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