After several months of trying to educate the masses with respect to
Gaussian arrays and their advantages I see that my present aproach
is not succeding in the face of vicious derision from the experts.
So may I suggest that you look at the other side of the coin and
consider why
computor programs in universal use when allowed, will provide Gaussian
arrays.?
If one is willing to accept the notion of garbage in garbage out then
by all means
remove this farication from the computor programs. However , in the
interests
of science would it not be advisable to examine the reasons for these
so
called fabrications so that the spread of such erronious radiation
arrays is
stopped before the advantages are recognised?
As an Englishman I am going to keep this subject in the public eye
until events allow me to unlock these bulldog jaws, I certainly am not
going
to run away in the face of derision.
Art

On 8 Mar 2007 10:37:21 -0800, "art" wrote:

However , in the
interests
of science would it not be advisable to examine the reasons for these
so
called fabrications so that the spread of such erronious radiation
arrays is
stopped before the advantages are recognised?

Hi Art,

Does this cover your web page, using NEC, to describe a 6 inch element
as being resonant at 200 MHz?

No one needs
1. A text book;
2. NEC;
3. A computer;
4. A new theory
to simply put RF to that element and realize: it just ain't so.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 8 Mar, 11:03, Richard Clark wrote:
On 8 Mar 2007 10:37:21 -0800, "art" wrote:

However , in the
interests
of science would it not be advisable to examine the reasons for these
so
called fabrications so that the spread of such erronious radiation
arrays is
stopped before the advantages are recognised?

Hi Art,

Does this cover your web page, using NEC, to describe a 6 inch element
as being resonant at 200 MHz?

No one needs
1. A text book;
2. NEC;
3. A computer;
4. A new theory
to simply put RF to that element and realize: it just ain't so.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 8 Mar 2007 11:10:45 -0800, "art" wrote:

basically nothing

Hi Art,

If you cannot explain why your work fails at the bench, I'm afraid you
are not going to find anyone to read theories with equal flaws.

Let's look at another difficult question:

You write at your web page that you have 3 elements with coordinates:
#1
-1.8421 3.0697 83.6493 -25.311 25.3112 82.7236

#2
-1.7146 7.636 79.6994 -15.45145 37.578 79.6994

#3
4.3792 2.528931 81.4985 3.9279 23.645 83.6096

You (not anyone else) show two of these as being orthogonal to the X
axis. A simple review of the numbers does not requi
1. A text book;
2. NEC;
3. A computer;
4. A new theory
to show that none of them are.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:18:23 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

#1
-1.8421 3.0697 83.6493 -25.311 25.3112 82.7236

Hi Art,

Anticipating you can't answer the last one about mechanical
orientation, let's examine your proficiency in using a computor with
this one element which in your words displays:
"Drive impedance of Element #1 equals
30.7 + j 0.1 ohms,
SWR = 1.01"

If we skip the modeling, once again simple bench work, not:
1. A text book;
2. NEC;
3. A computer;
4. A new theory
would reveal a SWR of 1.01 for a drive Z of 31 Ohms is a most curious
departure from convention - or did Gauss mandate a 31 Ohm system (you
certainly don't put this into your words).

The next error in light of this is (your words):
"Drive impedance of Element #2 equals
1121 + j 1554 ohms,
SWR = 3.65"

3.65:1 really? In the same 31 Ohm system? A new one for each
element? We need only look at the third example with nearly the same
mismatch, but a wildly different drive impedance to wonder from your
words that:
"Drive impedance of Element #3 equals
16.2 - j 22.4 ohms,
SWR = 3.64"

3.64:1 really? In what system are all these elements residing?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mar 8, 11:37 am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:18:23 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote

As I see it there are three items in question,(1) Gauss's law (2) Nec
programs
(3)Gaussian arrays. Demolish the claim for the addition of time to
Gauss's law and the remaining questions fall away.
Therefore the question is, can Gauss's law be altered to accommodate
the addition of time in relation to antenna's?.

Regards Derek

On Mar 8, 12:37 pm, "art" wrote:

As an Englishman I am going to keep this subject in the public eye
until events allow me to unlock these bulldog jaws, I certainly am not
going
to run away in the face of derision.
Art


Jibber jabber, jibber jabber... Why don't you just build one and test
it..
Why do you need to prove anything to us? Myself, I have no interest
in such an antenna, and almost surely never will. So unless you build
one and test it, it's unlikely to ever get done around these parts.
Well, unless you can talk some poor sucker into doing the work for
you.
This is starting to remind me of an old TV show called "Peyton
Place"..
Maybe it's time for a new 2007 version called "Gaussian Place"...
In the new updated program, all cats have mittens.
MK