RadioBanter - Gaussian statics law

Page 4 of 4

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)

- - Gaussian statics law (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/116329-gaussian-statics-law.html)

Richard Clark

April 22nd 07 08:22 AM

Gaussian statics law

On 21 Apr 2007 19:40:35 -0700, art wrote:

However it is my understanding
that at that time he was residing in Italy and was more interested in
other things.

Hi Art,

An Italian by the name of Marconi was interested in exactly those kind
of things. Other Italians by the Bellini and Tosi designed sloping
elements fed by what by description would be called a goniometer. By
adjusting the coupling of coils they could send/receive signals at any
angle. This was all going on nearly 100 years ago.

Coils, Gauss. Sloping elements, clusters. Any angle, through
coupling. Sound familiar?

somebody should come forward and share with all exactly
where this application to antennas was reviewed in print or the IEEE
or equivalent so that we can all benefit from this peer review.

There was no such thing as the IEEE back then. Before the IEEE it was
the IRE. There was no such thing as the IRE back then either. Before
the IRE there were Ham magazines. There was no such thing as Ham
radio back then either. Marconi won the Nobel prize in Physics for
this 98 years ago. His peers were Nobel Laureates. You want
publications? Try the Nobel Lectures, Physics 1901-1921, Elsevier
Publishing Company, Amsterdam. If you can read Italian, then Bellini
and Tosi's work is available there too. English translations abound
on the Internet.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dave	April 22nd 07 12:06 PM

Gaussian statics law

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 19 Apr, 19:41, Richard Clark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 16:26:33 -0700, art wrote:

As far as going with you to review Feynman forget it. If
you can find proof of anything relevent fine it would give a good
starting point as to why antenna engineers declined to pursue the
discovery.

Hi Art,

Feynman merely confirmed the math of 70 years of antenna design before
him. Nothing has altered since 1963, dynamic magnetic fields are
still defined by Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations, and static
magnetic fields are still defined by Gauss' equations. Any discussion
of the "cessation of time" immediately casts all work into Maxwell's
(Heaviside's) math.

Nothing had to be invented because Maxwell (Heaviside) had done the
basic math long before antennas were ever discovered. In fact, about
190 years ago Augustin-Jean Fresnel beat them all to the punch without
a flicker of electricity or magnetism ever entering the picture.

Antenna engineers have been using Fresnel math too. Amateur radio
operators respond to it every time they complain of picket-fencing on
2M. That math is contained in EVERY antenna modeler that offers
radiation characteristics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It was Gauss who started a progression from statics to
electromagnetics by defining a clustered array as being in equilibrium
within a closed surface in his law of statics
Nobody used this law in the design of a electromagnetic array. There
were mathematical
equations in existance that linked statics and electromagnetic
functions in mathematical terms but there was never a clue as to how
to demonstrate it. Only Gauss gave an "at rest" example of such an
array with his law of statics but even he did not continue with his
line of thought with respect to static particles as being at rest on a
radiating array where the condition of equilibrium could be stated. If
Gauss had continued with his line of thought by being aware of
radiation in terms of radio I am quite sure he would have continued
the exercise with the addition of time. However it is my understanding
that at that time he was residing in Italy and was more interested in
other things. I do not recall Gauss, Maxwell and other masters making
a point of using such a cluster as one of maximum efficiency with
respect to radiation. Nor do I recall any mention where scientists
have used such an example in print and either lauding or decrying its
properties in the light that the ratio of elements vs boom length does
not apply and where a Gaussian array was an example of a non scalar
array. I am sure that it is possible after the event that many clever
people played with such arrays and like you decided it wasn't worth
writing about and so forgot about it.
There are also people who never linked the subject of statics with the
subject of antennas
as mentioned on this newsgroup and I don't remember seeing such an
array in Krauss and Jasik or even the ARRL antenna books which to me
is a real puzzle since you apparently have known about the hints that
Gauss supplied for maximum efficiency radiating arrays for many years.
So I think the time has come since I have described the antenna in
detail that somebody should come forward and share with all exactly
where this application to antennas was reviewed in print or the IEEE
or equivalent so that we can all benefit from this peer review.

it probably hasn't been because nobody has bothered to write a reviewable
paper on it... why don't you work on that and get back to us when you get it
through peer review and it gets published.

art	April 22nd 07 02:39 PM

Gaussian statics law

On 22 Apr, 04:06, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 19 Apr, 19:41, Richard Clark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 16:26:33 -0700, art wrote:

As far as going with you to review Feynman forget it. If
you can find proof of anything relevent fine it would give a good
starting point as to why antenna engineers declined to pursue the
discovery.

Hi Art,

Feynman merely confirmed the math of 70 years of antenna design before
him. Nothing has altered since 1963, dynamic magnetic fields are
still defined by Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations, and static
magnetic fields are still defined by Gauss' equations. Any discussion
of the "cessation of time" immediately casts all work into Maxwell's
(Heaviside's) math.

Nothing had to be invented because Maxwell (Heaviside) had done the
basic math long before antennas were ever discovered. In fact, about
190 years ago Augustin-Jean Fresnel beat them all to the punch without
a flicker of electricity or magnetism ever entering the picture.

Antenna engineers have been using Fresnel math too. Amateur radio
operators respond to it every time they complain of picket-fencing on
2M. That math is contained in EVERY antenna modeler that offers
radiation characteristics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It was Gauss who started a progression from statics to
electromagnetics by defining a clustered array as being in equilibrium
within a closed surface in his law of statics
Nobody used this law in the design of a electromagnetic array. There
were mathematical
equations in existance that linked statics and electromagnetic
functions in mathematical terms but there was never a clue as to how
to demonstrate it. Only Gauss gave an "at rest" example of such an
array with his law of statics but even he did not continue with his
line of thought with respect to static particles as being at rest on a
radiating array where the condition of equilibrium could be stated. If
Gauss had continued with his line of thought by being aware of
radiation in terms of radio I am quite sure he would have continued
the exercise with the addition of time. However it is my understanding
that at that time he was residing in Italy and was more interested in
other things. I do not recall Gauss, Maxwell and other masters making
a point of using such a cluster as one of maximum efficiency with
respect to radiation. Nor do I recall any mention where scientists
have used such an example in print and either lauding or decrying its
properties in the light that the ratio of elements vs boom length does
not apply and where a Gaussian array was an example of a non scalar
array. I am sure that it is possible after the event that many clever
people played with such arrays and like you decided it wasn't worth
writing about and so forgot about it.
There are also people who never linked the subject of statics with the
subject of antennas
as mentioned on this newsgroup and I don't remember seeing such an
array in Krauss and Jasik or even the ARRL antenna books which to me
is a real puzzle since you apparently have known about the hints that
Gauss supplied for maximum efficiency radiating arrays for many years.
So I think the time has come since I have described the antenna in
detail that somebody should come forward and share with all exactly
where this application to antennas was reviewed in print or the IEEE
or equivalent so that we can all benefit from this peer review.

it probably hasn't been because nobody has bothered to write a reviewable
paper on it... why don't you work on that and get back to us when you get it
through peer review and it gets published.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No David, if people were aware of it there would be endless books
about it. Think about what this newsgroup has said. If you have a
mathematical equation you cannot add the unit of time to BOTH sides of
that equation! How dumb can you get and these people view themselves
as antenna experts who demand mathematical proof. David my intent is
to expose them for what they are. Look at what Richard stated in
response to my posting, you have to dig a bit and then take a guess at
what he is talking about but he mentions "coupling" as being the meat
of his reply. But most people are aware that if an array is in
equilibrium then there is no coupling ! Coupling with respect to
antennas the subject at hand requires elements to attract or deflect
such it allows for focussing of radiation.Equilibrium is a state where
such actions do not exist. Another person gets irate because the terms
polarity and polarization were used in a single posting regarding
antennas since one of these terms he had a disliking for( I don't know
which one). And then there was that hulla balloo about the
introduction of statics in connection with kinetic and potential
energy as if that was sacrelidge . Then there was that time when all
stated that the Yagi was a most efficient radiator when they pushed
aside the notion that interaction between elements was not a measure
of inefficiency. They also went into denial that a cluster in
equilibrium presented the ultimate in efficiency as coupling did not
exist.And it goes on and on David. And the more they talk the more
they expose themselves for what they are. What I am doing by staying
on subject is laborious to say the least but when posters retrieve all
the writings about potential and kinetic energy by Maxwell that many
ignored including Terman and many others but they knew about all along
will all come out
to the amateur fraternity and they will be exposed. That is my aim in
what I do and when my writings are published it will be there for all
to see that contrary rationilisation by this group is generally a
bunch of hooey by illiterates and the sole reason why accepted experts
in the field of antennas are noticable by their absence.
Art

Dave	April 22nd 07 03:09 PM

Gaussian statics law

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 22 Apr, 04:06, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 19 Apr, 19:41, Richard Clark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 16:26:33 -0700, art wrote:

As far as going with you to review Feynman forget it. If
you can find proof of anything relevent fine it would give a good
starting point as to why antenna engineers declined to pursue the
discovery.

Hi Art,

Feynman merely confirmed the math of 70 years of antenna design before
him. Nothing has altered since 1963, dynamic magnetic fields are
still defined by Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations, and static
magnetic fields are still defined by Gauss' equations. Any discussion
of the "cessation of time" immediately casts all work into Maxwell's
(Heaviside's) math.

Nothing had to be invented because Maxwell (Heaviside) had done the
basic math long before antennas were ever discovered. In fact, about
190 years ago Augustin-Jean Fresnel beat them all to the punch without
a flicker of electricity or magnetism ever entering the picture.

Antenna engineers have been using Fresnel math too. Amateur radio
operators respond to it every time they complain of picket-fencing on
2M. That math is contained in EVERY antenna modeler that offers
radiation characteristics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It was Gauss who started a progression from statics to
electromagnetics by defining a clustered array as being in equilibrium
within a closed surface in his law of statics
Nobody used this law in the design of a electromagnetic array. There
were mathematical
equations in existance that linked statics and electromagnetic
functions in mathematical terms but there was never a clue as to how
to demonstrate it. Only Gauss gave an "at rest" example of such an
array with his law of statics but even he did not continue with his
line of thought with respect to static particles as being at rest on a
radiating array where the condition of equilibrium could be stated. If
Gauss had continued with his line of thought by being aware of
radiation in terms of radio I am quite sure he would have continued
the exercise with the addition of time. However it is my understanding
that at that time he was residing in Italy and was more interested in
other things. I do not recall Gauss, Maxwell and other masters making
a point of using such a cluster as one of maximum efficiency with
respect to radiation. Nor do I recall any mention where scientists
have used such an example in print and either lauding or decrying its
properties in the light that the ratio of elements vs boom length does
not apply and where a Gaussian array was an example of a non scalar
array. I am sure that it is possible after the event that many clever
people played with such arrays and like you decided it wasn't worth
writing about and so forgot about it.
There are also people who never linked the subject of statics with the
subject of antennas
as mentioned on this newsgroup and I don't remember seeing such an
array in Krauss and Jasik or even the ARRL antenna books which to me
is a real puzzle since you apparently have known about the hints that
Gauss supplied for maximum efficiency radiating arrays for many years.
So I think the time has come since I have described the antenna in
detail that somebody should come forward and share with all exactly
where this application to antennas was reviewed in print or the IEEE
or equivalent so that we can all benefit from this peer review.

it probably hasn't been because nobody has bothered to write a reviewable
paper on it... why don't you work on that and get back to us when you get
it
through peer review and it gets published.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No David, if people were aware of it there would be endless books
about it. Think about what this newsgroup has said. If you have a
mathematical equation you cannot add the unit of time to BOTH sides of
that equation! How dumb can you get and these people view themselves
as antenna experts who demand mathematical proof. David my intent is
to expose them for what they are. Look at what Richard stated in
response to my posting, you have to dig a bit and then take a guess at
what he is talking about but he mentions "coupling" as being the meat
of his reply. But most people are aware that if an array is in
equilibrium then there is no coupling ! Coupling with respect to
antennas the subject at hand requires elements to attract or deflect
such it allows for focussing of radiation.Equilibrium is a state where
such actions do not exist. Another person gets irate because the terms
polarity and polarization were used in a single posting regarding
antennas since one of these terms he had a disliking for( I don't know
which one). And then there was that hulla balloo about the
introduction of statics in connection with kinetic and potential
energy as if that was sacrelidge . Then there was that time when all
stated that the Yagi was a most efficient radiator when they pushed
aside the notion that interaction between elements was not a measure
of inefficiency. They also went into denial that a cluster in
equilibrium presented the ultimate in efficiency as coupling did not
exist.And it goes on and on David. And the more they talk the more
they expose themselves for what they are. What I am doing by staying
on subject is laborious to say the least but when posters retrieve all
the writings about potential and kinetic energy by Maxwell that many
ignored including Terman and many others but they knew about all along
will all come out
to the amateur fraternity and they will be exposed. That is my aim in
what I do and when my writings are published it will be there for all
to see that contrary rationilisation by this group is generally a
bunch of hooey by illiterates and the sole reason why accepted experts
in the field of antennas are noticable by their absence.
Art

unfortunately much of engineering requires equations. if you can't write
the equations well enough to explain the concept then you are going to have
a hard time selling it to the engineering community. you may be able to
convince some lay people that you have a new concept, like the EH and other
'new concept' charlatans have, but in the long run it won't fly.

Richard Clark

April 22nd 07 04:02 PM

Gaussian statics law

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:06:53 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

it probably hasn't been because nobody has bothered to write a reviewable
paper on it...

Hi Dave,

As I've already pointed out, this was done a long time ago and is in
the library.

20 years after that work, better designs came down the pike - namely
the Yagi. How many folks are writing "reviewable papers" about that
design? Not many since Isbell some nearly 50 years ago.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

art	April 22nd 07 04:56 PM

Gaussian statics law

On 22 Apr, 07:09, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...

On 22 Apr, 04:06, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

groups.com...

On 19 Apr, 19:41, Richard Clark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 16:26:33 -0700, art wrote:

As far as going with you to review Feynman forget it. If
you can find proof of anything relevent fine it would give a good
starting point as to why antenna engineers declined to pursue the
discovery.

Hi Art,

Feynman merely confirmed the math of 70 years of antenna design before
him. Nothing has altered since 1963, dynamic magnetic fields are
still defined by Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations, and static
magnetic fields are still defined by Gauss' equations. Any discussion
of the "cessation of time" immediately casts all work into Maxwell's
(Heaviside's) math.

Nothing had to be invented because Maxwell (Heaviside) had done the
basic math long before antennas were ever discovered. In fact, about
190 years ago Augustin-Jean Fresnel beat them all to the punch without
a flicker of electricity or magnetism ever entering the picture.

Antenna engineers have been using Fresnel math too. Amateur radio
operators respond to it every time they complain of picket-fencing on
2M. That math is contained in EVERY antenna modeler that offers
radiation characteristics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It was Gauss who started a progression from statics to
electromagnetics by defining a clustered array as being in equilibrium
within a closed surface in his law of statics
Nobody used this law in the design of a electromagnetic array. There
were mathematical
equations in existance that linked statics and electromagnetic
functions in mathematical terms but there was never a clue as to how
to demonstrate it. Only Gauss gave an "at rest" example of such an
array with his law of statics but even he did not continue with his
line of thought with respect to static particles as being at rest on a
radiating array where the condition of equilibrium could be stated. If
Gauss had continued with his line of thought by being aware of
radiation in terms of radio I am quite sure he would have continued
the exercise with the addition of time. However it is my understanding
that at that time he was residing in Italy and was more interested in
other things. I do not recall Gauss, Maxwell and other masters making
a point of using such a cluster as one of maximum efficiency with
respect to radiation. Nor do I recall any mention where scientists
have used such an example in print and either lauding or decrying its
properties in the light that the ratio of elements vs boom length does
not apply and where a Gaussian array was an example of a non scalar
array. I am sure that it is possible after the event that many clever
people played with such arrays and like you decided it wasn't worth
writing about and so forgot about it.
There are also people who never linked the subject of statics with the
subject of antennas
as mentioned on this newsgroup and I don't remember seeing such an
array in Krauss and Jasik or even the ARRL antenna books which to me
is a real puzzle since you apparently have known about the hints that
Gauss supplied for maximum efficiency radiating arrays for many years.
So I think the time has come since I have described the antenna in
detail that somebody should come forward and share with all exactly
where this application to antennas was reviewed in print or the IEEE
or equivalent so that we can all benefit from this peer review.

it probably hasn't been because nobody has bothered to write a reviewable
paper on it... why don't you work on that and get back to us when you get
it
through peer review and it gets published.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No David, if people were aware of it there would be endless books
about it. Think about what this newsgroup has said. If you have a
mathematical equation you cannot add the unit of time to BOTH sides of
that equation! How dumb can you get and these people view themselves
as antenna experts who demand mathematical proof. David my intent is
to expose them for what they are. Look at what Richard stated in
response to my posting, you have to dig a bit and then take a guess at
what he is talking about but he mentions "coupling" as being the meat
of his reply. But most people are aware that if an array is in
equilibrium then there is no coupling ! Coupling with respect to
antennas the subject at hand requires elements to attract or deflect
such it allows for focussing of radiation.Equilibrium is a state where
such actions do not exist. Another person gets irate because the terms
polarity and polarization were used in a single posting regarding
antennas since one of these terms he had a disliking for( I don't know
which one). And then there was that hulla balloo about the
introduction of statics in connection with kinetic and potential
energy as if that was sacrelidge . Then there was that time when all
stated that the Yagi was a most efficient radiator when they pushed
aside the notion that interaction between elements was not a measure
of inefficiency. They also went into denial that a cluster in
equilibrium presented the ultimate in efficiency as coupling did not
exist.And it goes on and on David. And the more they talk the more
they expose themselves for what they are. What I am doing by staying
on subject is laborious to say the least but when posters retrieve all
the writings about potential and kinetic energy by Maxwell that many
ignored including Terman and many others but they knew about all along
will all come out
to the amateur fraternity and they will be exposed. That is my aim in
what I do and when my writings are published it will be there for all
to see that contrary rationilisation by this group is generally a
bunch of hooey by illiterates and the sole reason why accepted experts
in the field of antennas are noticable by their absence.
Art

unfortunately much of engineering requires equations. if you can't write
the equations well enough to explain the concept then you are going to have
a hard time selling it to the engineering community. you may be able to
convince some lay people that you have a new concept, like the EH and other
'new concept' charlatans have, but in the long run it won't fly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The equations were explained quite well by Dr John Davis some time ago
on this newsgroup.
Some even say that they knew about this all along! Some are not
interested in anything only in aurgueing. David this newsgroup is
about antennas and radiation, virtual this orimaginary that is for
people that just want to argue. Just look at the simple dipole where
we cannot accept it being efficient other than at 90 degree multiples.
Engineers look at a vectorial reconstruction of radiation and find
that the resultant vector is not and cannot be inline and parallel to
the radiator itself ,so they decide to ignor the fact and move on to
another subject.
You would think that a group of engineers would be interested in why
in the world would we not be interested in the final vectors
characteristics such as to where it was pointing!
You would also think that engineers would be interested in antenna
design which by not involving interaction such as focussing does not
produce side lobes or provides bandwidth characteristics that are in
synch with each other but no the interest lies more in trying to kill
the messenger where true engineers are trying to build on this
information given and present it in their good time. The fact is that
Maxwell stated many years ago the interconnective aspect and I gave
an extension to Gaussian law that expounds on an array in equilibrium
which shows simplicity at it's best what Maxwell enunciated. Nowhere
is there writings with samples of the simplicity of this arrangement
in the multiplicity of radiation books available
and since the majority are not capable of individual thought that they
have to await the printing of a more modern book which they can point
to for reference. Remember Gausses law was based on static particles
at rest not caring one iota upon the dormant parts on what they are
resting on or part of by describing them being in a state of
equilibrium with a state of potential energy. It is for engineers to
review a transition from potential energy to kinetic energy of these
particles where when time is removed the initial equation still
stands. This I have provided an example which existing antenna
computing programs concurr with. In addition the sample describes the
near field as being a separate entity to its self and where the
radiation field does not begin within the confines of the radiator
itself where coupling interferes with the separation of potential
energy and kinetic energy formation.
Best regards
Art

Richard Harrison

April 22nd 07 07:15 PM

Gaussian statics law

Art Unwin wrote:
"It was Gauss who started a progression from statics*to
eletromagnetics by defining a clustered array as being in equilibrium
within a closed surface in his law of equilibrium.

Clustered array rings a bell! Is clustered array Art`s idea of a
Gaussian antenna?

J.D. Kraus wrote on page 185 of his 3rd edition of "Antennas" (a must
have):

"I delved into a monumental treatise on "Directional Antennas" by George
H. Brown of RCA. Buried deep in the article was, to me, an astonishing
calculation which indicated that parallel linear dipoles with spacings
of 0.125 wavelengths or less had higher gains than customary larger
spacings."

Terman in his 1955 opus gives the caveat, on page 906:

"A characteristic of all close-spaced arrays is that as the ratio of
size to antenna gain is reduced, the radiation resistance also goes
down---. The result is a practical limit to the amount of gain that can
be achieved in a compact antenna system, since as the resistance goes
down the fraction of the total power dissipated in the antenna loss goes
up. The Yagi antenna of Fig. 12-39, and the corner reflector, represent
about the best that can be achieved in a practical way with respect to
directive gain in a compact antenna array."

True today as it was more than 50 years ago.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

art	April 22nd 07 08:35 PM

Gaussian statics law

On 22 Apr, 11:15, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

"It was Gauss who started a progression from statics to
eletromagnetics by defining a clustered array as being in equilibrium
within a closed surface in his law of equilibrium.

Clustered array rings a bell! Is clustered array Art`s idea of a
Gaussian antenna?

Richard you should be able to do better than that! A cluster does not
have to have a dimensional reference such as element spacings, It is a
random arangement of parts, that is any parts, not just radiating
elements. Have you heard about cancer clusters and the like?.

J.D. Kraus wrote on page 185 of his 3rd edition of "Antennas" (a must
have):

"I delved into a monumental treatise on "Directional Antennas" by George
H. Brown of RCA. Buried deep in the article was, to me, an astonishing
calculation which indicated that parallel linear dipoles with spacings
of 0.125 wavelengths or less had higher gains than customary larger
spacings."

And he was incorrect with respect to spacings and parallelism and
maximum gain. His observations were purely within the confines of
radiating arrays with parasitic elements only and has nothing to do
with non parasitic arrays. Again Richard you are taking things out of
context since the arrays refered to were not in equilibrium. Period.
Is it possible he can come back to life and write a third volume so
that he can put into todays perspective what many achieved after his
demise that he knew all about before he died? Or are you implying
that nothing new has been found with respect to antennas after he died
by your own personal experience?

Terman in his 1955 opus gives the caveat, on page 906:

"A characteristic of all close-spaced arrays is that as the ratio of
size to antenna gain is reduced, the radiation resistance also goes
down---. The result is a practical limit to the amount of gain that can
be achieved in a compact antenna system, since as the resistance goes
down the fraction of the total power dissipated in the antenna loss goes
up. The Yagi antenna of Fig. 12-39, and the corner reflector, represent
about the best that can be achieved in a practical way with respect to
directive gain in a compact antenna array."

Again Richard you are taking things out of context! And frankly you
are doing it more in an accelerating fashion when compared to your
age.. Terman is refering to close spaced arrays of the parasitic form,
even mentions corner reflectors. Termans phrase of practical
gain is a term often used in the design of parasitic arrays where
practical versus theoretical cannot be attained. Nowhere does Terman
acknoweledge the name of Maxwell,Lorenz e.t.c. in his writings
completly ignoring their contributions in a measure of self
angrandizement.
If he had acknoweledged the works of Gauss he may well as arrived at
arrays in equilibrium
but he could not or would not acknoweledge the works of the masters,
probably because they were European.
Within the envelope of his personal knoweledge what he said 50 years
ago was and is true to those who deny todays advances of science.You
cannot hold on to verbal tails of yesteryear in an effort to impress
those who are skilled in the present day state of the art. Did Terman
discuss satelittes, wifi, the impact of Einstein with respect to
antennas or potential momentum? Ofcourse not, he was not aware of them
because he was of an older generation and his books contain lot of
stuff that is completely out of date in line with cave mans readings.

True today as it was more than 50 years ago.

It just amazes me how you old timers reach back to their school days
and books used in an effort to elevate their own generation by quoting
old books as the testimony that all is known about antennas. This is
akin to sayingt that by their own experience the teachings of Terman
was all encompasing which they themselves could not improve apon which
is very plausable considering the deteriation of brain power of the
constituent members. If you relied on memory instead of personal
thought in you exam days then it becomes obvious that your
position in scientific life will descend faster than you age. If you
are going to continue quoting the written word it is critical that you
write down what the subject matter is so that you don't forget it and
get confused.
Regards
Art

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Dave	April 22nd 07 09:59 PM

Gaussian statics law

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Remember Gausses law was based on static particles
at rest not caring one iota upon the dormant parts on what they are
resting on or part of by describing them being in a state of
equilibrium with a state of potential energy.

the only antenna with particles at rest is one that isn't transmitting or
receiving... not much use in my opinion.

art	April 22nd 07 10:19 PM

Gaussian statics law

On 22 Apr, 08:02, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:06:53 GMT, "Dave" wrote:
it probably hasn't been because nobody has bothered to write a reviewable
paper on it...

Hi Dave,

As I've already pointed out, this was done a long time ago and is in
the library.

Richard you lie so often that are getting very fluent with your
imagination. I often laugh when you tried to suggest that you put the
Dr straight regarding mathematics. Also when you suggested that you
knew about gaussian antennas long ago but you are a bit confused about
whether you thought you launched the idea yourself or you saw
something written about it but with your flowery writing you have been
unable to communicate its actual origins. I also laugh at your attempt
to apply for a patent! Nothing like the patents written by Edison on
the back of a napkin. You wrote in your normal flowery language so the
examiner would be confused about what you were claiming, and like the
nose of pinochio your patent grew and grew and grew in size the
examiners sent it to Field and Stream thinking it applied in some way
to weed aplications.
Ofcourse it got back to the patent office and as you said it was to
big and volumous to fit into any enclosure the PTO had on hand and as
you said they put in on the floor where it gathered dust because the
examiner couldn't or didn't want to find it. Tell the group what that
patent number was so they can read it for themselves tho you never did
say if a patent was granted and whether the title was clear enough so
it could be placed into the correct category. Richard you are in a
imaginary world when you say you believe, think,know, that a
dissertation on Gaussian arrays has already been written when most
realise when reading your posts you have no idea what the concept is
about in the first place so you will never ever be able to recall the
underpinnings for what you are claiming credit for. So really it will
be no different to the many other things you have said or claimed
because your prose concealed all so succesfully. Richard you are the
Andy Cap of the antenna world and pretty good at it I might say.
Art

snip
Snip

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

art	April 22nd 07 10:25 PM

Gaussian statics law

On 22 Apr, 13:59, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...
Remember Gausses law was based on static particles

at rest not caring one iota upon the dormant parts on what they are
resting on or part of by describing them being in a state of
equilibrium with a state of potential energy.

the only antenna with particles at rest is one that isn't transmitting or
receiving... not much use in my opinion.

Your opinion is noted David. What other quotations of the masters do
you feel should be dissed in your opinion ?
Art

Richard Harrison

April 22nd 07 11:34 PM

Gaussian statics law

Art wrote:
"Again, Richard you are taking things out of context since the arrays
referred to were not in equilibrium.'

I noted no acceleration nor motion. As a firm believer in the
conservation of energy I`m sure that the antenna, on average, received
no more energy than it emitted or conducted away. That is balance or
equilibrium.

Art also wrote:
"Terman was referring to close spaced of the parasitic form, even
mentions corner reflectors."

Yes, and he also mentions the Yagi array. But I believe Terman meant to
say the best antenna gains of the day, for the antenna`s size,
regardless of direct or parasitic drive, were obtained from corner
reflector and Yagi antennas. That hasn`t changed but it certainly may.
But, Kraus, whose invention, the W8JK array, has two dipole elements
spaced 0.125 wavelengths apart and driven 180-degrees out of phase,
certainly has no parasitic element. That was certainly on his mind when
he wrote the comments on page 185 in "Antennas". On the facing page,
184, he diagrams two antennas, the W8JK and a stack of two dipoles which
are driven in-phase, not out-of phase like the W8JK.

Low radiation resistance is a consequence of tight coupling between the
closely-spaced elements. This makes the coupling to the array likely
lossy in making impedance transformations necessary to match the array
to the transmission line. Kraus has some suggestions on how to make
these arrays more compatible with their transmission lines.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Jimmie D

April 22nd 07 11:55 PM

Gaussian statics law

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art wrote:
"Again, Richard you are taking things out of context since the arrays
referred to were not in equilibrium.'

I noted no acceleration nor motion. As a firm believer in the
conservation of energy I`m sure that the antenna, on average, received
no more energy than it emitted or conducted away. That is balance or
equilibrium.

Art also wrote:
"Terman was referring to close spaced of the parasitic form, even
mentions corner reflectors."

Yes, and he also mentions the Yagi array. But I believe Terman meant to
say the best antenna gains of the day, for the antenna`s size,
regardless of direct or parasitic drive, were obtained from corner
reflector and Yagi antennas. That hasn`t changed but it certainly may.
But, Kraus, whose invention, the W8JK array, has two dipole elements
spaced 0.125 wavelengths apart and driven 180-degrees out of phase,
certainly has no parasitic element. That was certainly on his mind when
he wrote the comments on page 185 in "Antennas". On the facing page,
184, he diagrams two antennas, the W8JK and a stack of two dipoles which
are driven in-phase, not out-of phase like the W8JK.

Low radiation resistance is a consequence of tight coupling between the
closely-spaced elements. This makes the coupling to the array likely
lossy in making impedance transformations necessary to match the array
to the transmission line. Kraus has some suggestions on how to make
these arrays more compatible with their transmission lines.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I f this were a hospital you couldnt distinguish the doctors from the
patients.. LMAO

Jimmie

art	April 23rd 07 12:34 AM

Gaussian statics law

On 22 Apr, 15:34, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Again, Richard you are taking things out of context since the arrays
referred to were not in equilibrium.'

I noted no acceleration nor motion. As a firm believer in the
conservation of energy I`m sure that the antenna, on average, received
no more energy than it emitted or conducted away. That is balance or
equilibrium.

No Richard that is called reprocity not equilibrium. Getting desparate
aren't you?

Art also wrote:

"Terman was referring to close spaced of the parasitic form, even
mentions corner reflectors."

Yes, and he also mentions the Yagi array. But I believe Terman meant to
say
So he didn't say what you think he meant to say.......hmmm!

the best antenna gains of the day,
could be, he wasn't aware of Gaussian arrays was he?

for the antenna`s size,
regardless of direct or parasitic drive, were obtained from corner
reflector and Yagi antennas. That hasn`t changed but it certainly may.
Let me assure you it has changed much as you want to bresist change.

But, Kraus, whose invention, the W8JK array, has two dipole elements
spaced 0.125 wavelengths apart and driven 180-degrees out of phase,
certainly has no parasitic element. That was certainly on his mind when
he wrote the comments on page 185 in "Antennas". On the facing page,
184, he diagrams two antennas, the W8JK and a stack of two dipoles which
are driven in-phase, not out-of phase like the W8JK.

If both dipoles were separate entities where only one was driven and
both entities
were resonant then it is representitive of a Gaussian array assuming
both elements were not parallel or planar. I will leave you to decide
if it was an example of a Gaussian array.

Low radiation resistance is a consequence of tight coupling between the
closely-spaced elements. This makes the coupling to the array likely
lossy in making impedance transformations necessary to match the array
to the transmission line.
This is a statement connected to Yagi's or similar type parasitic
arrays
Are you like Terman who meant to say something different? How can you
be a mind reader
if you do the same thing yourself?

Kraus has some suggestions on how to make
these arrays more compatible with their transmission lines.

That's nice. What am I suppose to do with that statement? Did you
intend to say something else like it was true 50 years ago so it is
also true now?

Art

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

art	April 23rd 07 12:42 AM

Gaussian statics law

On 22 Apr, 15:55, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message

...

Art wrote:
"Again, Richard you are taking things out of context since the arrays
referred to were not in equilibrium.'

I noted no acceleration nor motion. As a firm believer in the
conservation of energy I`m sure that the antenna, on average, received
no more energy than it emitted or conducted away. That is balance or
equilibrium.

Art also wrote:
"Terman was referring to close spaced of the parasitic form, even
mentions corner reflectors."

Yes, and he also mentions the Yagi array. But I believe Terman meant to
say the best antenna gains of the day, for the antenna`s size,
regardless of direct or parasitic drive, were obtained from corner
reflector and Yagi antennas. That hasn`t changed but it certainly may.
But, Kraus, whose invention, the W8JK array, has two dipole elements
spaced 0.125 wavelengths apart and driven 180-degrees out of phase,
certainly has no parasitic element. That was certainly on his mind when
he wrote the comments on page 185 in "Antennas". On the facing page,
184, he diagrams two antennas, the W8JK and a stack of two dipoles which
are driven in-phase, not out-of phase like the W8JK.

Low radiation resistance is a consequence of tight coupling between the
closely-spaced elements. This makes the coupling to the array likely
lossy in making impedance transformations necessary to match the array
to the transmission line. Kraus has some suggestions on how to make
these arrays more compatible with their transmission lines.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I f this were a hospital you couldnt distinguish the doctors from the
patients.. LMAO

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jimmie you may reach the same age as Richard( you are nearly 80 years
old aren't you) so you better start thinking ahead. There are
different types of institutions you know and who knows what type you
are assigned to.
Art

Richard Clark

April 23rd 07 02:56 AM

Gaussian statics law

On 22 Apr 2007 14:19:49 -0700, art wrote:

Also when you suggested that you
knew about gaussian antennas long ago

Hi Art,

I bought a Goniometer at my first Ham auction in 1966. Only 41 years
ago, but it was only 50 years old then (the concept, not the
goniometer), and now the topic has been around for so long that most
have forgotten it like the sand that surrounds the Sphinx.

Can you explain how the Goniometer, the conceptual child of Bennetti
and Tosi?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tom Ring

April 23rd 07 03:41 AM

Gaussian statics law

Jimmie D wrote:

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...

Art wrote:
"Again, Richard you are taking things out of context since the arrays
referred to were not in equilibrium.'

I noted no acceleration nor motion. As a firm believer in the
conservation of energy I`m sure that the antenna, on average, received
no more energy than it emitted or conducted away. That is balance or
equilibrium.

Art also wrote:
"Terman was referring to close spaced of the parasitic form, even
mentions corner reflectors."

Yes, and he also mentions the Yagi array. But I believe Terman meant to
say the best antenna gains of the day, for the antenna`s size,
regardless of direct or parasitic drive, were obtained from corner
reflector and Yagi antennas. That hasn`t changed but it certainly may.
But, Kraus, whose invention, the W8JK array, has two dipole elements
spaced 0.125 wavelengths apart and driven 180-degrees out of phase,
certainly has no parasitic element. That was certainly on his mind when
he wrote the comments on page 185 in "Antennas". On the facing page,
184, he diagrams two antennas, the W8JK and a stack of two dipoles which
are driven in-phase, not out-of phase like the W8JK.

Low radiation resistance is a consequence of tight coupling between the
closely-spaced elements. This makes the coupling to the array likely
lossy in making impedance transformations necessary to match the array
to the transmission line. Kraus has some suggestions on how to make
these arrays more compatible with their transmission lines.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I f this were a hospital you couldnt distinguish the doctors from the
patients.. LMAO

Jimmie

If you are implying that Richard is incorrect in his statements and that
Art has even a tiny clue about reality, you are sadly mistaken.

You should study a bit about the subject before you criticize the "Doctors".

tom
K0TAR

jawod

April 23rd 07 04:01 AM

Gaussian statics law

I f this were a hospital you couldnt distinguish the doctors from the
patients.. LMAO

Jimmie

There are no Doctors, only patients.
Art refers to Richard as Andy Cap, an ancient reference even to me (and
I am 52). Richard takes the bait every time.

Fanning the flames of borderline lunacy can keep newsgroups busy
basically forever. A true perpetual motion machine. I am, of course,
quoting Heaviside.

Jimmie D

April 23rd 07 04:01 AM

Gaussian statics law

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. ..
Jimmie D wrote:

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...

Art wrote:
"Again, Richard you are taking things out of context since the arrays
referred to were not in equilibrium.'

I noted no acceleration nor motion. As a firm believer in the
conservation of energy I`m sure that the antenna, on average, received
no more energy than it emitted or conducted away. That is balance or
equilibrium.

Art also wrote:
"Terman was referring to close spaced of the parasitic form, even
mentions corner reflectors."

Yes, and he also mentions the Yagi array. But I believe Terman meant to
say the best antenna gains of the day, for the antenna`s size,
regardless of direct or parasitic drive, were obtained from corner
reflector and Yagi antennas. That hasn`t changed but it certainly may.
But, Kraus, whose invention, the W8JK array, has two dipole elements
spaced 0.125 wavelengths apart and driven 180-degrees out of phase,
certainly has no parasitic element. That was certainly on his mind when
he wrote the comments on page 185 in "Antennas". On the facing page,
184, he diagrams two antennas, the W8JK and a stack of two dipoles which
are driven in-phase, not out-of phase like the W8JK.

Low radiation resistance is a consequence of tight coupling between the
closely-spaced elements. This makes the coupling to the array likely
lossy in making impedance transformations necessary to match the array
to the transmission line. Kraus has some suggestions on how to make
these arrays more compatible with their transmission lines.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I f this were a hospital you couldnt distinguish the doctors from the
patients.. LMAO

Jimmie

If you are implying that Richard is incorrect in his statements and that
Art has even a tiny clue about reality, you are sadly mistaken.

You should study a bit about the subject before you criticize the
"Doctors".

tom
K0TAR

Not what I am implying at all, that wouldnt be funny. I only wish I knew as
much about antennas as Richard.

I only recently obtained copies of books by Krauss and Terman and have begin
to intensify my studies of the subject.

While on the subject, I obtained my first class FCC license in 73 and the
material in Terman seems to fit very closly with the study material I had.
Is there a connection between the test and Terman's book?

Jimmie

art	April 23rd 07 04:13 AM

Gaussian statics law

On 22 Apr, 19:41, Tom Ring wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...

Art wrote:
"Again, Richard you are taking things out of context since the arrays
referred to were not in equilibrium.'

I noted no acceleration nor motion. As a firm believer in the
conservation of energy I`m sure that the antenna, on average, received
no more energy than it emitted or conducted away. That is balance or
equilibrium.

Art also wrote:
"Terman was referring to close spaced of the parasitic form, even
mentions corner reflectors."

Yes, and he also mentions the Yagi array. But I believe Terman meant to
say the best antenna gains of the day, for the antenna`s size,
regardless of direct or parasitic drive, were obtained from corner
reflector and Yagi antennas. That hasn`t changed but it certainly may.
But, Kraus, whose invention, the W8JK array, has two dipole elements
spaced 0.125 wavelengths apart and driven 180-degrees out of phase,
certainly has no parasitic element. That was certainly on his mind when
he wrote the comments on page 185 in "Antennas". On the facing page,
184, he diagrams two antennas, the W8JK and a stack of two dipoles which
are driven in-phase, not out-of phase like the W8JK.

Low radiation resistance is a consequence of tight coupling between the
closely-spaced elements. This makes the coupling to the array likely
lossy in making impedance transformations necessary to match the array
to the transmission line. Kraus has some suggestions on how to make
these arrays more compatible with their transmission lines.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I f this were a hospital you couldnt distinguish the doctors from the
patients.. LMAO

Jimmie

If you are implying that Richard is incorrect in his statements and that
Art has even a tiny clue about reality, you are sadly mistaken.

You should study a bit about the subject before you criticize the "Doctors".

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom ,you should not hit Jimmie for not studying what you believe to be
critical. To often you have shown yourself to be ignorant of the finer
details of radiation that you are accusing Jimmie of not being
knoweledgable about. Regarding what Richard stated you did not give
one iota of evidence that his comments were correct possibly because
you are devoid of any knoweledge around which you could consider a
debate. Tom once again you show your ignorance about antennas and
radiation to the World. Wasn't it you who was so vociforace in your
critisisms when the MIT doctor came aboard with his mathematical
analysis? Was it not you who stated you cannot add the measure of time
to both sides of an equation infering that equilibrium is thus
abandoned? You really should have obtained an understanding of algebra
before embarking on a realm of finger pointing at the old age of the
mid eighties.
You can talk the talk when you prove that you can walk the walk and
that can't be done if you have a crippled mind.
Art

Tom Ring

April 23rd 07 04:25 AM

Gaussian statics law

Jimmie D wrote:

I f this were a hospital you couldnt distinguish the doctors from the
patients.. LMAO

Jimmie

If you are implying that Richard is incorrect in his statements and that
Art has even a tiny clue about reality, you are sadly mistaken.

You should study a bit about the subject before you criticize the
"Doctors".

tom
K0TAR

Not what I am implying at all, that wouldnt be funny. I only wish I knew as
much about antennas as Richard.

I only recently obtained copies of books by Krauss and Terman and have begin
to intensify my studies of the subject.

While on the subject, I obtained my first class FCC license in 73 and the
material in Terman seems to fit very closly with the study material I had.
Is there a connection between the test and Terman's book?

Jimmie

Well, then I won't comment anymore. Did you buy the license?

tom
K0TAR

Jimmie D

April 23rd 07 05:09 AM

Gaussian statics law

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. ..
Jimmie D wrote:

I f this were a hospital you couldnt distinguish the doctors from the
patients.. LMAO

Jimmie

If you are implying that Richard is incorrect in his statements and that
Art has even a tiny clue about reality, you are sadly mistaken.

You should study a bit about the subject before you criticize the
"Doctors".

tom
K0TAR

Not what I am implying at all, that wouldnt be funny. I only wish I knew
as much about antennas as Richard.

I only recently obtained copies of books by Krauss and Terman and have
begin to intensify my studies of the subject.

While on the subject, I obtained my first class FCC license in 73 and the
material in Terman seems to fit very closly with the study material I
had.
Is there a connection between the test and Terman's book?

Jimmie

Well, then I won't comment anymore. Did you buy the license?

tom
K0TAR

No I wish I had had the book then, I took a course(before Bash) at the time
that also seemed to follow Terman. When I went up to Atlanta to take thes
test I only thought I was giong to take the parts for the second class
license and passed the test for first class also. I felt like I didnt know
my own name when I was finished and had no clue whether or not I had passed
even the second class portion. I really didnt believe I had. Funny thing is
I have never used the license. Stiil just skiming the books but Terman seems
a little elementary now and Kraus is going to require me to bone up on my
calculus, something else I havent used since 1979. Hell I dont even know why
I am bothering, fine cooking and ballroom dancing are much more important to
me now.

Jimmie

Richard Clark

May 4th 07 08:27 AM