Congratulations Art, you are now in my killfile.
Don't bother responding - I won't see your posts anymore.

There's enough negativity in the world, I don't need it in an antenna
newsgroup. Man oh Man, anyone who slams Roy.......

73 forever,

Rick K2XT

On 2 Mar, 08:30, (Rick) wrote:
Congratulations Art, you are now in my killfile.
Don't bother responding - I won't see your posts anymore.

There's enough negativity in the world, I don't need it in an antenna
newsgroup. Man oh Man, anyone who slams Roy.......

73 forever,

Rick K2XT

And why not? I refer you to the thread I initiated on gaussian
antennas where Roy was the first to respond
What goes around comes around
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
"I refer you to the thread I initiated on gaussian antennas where Roy
was the first to respond."

My dictionary says:
"Gauss`s theorem----The summation of the normal component of the
electric displacement over any closed surface is equal to the electric
charge within the surface."

James Clerk Maxwell studied the work of others such as Ampere and Gauss
to develop his equations defining the relationships between fields,
charges, and currents. Maxwell found that dislacement current should
produce radiation the same as conduction current. So he made a
correction to Ampere`s Circuital Law.

Art is right. Discovery is a continuous process. Maxwell`s equations
have now been adjusted for curved space and time.

But, I`ve searched in vain for "gaussian antennas". If Art has an
invention, maybe he will explain.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 2 Mar, 14:45, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

"I refer you to the thread I initiated on gaussian antennas where Roy
was the first to respond."

My dictionary says:
"Gauss`s theorem----The summation of the normal component of the
electric displacement over any closed surface is equal to the electric
charge within the surface."

James Clerk Maxwell studied the work of others such as Ampere and Gauss
to develop his equations defining the relationships between fields,
charges, and currents. Maxwell found that dislacement current should
produce radiation the same as conduction current. So he made a
correction to Ampere`s Circuital Law.

Art is right. Discovery is a continuous process. Maxwell`s equations
have now been adjusted for curved space and time.

But, I`ve searched in vain for "gaussian antennas". If Art has an
invention, maybe he will explain.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

O.K. you haven't been around for a while so I will give you the
benefit of the doubt in that you are not aware of my new series of
antennas that gives the yagi a run for its money and infact meets the
needs of a lot of industries. Many have asked for a mathematical
aproach accepting no other well that is their problem.
I am going back to first principles which most of the masters did
without forsaking equilibrium and the mathematical conformity that
must be kept. So if you have an open mind, pen and paper I will start.

Anybody who is aware of Gauss can think back to the enclosed
ballon or what have you where there is a pill box at one end.
Hopefully you have drawn that. Now on the pill box you should be able
to draw say three static images Hopefully you have done that O.K. Now
some of those who are not familiar with things will get lost at this
time. For the educated you can now modify the static field that you
have drawn and expand it by making it a Conservative field where
theoretical vectors are added to each static partical bearing very
much in mind that all vectors are theoretical and all have "zero"
length.
O.K. take a moment and look at what you have drawn which is a rfield
of projected static particles with theoretical vectors on them and
nothing to show inside the enclosed arbitary border from whence they
came ie we did not show where the static particles came from.
Now when you applied vectors to the static particles you added two
each at right angles to each other, Why? Because for the vectors to
represent a radiating array in any form it must be in all three
cartesian directions.
At this time we will project from each static particles a dotted line
to the end of a element length such that a cluster of elements now
show where the static particals came from.
Hopefully you are still with me.
Gaussian law is o.k. as far as it goes but when deevising antenna
arrays we need something more i.e the addition of time.

So we pull out the written version of gausses static law and enlarge
it to account for a time additive. And we can do this by adding the
metric of a space in time to the original statement bearing in mind
that to do so equilibrium must be maintained.
Dinner is here will resume in half an hour. Take time to think about
what I have discussed so far but without pre descisions so that you
can follow the flow better later.
Art

On 2 Mar, 15:25, "art" wrote:
On 2 Mar, 14:45, (Richard Harrison) wrote:





Art Unwin wrote:

"I refer you to the thread I initiated on gaussian antennas where Roy
was the first to respond."
snip

I left it where I placed emphasis on equilibrium which if you read the
stories of the masters was a corner stone of mathematics.
Earlier when I asked for vectors to be placed on the conservative
field some of the more knoweledgable went a bit furthur than I asked
and placed a dot in the middle of the static particles or a plus sign
both of which denotes the direction of current just like you would see
by looking at the ends of an arrow i.e. a point says the current is
moving towards you if, if, time was involved. Since the new law
containing time is something new we have to be sure that we still have
maintained equilibrium which means that the current in each element
must reverse direction at the same time which also states that each
element is resonant in situ where it may be close to or at an angle to
other elements in the array and ofcourse the array in its entirety
must also be resonant.
It can be thus seen that before current flows such the arbitary border
is breached which is the comencement of radiation that if there were
enough elements within the closed border we could in fact have two
vectors pointing to the front instead of just one with the yagi. In
adition since all elements are resonant tho not necessarily of the
same length reactance in the cluster gyrated towards zero which leads
to efficiency.
So we can analyse or deduce that the border breaches momentarily
when current direction changes and quiqckly close to sustain
equilibrium.
Now the above picture encompases the action that occurs in a space of
time in accordance with the origianal gaussian law. QED ?
Well we have a story only so far. So I placed a array on my computor
where the elements were parallel but at different levels in height
where all elements were resonant to calculate the field.
This was sent to another person, a PE,to check the results against
another program i.e.nec 4 where it faired pretty well against a yagi.
Next with a program that has some self determination by the use of
variables was given the task to provide the best antenna at a certain
frequency to find the best arrangement for a particular desirable
which it did. But it was not a yagi but what I called a Gaussian array
where all elements
are variable in length angle ,position and ofcourse resonant.
With more time passing by it was also found that in some cases one
element could be slightly detuned to provide an imperfection in the
border to predetermine the breach point. Late rit was found
that elemements parallel or at right angles to the earths surface
is not a given, not surprisingly because the vector resultant is
always offset from those angles. There is more to investigate and I
would like Arie to repeat ny tests on his programs because it is free
and thus no reason to mislead.
gentlemen I have typed this quickly and I know I have mispelled or
misarranged words and all that but please learn to live with it
for a while and I will be happy to answer any questions or doubts as
long as thing dont get nasty like being called a complete idiot
Art

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
..
gentlemen I have typed this quickly and I know I have mispelled or
misarranged words and all that but please learn to live with it
for a while and I will be happy to answer any questions or doubts as
long as thing dont get nasty like being called a complete idiot
Art

Congratulations, Art!
According to my computor(sic), you have taken over sole possession
of third place in number of posts on the RRAA newsgroup.Number
one is, of course, Fractenna. Frack's total will never be matched, so
second or third place is quite honorable. While we all miss Chip,
it's better that you and he are not on stage at the same time. He would
learn that your newly discovered Gaussian Array is nothing more than
a self-similar array, falling under his broad portfolio of Fractal Patents.
That fact would upset his equilibrium, thus ensuring a flurry of threatened
lawsuits.
Regardless, congratulations are in order for your accomplishment, as
the educational aspect is second only to the entertainment value.

Mike W5CHR
Memphis, Tenn.

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin wrote:
"I refer you to the thread I initiated on gaussian antennas where Roy
was the first to respond."

My dictionary says:
"Gauss`s theorem----The summation of the normal component of the
electric displacement over any closed surface is equal to the electric
charge within the surface."

James Clerk Maxwell studied the work of others such as Ampere and Gauss
to develop his equations defining the relationships between fields,
charges, and currents. Maxwell found that dislacement current should
produce radiation the same as conduction current. So he made a
correction to Ampere`s Circuital Law.

Art is right. Discovery is a continuous process. Maxwell`s equations
have now been adjusted for curved space and time.

But, I`ve searched in vain for "gaussian antennas". If Art has an
invention, maybe he will explain.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Richard, I did find a number of references to Gaussian antennas on the
web. i.e.
http://www.flann.com/Products_Home/A.../gaussian.html
The only conclusion I can make is that the radiation pattern appears
to be a Gaussian curve. This does not seem to be related to Art's
postings.

It appears that Art must be on my blocked senders list, since I found
responses to one of my earlier posts on Google's archives.
I could not entirely follow his rational, but
one of his complaints was "I did not provide the polarity
of the patterns". If he is interested I can provide all these data
from the NEC output file; also the NEC code. I would first
need to know his e-mail address in order to remove it from my blocked
senders list.

Regards.

Frank (VE6CB)

On 2 Mar, 08:30, (Rick) wrote:
Congratulations Art, you are now in my killfile.
Don't bother responding - I won't see your posts anymore.

There's enough negativity in the world, I don't need it in an antenna
newsgroup. Man oh Man, anyone who slams Roy.......

73 forever,

Rick K2XT

Does anybody disagree or agree for that matter that the expansion of
Gaussian static law to electro magnetic law is correct or in error,
Anybody. Why the reluctance to talk about the basics of radiation?
There are no approximations or excuses or fudge factors pencilled in
the analyis. It produces the same results every time when adressed
which is not the same as in NEC program useage. The basic laws of the
masters which is the under pinnings of NEC are specific and to the
point. It is the programer that is introducing the errors and he is
the checker of his own work. If the works of the masters reveal
something new when the formular is used who do we shoot, the
programmer, the masters or wait for somebody else to do some work and
add it to the program based on empirical work?
Well it appears that for the present all choose to ignore it because
lack of knoweledge is not hurting anybody.
Shame oh shame
Art XG

On 5 Mar 2007 12:53:23 -0800, "art" wrote:

It produces the same results every time when adressed
which is not the same as in NEC program useage.

Hi Art,

Two things wrong with this statement:
1. You have no same results;
2. You have no NEC results.

There are no approximations or excuses or fudge factors pencilled in
the analyis.

You refuse to discuss the obvious errors of:
1. Scale (explain how 6 inch elements resonate at 200 MHz);
2. Elements described as orthogonal to an axis (they are not);
3. Any number of gain claims through software you challenge as
inaccurate;
4. Ignoring historical work that has preceded you.

Shame oh shame
Congratulations! A comment like that, would probably get you
kill-filed from the new moderated group - which makes you a troglodyte
like the rest of us. ;-)

Have you though of cleaning up your act and doing a dog and pony show
for them?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 5 Mar, 16:24, Richard Clark wrote:
On 5 Mar 2007 12:53:23 -0800, "art" wrote:

It produces the same results every time when adressed
which is not the same as in NEC program useage.

Hi Art,

Two things wrong with this statement:
1. You have no same results;
2. You have no NEC results.

There are no approximations or excuses or fudge factors pencilled in
the analyis.

You refuse to discuss the obvious errors of:
1. Scale (explain how 6 inch elements resonate at 200 MHz);
2. Elements described as orthogonal to an axis (they are not);
3. Any number of gain claims through software you challenge as
inaccurate;
4. Ignoring historical work that has preceded you.

Shame oh shame

Congratulations! A comment like that, would probably get you
kill-filed from the new moderated group - which makes you a troglodyte
like the rest of us. ;-)

Have you though of cleaning up your act and doing a dog and pony show
for them?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC