Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

Playing with Gaussian arrays I find I can make irregular
radiation fields, this presumably because the arbitary border
repetively seals its borders as the radiation escapes.
I suppose one can equate it somewhat to a balloon with
escaping air pulses going in different directions as equilibrium
is reformed.
I understand that broadcasting arrays are strictly controlled
so I wondered if an array that could radiate in pre designated
areas would be useful as it would not require a reflector to repell
radiation.
Art

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

I understand that broadcasting arrays are strictly controlled
so I wondered if an array that could radiate in pre designated
areas would be useful as it would not require a reflector to repell
radiation.
___________

Examples in use for many decades already are the directional arrays used in
AM broadcasting, where all elements (towers) in the array are driven. The
element spacings & orientations, and the relative power & phase applied to
each element determine the net radiation pattern of the array.

RF

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

On 16 Mar, 09:34, "Richard Fry" wrote:
I understand that broadcasting arrays are strictly controlled
so I wondered if an array that could radiate in pre designated
areas would be useful as it would not require a reflector to repell
radiation.

___________

Examples in use for many decades already are the directional arrays used in
AM broadcasting, where all elements (towers) in the array are driven. The
element spacings & orientations, and the relative power & phase applied to
each element determine the net radiation pattern of the array.

RF

Thanks
ART

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

On 16 Mar, 09:53, "art" wrote:
On 16 Mar, 09:34, "Richard Fry" wrote:

I understand that broadcasting arrays are strictly controlled
so I wondered if an array that could radiate in pre designated
areas would be useful as it would not require a reflector to repell
radiation.

___________

Examples in use for many decades already are the directional arrays used in
AM broadcasting, where all elements (towers) in the array are driven. The
element spacings & orientations, and the relative power & phase applied to
each element determine the net radiation pattern of the array.

RF

Thanks
ART

Let me ask another question. Since a gaussian array is in equilibrium
it can be placed in a complex circuit to generate a pass filter or
something like that. Does this fact provide any advantages? Also with
regard to the irregular radiation field the Gaussian array with a
single feed point can duplicate the present broadcasting method of
arrays where phasing harneses would be required. Just a thought
Art
Art

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

"art"
Also with regard to the irregular radiation field the Gaussian
array with a single feed point can duplicate the present
broadcasting method.... Just a thought
________

All you need to do then is to prove it, and get the FCC to accept it.

RF

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

On 16 Mar, 14:09, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" Also with regard to the irregular radiation field the Gaussian
array with a single feed point can duplicate the present
broadcasting method.... Just a thought

________

All you need to do then is to prove it, and get the FCC to accept it.

RF

What about the use of complex circuitry methods od design does that
present any advantage? We now can insert lumped constants ?

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

"art" quoting RF:
All you need to do then is to prove it, and get the FCC to accept it.

RF

What about the use of complex circuitry methods od design does that
present any advantage? We now can insert lumped constants ?
___________

Note the responsible party in this, which I re-post below with emphasis:

"All __YOU__ need to do then is to prove it,..."

If YOU, Art Unwin, want to be recogniz(s)ed for introducing a new
application or concept about "Irregular Gaussian Radiation Fields,"
shouldn't that first be based upon your own theoretical and experimental
research and proofs, which after your publication of same, are capable of
being proven true by other scientific investigators?

If both of those situations exist, then maybe you will have a chance for the
commercial and governmental acceptance/success of your concepts, and your
personal recognition for the same.

But until then, you may wish to keep such revelations closer to your vest.

With respect to your claimed English background, I wish you the best, Sir,
and
remain your humble and obedient servant etc, etc,

RF

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

On 16 Mar, 16:25, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" quoting RF: All you need to do then is to prove it, and get the FCC to accept it.

RF

What about the use of complex circuitry methods od design does that
present any advantage? We now can insert lumped constants ?

___________

Note the responsible party in this, which I re-post below with emphasis:

"All __YOU__ need to do then is to prove it,..."

If YOU, Art Unwin, want to be recogniz(s)ed for introducing a new
application or concept about "Irregular Gaussian Radiation Fields,"
shouldn't that first be based upon your own theoretical and experimental
research and proofs, which after your publication of same, are capable of
being proven true by other scientific investigators?

If both of those situations exist, then maybe you will have a chance for the
commercial and governmental acceptance/success of your concepts, and your
personal recognition for the same.

But until then, you may wish to keep such revelations closer to your vest.

With respect to your claimed English background, I wish you the best, Sir,
and
remain your humble and obedient servant etc, etc,

RF

Thanks for the warning but the patent application is well along on
it's progress. Even if it wasn't the denial of it's possibility is so
strong I could wait another year before I processed it and I will
still be first in line. Frankly the Dr from MIT convinced most of the
group on the first part as being valid but they still have to be
convinced of the second part so time is very much on my side. When the
PTO office prints it industry will then take over and the people on
this newsgroup will be after my autograph instead of the blithering
idiot type comments.
Anyway, what do you think about using complex circuitry for the
antenna such that one has fairly constant gain across the band width
and then steep drop off's, swr curve is close to being the mirror
image because of zero parasitics which then gives advantages by
reduction of compromising choices of desirables.
I would imagine that true experts would use that for multi array
design but that aproach is beyond me.Either way since the computor
programs migrate to the Gaussian design over a Yagi selection somebody
out there will pick it up and go running with
because of advantages I have not got round to .Lets face it since more
gain can be obtained using only half the boom length people with small
gardens will jump upon it. I would love to more Britts on the band
with big signals.
Art

Art

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 16 Mar, 16:25, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" quoting RF: All you need to do then is to prove it, and get the
FCC to accept it.

RF

What about the use of complex circuitry methods od design does that
present any advantage? We now can insert lumped constants ?

___________

Note the responsible party in this, which I re-post below with emphasis:

"All __YOU__ need to do then is to prove it,..."

If YOU, Art Unwin, want to be recogniz(s)ed for introducing a new
application or concept about "Irregular Gaussian Radiation Fields,"
shouldn't that first be based upon your own theoretical and experimental
research and proofs, which after your publication of same, are capable of
being proven true by other scientific investigators?

If both of those situations exist, then maybe you will have a chance for
the
commercial and governmental acceptance/success of your concepts, and your
personal recognition for the same.

But until then, you may wish to keep such revelations closer to your
vest.

With respect to your claimed English background, I wish you the best,
Sir,
and
remain your humble and obedient servant etc, etc,

RF

Thanks for the warning but the patent application is well along on
it's progress. Even if it wasn't the denial of it's possibility is so
strong I could wait another year before I processed it and I will
still be first in line. Frankly the Dr from MIT convinced most of the
group on the first part as being valid but they still have to be
convinced of the second part so time is very much on my side. When the
PTO office prints it industry will then take over and the people on
this newsgroup will be after my autograph instead of the blithering
idiot type comments.

the only autograph anyone will be after is the signature on the check for
the application fee.

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

Hello Art,
Having a patent does not mean that one have something that really
works.

I did a survey on patents in the field of Electronic Article
Surveillance (EAS) and Sailboard Fins. Many of the patents I saw, are
useless, seen from a technical perspective. The problem with those
technically useless patents is that when you invent some really nice
operating principle, you may interfere with such a patent. In that
case it is the available money that counts only.

So for me, to be involved in a patent application does not support the
fitness of a new theory.

I'm one of the pseudo-experts that posted to one of your "very deep
question" on Faraday Rotation in NEC2 and/or NEC4.

Best Regards,


Wim

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

Wimpie wrote:
Hello Art,
Having a patent does not mean that one have something that really
works.

I did a survey on patents in the field of Electronic Article
Surveillance (EAS) and Sailboard Fins. Many of the patents I saw, are
useless, seen from a technical perspective. The problem with those
technically useless patents is that when you invent some really nice
operating principle, you may interfere with such a patent. In that
case it is the available money that counts only.

So for me, to be involved in a patent application does not support the
fitness of a new theory.
. . .

I've reviewed many patents in the course of my regular employment and as
a consultant. Large numbers of them describe "inventions" that can't
work at all, don't work as described, and/or don't solve the problems
they're alleged to. It's clear that on very many occasions, neither the
inventor, the patent attorney, nor the examiner understand the
principles involved. The general practice seems to be to issue the
patent unless there's a clear and obvious conflict with an existing
patent or current art, then let the markeplace sort out the validity.
There are no Einsteins at work in our patent office!

One of my favorites is U.S. patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light_Speed
Antenna" (Strom). Besides sending the signal at a speed faster than
light and penetrating known RF shielding devices, a side benefit is that
it can be used to accelerate plant growth. I've read many patents which
are as fundamentally flawed, but this one has the advantage of being so
obviously wacko that nearly anyone but the overly credulous can see from
it just how little a patent really means as an indication of technical
merit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Wimpie wrote:
Hello Art,
Having a patent does not mean that one have something that really
works.

I did a survey on patents in the field of Electronic Article
Surveillance (EAS) and Sailboard Fins. Many of the patents I saw, are
useless, seen from a technical perspective. The problem with those
technically useless patents is that when you invent some really nice
operating principle, you may interfere with such a patent. In that
case it is the available money that counts only.

So for me, to be involved in a patent application does not support the
fitness of a new theory.
. . .

I've reviewed many patents in the course of my regular employment and as a
consultant. Large numbers of them describe "inventions" that can't work at
all, don't work as described, and/or don't solve the problems they're
alleged to. It's clear that on very many occasions, neither the inventor,
the patent attorney, nor the examiner understand the principles involved.
The general practice seems to be to issue the patent unless there's a
clear and obvious conflict with an existing patent or current art, then
let the markeplace sort out the validity. There are no Einsteins at work
in our patent office!

One of my favorites is U.S. patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light_Speed Antenna"
(Strom). Besides sending the signal at a speed faster than light and
penetrating known RF shielding devices, a side benefit is that it can be
used to accelerate plant growth. I've read many patents which are as
fundamentally flawed, but this one has the advantage of being so obviously
wacko that nearly anyone but the overly credulous can see from it just how
little a patent really means as an indication of technical merit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I remember hearing about this one. Nice that google allows you to look
things like this up so easily now. I used to have a paperback book on
patents like this. There are thousands of them.

Jimmie

Irregular Gaussian radiation fields
 

On 17 Mar, 08:48, "Wimpie" wrote:
Hello Art,
Having a patent does not mean that one have something that really
works.

I did a survey on patents in the field of Electronic Article
Surveillance (EAS) and Sailboard Fins. Many of the patents I saw, are
useless, seen from a technical perspective. The problem with those
technically useless patents is that when you invent some really nice
operating principle, you may interfere with such a patent. In that
case it is the available money that counts only.

So for me, to be involved in a patent application does not support the
fitness of a new theory.

I'm one of the pseudo-experts that posted to one of your "very deep
question" on Faraday Rotation in NEC2 and/or NEC4.

Best Regards,

Wim

Seems like there is more interest by hams in disproving the
possibility of antenna advances after the introduction
of the Yagi. I wonder what is driving that aproach?
Is it that they have the probability of being correct in 99.9%
of the cases advances their positions as antenna experts?
I remember the days of 73 magazine where the search for antennas
provided interest for many, possibly to many experts have said their
efforts were of no use.......all is known, so they move on to
computors and let ham radio drop. If I had to do it all again
there would be a distinct possibility of dropping the pursuit
and thus avoid the verbal beatings. By the way all my patents do work
but the salient point is what interest they raise in others minds and
what enjoyment they offer me. My first efforts in the U.K. provided
money to buy a car among other things and I have received rewards on
this side also but it is not all about money as personal achievement
ranks very high despite the naysayers arrogance. Finally I have never
proposed that any sort of patent
supports the fitness of a new patent, I have no idea where you
obtained that from. Remember, denial of the addition of time to
Gaussian static law was universally against, now it is seen as
O.K. via mathematics and the masters. It is also supported by computor
programs made by others. It is also supported by mathcad type programs
so I believe I have a smidgeon of a chance of getting the fitness
accepted by those outside the amateur community where profit seems to
be a driving force. If not then it demands review of many things that
are already accepted.
I think it is better if we drop this thing/ thread altogether since it
is only producing anger and discord.
Cheers
Art