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

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

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

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

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

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

On 4 May 2007 10:15:12 -0700, art wrote:

Seems like mirror image is your stumbling block.

Hi Art,

As there are 3 planes at which a mirror could be set (if one simply
approaches it through the principle axis; if not, there is an infinte
number of mirror choices), the stumbling block is (and has always
been) with an incomplete description.

It has only taken you 8 postings to do what could have been done once
in the beginning - if in fact all the details have been offered.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

Ok, I had interpreted your dimensions correctly. The only change
required was that the feed is now applied to wire #6.

Results:

Gain + 6.9 dBi
F/B ratio 23.1 dB (offset 20 degrees from pattern rear)
TOA 11 deg.
Zin 78.4 - j 27.1

My program is GNEC (v1.62d) from Nittany Scientific
(www.nittany-scientific.com). The program includes the NEC2/NEC4
cores optimized for 32 bit Windows.

Frank

NEC code used:

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 6 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 -90 202 1 1
EN

On 4 May, 12:54, "Frank's"
wrote:
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

Ok, I had interpreted your dimensions correctly. The only change
required was that the feed is now applied to wire #6.

Results:

Gain + 6.9 dBi
F/B ratio 23.1 dB (offset 20 degrees from pattern rear)
TOA 11 deg.
Zin 78.4 - j 27.1

My program is GNEC (v1.62d) from Nittany Scientific
(www.nittany-scientific.com). The program includes the NEC2/NEC4
cores optimized for 32 bit Windows.

Frank

NEC code used:

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 6 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 -90 202 1 1
EN- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank, thanks for sticking with the pursuit despite the lack of help
from the hams on the antenna group. There obviously is a big
difference in the concluding results so the onus is certainly upon me
to recheck my typing from the program to my posting. I am quite sure
if the error was on your side the vultures would have arrived at your
door. Possibly you have annoyed them in the past which is why they are
not helping you. After I have checked things out I certainly will get
back to you and share my findings since you have applied so much
effort on this subject.
My very best regards and thankyou for your efforts, it certainly was
appreceated regardless of the outcome.
My wife's birthday today so it is always possible that something will
come up so please be patient with me. In the mean time it would be
instructive if you applied feed to each of the other elements in turn
as it may supply a clue in the future. In the mean time we will watch
the vultures come after me with the conviction that all is really
known about antennas and I am an idiot to think otherwise while in the
company of so many experts.
Art Unwin KB9MZ........XG