Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Gaussian cluster antenna array data
On 3 May, 13:48, "Frank's"
wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.com... The following is an example of a gaussian array except that only element height has been subjected to variation and not all dimensions A gaussian array is aimed towards resonant elements in cluster form. Freq Gain dbi F/B F/B ave Zr Zi Swr Toa BW 14.15 14.6 25.9 25.2 27.1 -5.7 1.34 12 63 14.2 14.6 29 28.2 27.5 -1.9 1.25 11 63 14.25 14.6 30.6 30.6 27.8 1.9 1.24 11 63 14.3 14.6 28.2 28 28 5.7 1.31 11 63 14.35 14.6 25.2 28.2 28.2 9.6 1.73 11 63 Dimensions Cartesian, inches. Elements 1.3 in dia tapered X Y Z 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 Gaussian arrays are based on adding a unit of time to Gaussian law of statics which allows for trensformation from a Conservative field to a Non Coservative field with conformance to Maxwell laws. Elements are in cluster form where each element is aimed at resonance as is the array is in its entirety. Element positions are not constrained with respect to position or shape. See Pointings Vector for similarities Art NEC 4.1 Computes at 14.25 MHz: Gain 6.3 dBi F/B ratio 4.2 dB TOA 11 deg. Zin 107.9 + j 245.3 Code used as follows: CM Gaussian Array CE GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65 GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65 GS 0 0 0.025400 GE 1 -1 0 GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050 EX 0 2 21 0 1 0 FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05 LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7 RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1 1 EN Where the coordinates are in inches. Please verify that I have interpreted the coordinates correctly. I have assumed the driven element is "GW 2", and fed in the center. I have also used non tapered 0.13" diameter 6063-T832 aluminum alloy. Segment tapering is allowed, but these dimensions have not been specified. Our results appear to be significantly different. 73, Frank- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Frank, Your comment about segment taper dimensions not being shown I use tapered telescopic fibre glass fishing poles for elements(they cannot fall apart only get tighter) and therefore segments do not come into the equation. I adhere .002 inch aluminum foil to the exterior for conduction and place glass fibre tape along the length if there is a question of environment problems, tho ice easily slides down in the absence of clamps. Also insert foam at ends to prevent occillation. Note. It is sometimes convenient to insert solenoids wound on plastic syringes within the elements to create a dual or multiband antenna which would duplicate the IR antenna with respect to band coverage. Aluminum has become so expensive and fishing poles so inexpensive that if you are experimentaly minded the choice becomes obvious( see Ebay for poles) I also use scrap circuit boards as element to boom connections since element weight is best kept down ( don't use my military rotor , prop pitch, anymore since antenna boom length and weight and torque requirements is no longer a factor). It was wind sway on a 60 foot boom that forced me to re think things tho I am not responsible for all those windmills that have just been planted in Central Illinois but they do emphasise my past predicaments. Best regards Art factors are now a thing of the past. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gaussian cluster antenna array data
Frank,
Your comment about segment taper dimensions not being shown I use tapered telescopic fibre glass fishing poles for elements(they cannot fall apart only get tighter) and therefore segments do not come into the equation. I adhere .002 inch aluminum foil to the exterior for conduction and place glass fibre tape along the length if there is a question of environment problems, tho ice easily slides down in the absence of clamps. Also insert foam at ends to prevent occillation. Note. It is sometimes convenient to insert solenoids wound on plastic syringes within the elements to create a dual or multiband antenna which would duplicate the IR antenna with respect to band coverage. Aluminum has become so expensive and fishing poles so inexpensive that if you are experimentaly minded the choice becomes obvious( see Ebay for poles) I also use scrap circuit boards as element to boom connections since element weight is best kept down ( don't use my military rotor , prop pitch, anymore since antenna boom length and weight and torque requirements is no longer a factor). It was wind sway on a 60 foot boom that forced me to re think things tho I am not responsible for all those windmills that have just been planted in Central Illinois but they do emphasise my past predicaments. Best regards Art factors are now a thing of the past. Code modifies as shown below: CM Gaussian Array CE GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65 GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65 GS 0 0 0.025400 GE 1 -1 0 GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050 EX 0 3 16 0 1 0 FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05 LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7 RP 0 1 361 1000 63 0 1 1 EN Third element fed in the center. NEC 4.1 Computes at 14.25 MHz: Gain 5.4 dBi F/B ratio 7.9 dB TOA 27 deg. Zin 66.8 - j 32.5 Max currents (1V peak applied to TAG 3): TAG 1 0.0022 mA (peak) TAG 2 0.0037 mA (peak) TAG 3 0.0134 mA (peak). Frank |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Gaussian cluster antenna array data
On 3 May, 18:23, "Frank's"
wrote: Frank, Your comment about segment taper dimensions not being shown I use tapered telescopic fibre glass fishing poles for elements(they cannot fall apart only get tighter) and therefore segments do not come into the equation. I adhere .002 inch aluminum foil to the exterior for conduction and place glass fibre tape along the length if there is a question of environment problems, tho ice easily slides down in the absence of clamps. Also insert foam at ends to prevent occillation. Note. It is sometimes convenient to insert solenoids wound on plastic syringes within the elements to create a dual or multiband antenna which would duplicate the IR antenna with respect to band coverage. Aluminum has become so expensive and fishing poles so inexpensive that if you are experimentaly minded the choice becomes obvious( see Ebay for poles) I also use scrap circuit boards as element to boom connections since element weight is best kept down ( don't use my military rotor , prop pitch, anymore since antenna boom length and weight and torque requirements is no longer a factor). It was wind sway on a 60 foot boom that forced me to re think things tho I am not responsible for all those windmills that have just been planted in Central Illinois but they do emphasise my past predicaments. Best regards Art factors are now a thing of the past. Code modifies as shown below: CM Gaussian Array CE GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65 GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65 GS 0 0 0.025400 GE 1 -1 0 GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050 EX 0 3 16 0 1 0 FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05 LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7 RP 0 1 361 1000 63 0 1 1 EN Third element fed in the center. NEC 4.1 Computes at 14.25 MHz: Gain 5.4 dBi F/B ratio 7.9 dB TOA 27 deg. Zin 66.8 - j 32.5 Max currents (1V peak applied to TAG 3): TAG 1 0.0022 mA (peak) TAG 2 0.0037 mA (peak) TAG 3 0.0134 mA (peak). Frank- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Frank, I stated quite clearly that the elements stated had mirror images on the other side of the antenna array so why are you only considering only three elements? Remember, I stated that to simplify things I have varied ONLY the height of the individual elements with respect to each other. I have NOT introduced variance in length, diameter, skew, material or any thing else which is required for the ultimate Gaussian array i.e. For maximum effect all cartesian coordinates and related dimensions must be variable to obtain the optimum condition of equilibrium. For simplicity I have varied ONLY the height of individual elements while holding to parallelism to each other and to the earths surface . ART |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Gaussian cluster antenna array data
Frank,
I stated quite clearly that the elements stated had mirror images on the other side of the antenna array so why are you only considering only three elements? Remember, I stated that to simplify things I have varied ONLY the height of the individual elements with respect to each other. I have NOT introduced variance in length, diameter, skew, material or any thing else which is required for the ultimate Gaussian array i.e. For maximum effect all cartesian coordinates and related dimensions must be variable to obtain the optimum condition of equilibrium. For simplicity I have varied ONLY the height of individual elements while holding to parallelism to each other and to the earths surface . ART Code mirrored across the X - Z plane: CM Gaussian Array CE GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65 GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65 GW 4 30 273.3 -164.1 820 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65 GW 5 41 171.1 -202.1 582 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 6 31 2.1 -206.5 701.2 153.5 -194.5 1038.1 0.65 GS 0 0 0.025400 GE 1 -1 0 GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050 EX 0 3 16 0 1 0 FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05 LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7 RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 140 1 1 EN Results: Gain 6.8 dBi F/B ratio 13.8 dB TOA 11 deg. Zin 78.4 - j 27.1 Frank PS to interpret the GW card: GW TAG# #segs. X1 Y1 Z1 X2 Y2 Z2 wire radius |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Gaussian cluster antenna array data
On 3 May, 19:17, "Frank's"
wrote: Frank, I stated quite clearly that the elements stated had mirror images on the other side of the antenna array so why are you only considering only three elements? Remember, I stated that to simplify things I have varied ONLY the height of the individual elements with respect to each other. I have NOT introduced variance in length, diameter, skew, material or any thing else which is required for the ultimate Gaussian array i.e. For maximum effect all cartesian coordinates and related dimensions must be variable to obtain the optimum condition of equilibrium. For simplicity I have varied ONLY the height of individual elements while holding to parallelism to each other and to the earths surface . ART Code mirrored across the X - Z plane: CM Gaussian Array CE GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65 GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65 GW 4 30 273.3 -164.1 820 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65 GW 5 41 171.1 -202.1 582 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 6 31 2.1 -206.5 701.2 153.5 -194.5 1038.1 0.65 GS 0 0 0.025400 GE 1 -1 0 GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050 EX 0 3 16 0 1 0 FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05 LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7 RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 140 1 1 EN Results: Gain 6.8 dBi F/B ratio 13.8 dB TOA 11 deg. Zin 78.4 - j 27.1 Frank PS to interpret the GW card: GW TAG# #segs. X1 Y1 Z1 X2 Y2 Z2 wire radius Frank, I can't help you anymore. I am assuming that your intentions are good but as I said earlier I am not proficient or familiar enough with the program you are using and heaven knows that I have taken a lot of abuse over this concept. Tho this concept has brought forth the rath of the pseudo experts that abound on this newsgroup I have never the less applied for a utility patent on the strength of my own convictions. So eventually it will become printed matter and time will tell if open minds outside this group will judge the concept favorably. Best regards and have a great day. Art |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Gaussian cluster antenna array data
Frank, I can't help you anymore. I am assuming that your intentions are good but as I said earlier I am not proficient or familiar enough with the program you are using and heaven knows that I have taken a lot of abuse over this concept. Tho this concept has brought forth the rath of the pseudo experts that abound on this newsgroup I have never the less applied for a utility patent on the strength of my own convictions. So eventually it will become printed matter and time will tell if open minds outside this group will judge the concept favorably. Best regards and have a great day. Art I admire Frank and anyone trying to deal with this "Goosian" mumbo-jumbo "presented" by somebody who mixes up polarity with polarization, reflector with director and even has a patent for it. Perhaps Art would have more understanding at the AntenneX group, there are bunch of miracle antennas being celebrated. We are too stupid to get the "equiliberated electrons, that the salient curves with respect to bandwidth are in sync with each other because of the absence of coupling and minimum reactance of individual parts which prevents focusing as with a Yagi array. " He is still keeping secret what the POLARITY is. How can one make any sense of the rest of the crap? Try to model the gausian mumbo-jumbo? Of course you can't, it is waaaay beyond stoopid earthly modeling programs. Only Art knows the magnificent computored miracle antenna that you antenna morons can't comprehend because you were confused by 100 years of misleading antenna charlatans. Riiiiiiight! bada BUm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Gaussian cluster antenna array data
Code mirrored across the X - Z plane:
CM Gaussian Array CE GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65 GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65 GW 4 30 273.3 -164.1 820 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65 GW 5 41 171.1 -202.1 582 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 6 31 2.1 -206.5 701.2 153.5 -194.5 1038.1 0.65 GS 0 0 0.025400 GE 1 -1 0 GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050 EX 0 3 16 0 1 0 FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05 LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7 RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 140 1 1 EN Results: Gain 6.8 dBi F/B ratio 13.8 dB TOA 11 deg. Zin 78.4 - j 27.1 Frank PS to interpret the GW card: GW TAG# #segs. X1 Y1 Z1 X2 Y2 Z2 wire radius Frank, I can't help you anymore. I am assuming that your intentions are good but as I said earlier I am not proficient or familiar enough with the program you are using and heaven knows that I have taken a lot of abuse over this concept. Tho this concept has brought forth the rath of the pseudo experts that abound on this newsgroup I have never the less applied for a utility patent on the strength of my own convictions. So eventually it will become printed matter and time will tell if open minds outside this group will judge the concept favorably. Best regards and have a great day. Art Possibly I did not understand your original coordinates as follows: X Y Z 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 I interpreted the above as: Wire #1 X1 = 273.3, X2 = 25.1; Y1 = 164.1, Y2 = 203.3; and Z1 = 820, Z2 = 1079. Wire #2 X1 = 171.1, X2 = 321.6; Y1 = 202.1, Y2 = 178.4;and Z1 = 582, Z2 = 1035.6. Wire #3 X1 = 2.1, X2 = 153.5; Y1 = 206.5, Y2 = 194.5;and Z1 = 701.2, Z2 = 1038.1. The lengths of the wires were determined by SQRT((X2-X1)^2+(Y2-Y1)^2+(Z2-Z1)^2). The results made some sense since the lengths were approximately what would be expected in the region of 14 MHz. The driven element was selected as Wire #3. I mirrored the above wires across the X - Z plane (The only possible plane), by changing all Y coordinates to negative values. The resultant array therefore consisted of six elements. The mirrored Wire #3 was not driven. Note that wrapping the elements in fiberglass tape will modify the electrical lengths by a small amount. Since you appear to have actually constructed a model I am curious how you measured the parameters listed in your original posting. What equipment did you use? How did you determine the gain, and take-off angle? Frank |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Gaussian cluster antenna array data
On 4 May, 09:44, "Frank's"
wrote: Code mirrored across the X - Z plane: CM Gaussian Array CE GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65 GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65 GW 4 30 273.3 -164.1 820 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65 GW 5 41 171.1 -202.1 582 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65 GW 6 31 2.1 -206.5 701.2 153.5 -194.5 1038.1 0.65 GS 0 0 0.025400 GE 1 -1 0 GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050 EX 0 3 16 0 1 0 FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05 LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7 RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 140 1 1 EN Results: Gain 6.8 dBi F/B ratio 13.8 dB TOA 11 deg. Zin 78.4 - j 27.1 Frank PS to interpret the GW card: GW TAG# #segs. X1 Y1 Z1 X2 Y2 Z2 wire radius Frank, I can't help you anymore. I am assuming that your intentions are good but as I said earlier I am not proficient or familiar enough with the program you are using and heaven knows that I have taken a lot of abuse over this concept. Tho this concept has brought forth the rath of the pseudo experts that abound on this newsgroup I have never the less applied for a utility patent on the strength of my own convictions. So eventually it will become printed matter and time will tell if open minds outside this group will judge the concept favorably. Best regards and have a great day. Art Possibly I did not understand your original coordinates as follows: X Y Z X Y Z 273.3 164.1 820 273.3 -164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 25.1 -203.3 1079 171.1 202.1 582 171.1 -202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 2.1 206.5 701.2 2.1 -206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 153.5 -194.5 1038.1 1 source wire 6, centre I interpreted the above as: Wire #1 X1 = 273.3, X2 = 25.1; Y1 = 164.1, Y2 = 203.3; and Z1 = 820, Z2 = 1079. Wire #2 X1 = 171.1, X2 = 321.6; Y1 = 202.1, Y2 = 178.4;and Z1 = 582, Z2 = 1035.6. Wire #3 X1 = 2.1, X2 = 153.5; Y1 = 206.5, Y2 = 194.5;and Z1 = 701.2, Z2 = 1038.1. The lengths of the wires were determined by SQRT((X2-X1)^2+(Y2-Y1)^2+(Z2-Z1)^2). The results made some sense since the lengths were approximately what would be expected in the region of 14 MHz. The driven element was selected as Wire #3. I mirrored the above wires across the X - Z plane (The only possible plane), by changing all Y coordinates to negative values. The resultant array therefore consisted of six elements. The mirrored Wire #3 was not driven. Note that wrapping the elements in fiberglass tape will modify the electrical lengths by a small amount. Since you appear to have actually constructed a model I am curious how you measured the parameters listed in your original posting. What equipment did you use? How did you determine the gain, and take-off angle? Frank- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Note that I have added the mirror dimensions above. Seems like mirror image is your stumbling block. Where did you get your program from since it may have been modified or corrected.? My program is over 20 years old so I am assuming it has stood the test of time. I am sorry I can't help you with your particular program and since help is not forth coming from this antenna group I would go back to the vendor and ask for help since it appears to have stumped every body here Good luck Art |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mininec antenna computor programs and Gaussian arrays | Antenna | |||
Gaussian antenna aunwin | Antenna | |||
RCA Multiple Antenna Array from the World Trade Center | Shortwave | |||
A gaussian style radiating antenna | Antenna | |||
Phased array antenna patterns | Antenna |