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

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

"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

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

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

"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

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

"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

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

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.