"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
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 -

Hi Frank, I am not proficient with NEC2 so I can't help you with that.
I will add certain things in the hope things clear up for you.
Elements are 1.3 inches diameter and tapered. The element listing is
of one half of the array
with the otherside being a mirror image, all dimensions are in inches.
The last element listed
was center fed. Design was weighted for max gain then F/B then for
resistance feed.
Gain was set for horizontal polarisation. Normaly a Gaussian array has
every dimension listed as being variable but I decided for simplicity
to only vary the individual height of each element plus keeping them
parallel and not tilted so as to avoid confusion.Some designs come out
with some elements off center as well as not 1/2 wave based as well as
irregular shaped which would confuse those who are not fully familiar
with antenna theory. It is usual
to declare the polarity required instead of maximum gain so that
polarity purity can be pursued however, in such cases all dimensions
should be considered variable. If maximum bandwidth is required it is
also best to have all dimensions variable.If all dimensions are
variable you get the situation where all elements are resonant and
such designs are compatable with complex circuitry calculations. Note
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 focussing as with a Yagi array. Can't
think of anything else I can add but don't hesitate with any follow up
questions if you have any either with the basic theory, concepts,
mathematics or the sample at hand.
Good luck
Art


you have one fed element and several un-fed ones... isn't that a parasitic
array? what are the currents in the other elements? how do those currents
come into being besides coupling between the elements?? How can you use NEC
to calculate 'gaussian' arrays that are in 'equilibrium' by your definition,
NEC assumes currents and coupling between the elements, there is no way to
change that... its part of the basic EM formulas that all antenna modeling
programs are based on!

On 3 May, 17:42, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 3 May, 13:48, "Frank's"
wrote:
"art" wrote in message

groups.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 -

Hi Frank, I am not proficient with NEC2 so I can't help you with that.
I will add certain things in the hope things clear up for you.
Elements are 1.3 inches diameter and tapered. The element listing is
of one half of the array
with the otherside being a mirror image, all dimensions are in inches.
The last element listed
was center fed. Design was weighted for max gain then F/B then for
resistance feed.
Gain was set for horizontal polarisation. Normaly a Gaussian array has
every dimension listed as being variable but I decided for simplicity
to only vary the individual height of each element plus keeping them
parallel and not tilted so as to avoid confusion.Some designs come out
with some elements off center as well as not 1/2 wave based as well as
irregular shaped which would confuse those who are not fully familiar
with antenna theory. It is usual
to declare the polarity required instead of maximum gain so that
polarity purity can be pursued however, in such cases all dimensions
should be considered variable. If maximum bandwidth is required it is
also best to have all dimensions variable.If all dimensions are
variable you get the situation where all elements are resonant and
such designs are compatable with complex circuitry calculations. Note
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 focussing as with a Yagi array. Can't
think of anything else I can add but don't hesitate with any follow up
questions if you have any either with the basic theory, concepts,
mathematics or the sample at hand.
Good luck
Art

you have one fed element and several un-fed ones... isn't that a parasitic
array? what are the currents in the other elements? how do those currents
come into being besides coupling between the elements?? How can you use NEC
to calculate 'gaussian' arrays that are in 'equilibrium' by your definition,
NEC assumes currents and coupling between the elements, there is no way to
change that... its part of the basic EM formulas that all antenna modeling
programs are based on!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David,
When you started the group on the idea that you are not allowed to add
the unit of time to both sides of the gaussian equation for statics it
stopped all true consideration of the concept.
Even when shown the relationship by mathematics to Maxwell the group
dug deeper into a hole. When the group rejected these concepts there
is no point in trying to defend the concept in the face of un informed
comments such as yours. You have had a long run of calling me an idiot
so I am going to let time be my judge. There is no way I can duplicate
the massive stand of Cecil with over 300 postings in the face of such
abusive comments by the pseudo experts that abound in this group.
Have a happy day
Art KB9MZ......XG

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 3 May, 17:42, "Dave" wrote:

David,
When you started the group on the idea that you are not allowed to add
the unit of time to both sides of the gaussian equation for statics it
stopped all true consideration of the concept.
Even when shown the relationship by mathematics to Maxwell the group
dug deeper into a hole. When the group rejected these concepts there
is no point in trying to defend the concept in the face of un informed
comments such as yours. You have had a long run of calling me an idiot
so I am going to let time be my judge. There is no way I can duplicate
the massive stand of Cecil with over 300 postings in the face of such
abusive comments by the pseudo experts that abound in this group.
Have a happy day
Art KB9MZ......XG


i have a long run of pointing out junk science. and yours is some of the
junkiest. you insist on using NEC to calculate 'equilibrium', not
understanding that NEC uses exactly the maxwell equations that you don't
believe in. and you throw about modified equations without any way of
proving they are correct. and you have this concept of a fictional surface
where a magic transformation takes place with no way to define or defend it.
So far the only thing you have proven is that allowing optimizers to run on
randomly placed elements can result in gain. And you have shown that if you
let it go far enough without logical constraints you get unrealizable
configurations. Unfortunately a patent doesn't prove anything in this
country besides the fact that no one else has described exactly the same
thing, at least as far as an examiner can tell.

On 4 May, 03:58, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...

On 3 May, 17:42, "Dave" wrote:
David,
When you started the group on the idea that you are not allowed to add
the unit of time to both sides of the gaussian equation for statics it
stopped all true consideration of the concept.
Even when shown the relationship by mathematics to Maxwell the group
dug deeper into a hole. When the group rejected these concepts there
is no point in trying to defend the concept in the face of un informed
comments such as yours. You have had a long run of calling me an idiot
so I am going to let time be my judge. There is no way I can duplicate
the massive stand of Cecil with over 300 postings in the face of such
abusive comments by the pseudo experts that abound in this group.
Have a happy day
Art KB9MZ......XG
snip
.. you insist on using NEC to calculate 'equilibrium', not
understanding that NEC uses exactly the maxwell equations that you don't
believe in.

Now you are making things up, I have not said that I don't believe in
Maxwells equations

and you throw about modified equations without any way of
proving they are correct.

And an independent person from M.I.T. a Doctor no less confirmed my
analysis as being consistent with Maxwells laws and went to great
lengths in supplying the mathematical route.

and you have this concept of a fictional surface

The arbitary border of a Gaussian field is generally stated as being
frictionless since it is a arbitary boundary that surrounds a mass in
equilibrium.Contrary to your statement equilibrium does not
necessarily mean coupling it means a balanced existence in a
gravitational field ( my words). Coupling means an mutual existence
inside a common field.
where the tranfer of energy occurres inside that common field. In
which case an equation cannot be made for a given space of time since
the exchange of energy continues to take place after the application
of energy has ceased.

where a magic transformation takes place with no way to define or defend it.

It is no magic transformation if one adds time to a conservative field
such that it becomes a non conservative field. If one wants reality
the unit of time must be present for a fantasy conservative field made
of static particles becomes a non conservative field with reality.

So far the only thing you have proven is that allowing optimizers to run on
randomly placed elements can result in gain.

The optimizer is based on proven Maxwellian laws not a figment of
imagination. It shows that
laws were in existence before Maxwell that were established by other
people whose thoughts
interlocked with other thoughts and data. Pointings vector is one of
these which shows all the same characteristics of my concepts that you
disdain in your last posting. Thus contrary to dismissing Maxwell I am
confirming the laws by an independent avenue.

And you have shown that if you
let it go far enough without logical constraints you get unrealizable
configurations.

I suppose that is posible to occur but it wasn't I that provided the
porported demonstration.

The whole basis of the concept is equilibrium and if a computor
program fails to conform with that position I would blame the human
content of the program and not nature.


Unfortunately a patent doesn't prove anything in this
country besides the fact that no one else has described exactly the same
thing, at least as far as an examiner can tell.

Very true, which in itself is not all that bad and Congress has not
abandoned that institution
for good reason. When a request is printed it invites experts in
radiation, such as you, to submit reasons as to why it should not be
granted. Why not give it a try, but use of the word "can't" alone will
not be seen as satisfactory. The institution is for those who use the
word of " can" which you seem to take delight in deriding which in
itself cannot prevent changes or prevent the advance of science.
Why not do something really constructive and help Frank with his
program? For the life of me
I do not understand why those familiar with NEC in this group aren't
helping the guy. Is he persona non grata or are all taking a delight
in seeing him struggle. If the NEC program determines something
different to what I supplied then the debate would be settled and the
truth will come out. Why would a group of antenna experts not give
assistance to a fellow ham in need? Is there something that you abhor
when a thread is stopped in its tracks without reaching the 400
postings mark? Is the exchange of insults the overiding factor in this
group?
( I know the answer to that!)

Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG
Bloomington IL

On 4 May 2007 08:25:20 -0700, art wrote:

Why not do something really constructive and help Frank with his
program? For the life of me
I do not understand why those familiar with NEC in this group aren't
helping the guy.

Hi Art,

He doesn't need help with NEC, obviously. After four or five rounds
of correspondence he eked out the necessary details to test a claim,
and found it was unconfirmable.

If he needs any help, it is getting a complete description (hence, why
it took him four or five rounds of filling in gaps in the first
place). If he now has the complete description (something you NEVER
acknowledge), then the analysis is complete.

Given both your software and his (and ours) all use the same
calculating engine, then it remains a challenge as to how you arrive
at your results. When you toss in statements like resonance achieved
with significant reactance, or elements that resonate at a third of
their wavelength dimension, one has to wonder even more about your
fundamental failures of first principles.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 4 May, 03:58, "Dave" wrote:
Thus contrary to dismissing Maxwell I am
confirming the laws by an independent avenue.


ah, so your antenna can't be any different than any other parasitically
coupled antenna. you can wave your hands all you want about equilibrium and
adding time to gauss'es law where it doesn't need to be. but if your
antennas conform to the standard maxwell equations and can be modeled with
standard modeling software, then they are nothing new. So what is the big
deal about them? and why try to patent something that has nothing new to
it???