree, but I do have several degrees
in physics. Unfortunately, I am significantly dumber than a rock, so I
have no more to offer in this thread.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Watch out Gene, I stated that Statics was a subset of electromagnetics
and I caught hell from everybody. Seems like things are infectional
around here.The book that I proferred would really be to much for a
lot of people no matter how much they over estimate their abilities
especially when they try to debate reasons why the writer is incorrect!
When I asked for academic help regarding research I got an Email from
a guy at the space antenna agency who referred me to chapter 1 and 21.
I never dreamt that I would find an actual array with all elements
resonant being discussed

Art


STATICS, I assume you man electrostatics is not a subset of magnetism but in
a lot a lot of ways an analogy can bee drawn between the two. For example
the attractive force betwen to charged particles is inversely proportional
to the square of the distance, this is also true for magnetic particles but
they really have nothing to do with each other.. Art sometimes I think you
are confusing what Gauss wrote about statistics with statics. He did a lot
more work with mathmatics including statistics than he ever did with
magnatism. Your references to Gaussian field further strengthens my belief
since Gausian field refers to a statistical distribution also known as a
Guassian distibution, aka normal distribution.

Jimmie

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 24 Feb, 10:13, "Frank's"
wrote:
Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.

You really need to learn how to communicate your ideas. You don't know or
won't say the author or the title of the book, or you would just have us
guess.

Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have

Could this be the book?

http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yup.
The arrays are in simplistic form but will allow for free movement of
individual thought in line with my proposal.
Actually it is quite a good book on the subject of antennas but over
and above the level of the ARRL publications which will make it
frightening to most visitors to this newsgroup
Art

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:52:56 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

There is only one question that remains, really, what is IT that you
are claiming?

Hmm, killer question no doubt. A Broadway producer once sagely noted
that if you cannot express your idea on the back of business card, you
don't really have much to offer.

If we are to rummage through the dusty attic of rambling thoughts:
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.

Would it be galling, Art, for you to be the last to know that Roy has
been publishing Gaussian antennas (not his term, thankfully) for years
and distributed freely with every copy of his modeling software? Would
it be unsettling to realize that Hams have been building them for
decades? Would you be stunned to learn that their theory has been
explained since Marconi was only operating at 5WPM?

Surprised? Consult the Radiotelegraphy chapter of "Standard Handbook
for Electrical Engineers," 1907-1917. Pay attention to the design
called "Bellini-Tosi directive antenna."
"By placing the moving coil in the proper position
signals can be sent in any plane desired."

This was at least 20 years before Yagi and Uda.

An online reference to them 101 years ago:
http://souvenirs-de-mer.blogdns.net/article64.html
or from 102 years ago:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a
dating back 107 years ago:
http://dspt.club.fr/Applications.htm

This topic is so old it creaks everytime the casket is robbed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 24 Feb, 11:00, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 23 Feb, 20:05, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:07, Gene Fuller wrote:

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

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.
Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art

Art,

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

AAALLLLLL antennas, regardless of structure, material, efficiency,
resonance, location, or phase of the moon are Gaussian. Gauss' Law is an
integral part of classical electromagnetics. Nothing can escape.

No, I do not have an engineering degree, but I do have several degrees
in physics. Unfortunately, I am significantly dumber than a rock, so I
have no more to offer in this thread.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Watch out Gene, I stated that Statics was a subset of electromagnetics
and I caught hell from everybody. Seems like things are infectional
around here.The book that I proferred would really be to much for a
lot of people no matter how much they over estimate their abilities
especially when they try to debate reasons why the writer is incorrect!
When I asked for academic help regarding research I got an Email from
a guy at the space antenna agency who referred me to chapter 1 and 21.
I never dreamt that I would find an actual array with all elements
resonant being discussed

Art

STATICS, I assume you man electrostatics is not a subset of magnetism but in
a lot a lot of ways an analogy can bee drawn between the two. For example
the attractive force betwen to charged particles is inversely proportional
to the square of the distance, this is also true for magnetic particles but
they really have nothing to do with each other.. Art sometimes I think you
are confusing what Gauss wrote about statistics with statics. He did a lot
more work with mathmatics including statistics than he ever did with
magnatism. Your references to Gaussian field further strengthens my belief
since Gausian field refers to a statistical distribution also known as a
Guassian distibution, aka normal distribution.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is no doubt that Gauss was more interested in mathematics
than electromagnetism since he was a mathematician and where he is
most known. But mathematics has been the basis for exploration of our
universe in that both are bound by equilibrium ( see George Greens
work that was later parlayed as the works of other mathematicians
centuries later)and it is in matters in equilibrium that most of the
masters opened up the secrets of nature. Because laws are based on
mathematics they can flow easily from subject to subject as opposed to
theorems. Another thing that Gauss found was the mathematics so
usefull in
todays communication fields i.e. cell communications and the Gauss
name has been attached to antenna arrays purely by virtue of the use
of mathematics derived from more than a century ago and yet Gauss can
not be faulted by not refering to cell comunications as well as not
being faulted to his lack of reference to antennas or yagis. The
important point that one must draw from the masters is that
mathematics is all about equilibrium which is also the basic law of
nature and if one doesnt understand the underpinnings of equilibrium
then one cannot build on what the masters have given us
Art

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 24 Feb, 10:13, "Frank's"
wrote:
Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.

You really need to learn how to communicate your ideas. You don't know
or
won't say the author or the title of the book, or you would just have
us
guess.

Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have

Could this be the book?

http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yup.
The arrays are in simplistic form but will allow for free movement of
individual thought in line with my proposal.
Actually it is quite a good book on the subject of antennas but over
and above the level of the ARRL publications which will make it
frightening to most visitors to this newsgroup
Art

looks like a relatively straight forward review of general electromagnetics
and antennas to me. just which chapter do you think shows your type of
antenna?? and why?

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 24 Feb, 11:00, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 23 Feb, 20:05, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:07, Gene Fuller wrote:

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

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.
Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art

Art,

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

AAALLLLLL antennas, regardless of structure, material, efficiency,
resonance, location, or phase of the moon are Gaussian. Gauss' Law is an
integral part of classical electromagnetics. Nothing can escape.

No, I do not have an engineering degree, but I do have several degrees
in physics. Unfortunately, I am significantly dumber than a rock, so I
have no more to offer in this thread.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Watch out Gene, I stated that Statics was a subset of electromagnetics
and I caught hell from everybody. Seems like things are infectional
around here.The book that I proferred would really be to much for a
lot of people no matter how much they over estimate their abilities
especially when they try to debate reasons why the writer is incorrect!
When I asked for academic help regarding research I got an Email from
a guy at the space antenna agency who referred me to chapter 1 and 21.
I never dreamt that I would find an actual array with all elements
resonant being discussed

Art

STATICS, I assume you man electrostatics is not a subset of magnetism but in
a lot a lot of ways an analogy can bee drawn between the two. For example
the attractive force betwen to charged particles is inversely proportional
to the square of the distance, this is also true for magnetic particles but
they really have nothing to do with each other.

Whoooa kind sir where is that written? Thats like saying kinetic
energy is not related to potential energy. Where on earth did that
saying come from? I'll be on the net for a while if you want to debate
that. I cleared all the snow off my driveway and the following day i
went down on ice.Now my leg is wrapped up straight and I am on
crutches. Make the rest of my day happy
Art












.. Art sometimes I think you
are confusing what Gauss wrote about statistics with statics. He did a lot
more work with mathmatics including statistics than he ever did with
magnatism. Your references to Gaussian field further strengthens my belief
since Gausian field refers to a statistical distribution also known as a
Guassian distibution, aka normal distribution.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On 24 Feb, 12:42, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...



On 24 Feb, 10:13, "Frank's"
wrote:
Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.

You really need to learn how to communicate your ideas. You don't know
or
won't say the author or the title of the book, or you would just have
us
guess.

Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have

Could this be the book?

http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yup.
The arrays are in simplistic form but will allow for free movement of
individual thought in line with my proposal.
Actually it is quite a good book on the subject of antennas but over
and above the level of the ARRL publications which will make it
frightening to most visitors to this newsgroup
Art

looks like a relatively straight forward review of general electromagnetics
and antennas to me. just which chapter do you think shows your type of
antenna?? and why?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, I do not work for you and I am not looking for employment
from you. Sometimes the World is tough and you have to do things for
yourself even if you are doing only what others have done before you
and got away with

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 24 Feb, 12:42, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...



On 24 Feb, 10:13, "Frank's"
wrote:
Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you
have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point
Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields
and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University.
In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.

You really need to learn how to communicate your ideas. You don't
know
or
won't say the author or the title of the book, or you would just
have
us
guess.

Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice
that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have

Could this be the book?

http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yup.
The arrays are in simplistic form but will allow for free movement of
individual thought in line with my proposal.
Actually it is quite a good book on the subject of antennas but over
and above the level of the ARRL publications which will make it
frightening to most visitors to this newsgroup
Art

looks like a relatively straight forward review of general
electromagnetics
and antennas to me. just which chapter do you think shows your type of
antenna?? and why?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, I do not work for you and I am not looking for employment
from you. Sometimes the World is tough and you have to do things for
yourself even if you are doing only what others have done before you
and got away with

say what?

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:57:38 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

David, I do not work for you and I am not looking for employment
from you. Sometimes the World is tough and you have to do things for
yourself even if you are doing only what others have done before you
and got away with

say what?

Gauss, forgive them for they know not what they've done.

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Gauss, forgive them for they know not what they've done.

May the lines of force be with them ...

JS

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 24 Feb, 11:00, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 23 Feb, 20:05, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:07, Gene Fuller wrote:

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

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point
Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields
and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University.
In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.
Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice
that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide
all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with
fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save
your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert
any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art

Art,

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

AAALLLLLL antennas, regardless of structure, material, efficiency,
resonance, location, or phase of the moon are Gaussian. Gauss' Law is
an
integral part of classical electromagnetics. Nothing can escape.

No, I do not have an engineering degree, but I do have several degrees
in physics. Unfortunately, I am significantly dumber than a rock, so I
have no more to offer in this thread.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Watch out Gene, I stated that Statics was a subset of electromagnetics
and I caught hell from everybody. Seems like things are infectional
around here.The book that I proferred would really be to much for a
lot of people no matter how much they over estimate their abilities
especially when they try to debate reasons why the writer is incorrect!
When I asked for academic help regarding research I got an Email from
a guy at the space antenna agency who referred me to chapter 1 and 21.
I never dreamt that I would find an actual array with all elements
resonant being discussed

Art

STATICS, I assume you man electrostatics is not a subset of magnetism but
in
a lot a lot of ways an analogy can bee drawn between the two. For example
the attractive force betwen to charged particles is inversely
proportional
to the square of the distance, this is also true for magnetic particles
but
they really have nothing to do with each other.

Whoooa kind sir where is that written? Thats like saying kinetic
energy is not related to potential energy. Where on earth did that
saying come from? I'll be on the net for a while if you want to debate
that. I cleared all the snow off my driveway and the following day i
went down on ice.Now my leg is wrapped up straight and I am on
crutches. Make the rest of my day happy
Art












. Art sometimes I think you
are confusing what Gauss wrote about statistics with statics. He did a
lot
more work with mathmatics including statistics than he ever did with
magnatism. Your references to Gaussian field further strengthens my
belief
since Gausian field refers to a statistical distribution also known as a
Guassian distibution, aka normal distribution.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I dont work for yoU AND HAVE NO ATTENTION OF WORKING FOR YOU CANT YOU GO
OUT AND FIND SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On Feb 23, 7:15 pm, craigm wrote:
art wrote:

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.

You really need to learn how to communicate your ideas. You don't know or
won't say the author or the title of the book, or you would just have us
guess.

Sophocles Orfanidis
"Electromagnetic Waves and Antennas"
http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/

Quite a handy resource.

Gaussian antenna aunwin
 

On Feb 23, 11:35 pm, "art" wrote:
On 23 Feb, 20:05, Gene Fuller wrote:





art wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:07, Gene Fuller wrote:

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

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.
Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art

Art,

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

AAALLLLLL antennas, regardless of structure, material, efficiency,
resonance, location, or phase of the moon are Gaussian. Gauss' Law is an
integral part of classical electromagnetics. Nothing can escape.

No, I do not have an engineering degree, but I do have several degrees
in physics. Unfortunately, I am significantly dumber than a rock, so I
have no more to offer in this thread.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Watch out Gene, I stated that Statics was a subset of electromagnetics
and I caught hell from everybody. Seems like things are infectional
around here.The book that I proferred would really be to much for a
lot of people no matter how much they over estimate their abilities
especially when they try to debate reasons why the writer is incorrect!
When I asked for academic help regarding research I got an Email from
a guy at the space antenna agency who referred me to chapter 1 and 21.
I never dreamt that I would find an actual array with all elements
resonant being discussed

Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

no need to be surprised at having an antenna with elements that are
all phased. I doubt if ther is anyone on the news group that doesnt
know that a Yagi Uda antenna doesnt represent some kind of comprimise
to an antenna with all of the elements feed. No one has ever said
otherwise although you have claimed they have.
The problem with having all the elements feed is that it is
impractical to control power distribution and phasing when changing
frequencies. The Yagi Uda overcomes this problem at a slight cost in
gain. Your idea of an antenna with multiple fed resonant elements is a
giant step backwards to a day when high gain steerable antennas were
impractical most of the hams who didnt have the money or the real
estate for huge arrays

Antenna with multiple resonant element all being fed is very common in
RADAR and space communication, you can achive very high gains in this
manner just as you have stated. It is also very expensive, has narrow
bandwidth and is a mechanical nightmare. NASA, AM BCB, commercial
shortwave stations and various other agencies and private companies
sometimes have a need for this type of antenna and they they have the
money to build them, few hams do. The Yagi Uda antenna just fills a
practical niche in antenna requirements. No ham I know of ever thought
the Yagi antenna was the end-all of antennas as you have claimed.
While it may not have the highest gain it certainly is the most
practical antenna for a lot of us.

Jimmie