Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

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

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

"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

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 -

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

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.

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

"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!

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

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

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

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

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

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

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

"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.

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

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

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

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

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

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

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

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

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

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

"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???

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

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

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

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

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

Art Unwin wrote:
'elements are in cluster form where each element is aimed at resonance
as is the array in its entirety."

Art may have spilled the beans above.

A feature in Ham pages is "Fact of the Day" from Tigertek Inc. Their
December 21, 2006 was "Virtually-Pure Horizontal Polarization". It is
copyrighted, but appeared immediately when I searched on "ham radio fact
of the day by Tigertek". The item rang a bell when it said that magnetic
dipoles that meet the requirements are sometimes inefficient so several
are clustered together and fed in-phase.

That does not mean that Art has no novelty, but it may or may not make a
good patent.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

On 4 May, 13:21, art wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank, I could not find anything that would have caused a problem.
I intend now to up the segment a lot and then reload the program and
start again
which will take some time.
Art

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

Frank, I could not find anything that would have caused a problem.
I intend now to up the segment a lot and then reload the program and
start again
which will take some time.
Art

Hold everything Art. It seems I did not understand how your
coordinates were set up. Thanks to somebody who pointed
out my error -- now back to the drawing board!!

Frank

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

On 4 May, 17:06, "Frank's"
wrote:
Frank, I could not find anything that would have caused a problem.
I intend now to up the segment a lot and then reload the program and
start again
which will take some time.
Art

Hold everything Art. It seems I did not understand how your
coordinates were set up. Thanks to somebody who pointed
out my error -- now back to the drawing board!!

Frank

O.K. But don't forget to thank the person who pointed it out, and do
it PRIVATELY
Help is hard to get these days and you should protect his identity.
For myself
I want to thank that person very much for taking such a risk. I really
did not want to take out my program and then reload it for fear of
losing everything, now I don't have to take the risk.
I was looking at MMANA as a possible down load for checking purposes
even tho similar programs have been checked successfully using NEC 4
but this is not the time to put my laptop in danger
Thanks a bunch
Art

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

"Frank's" wrote in message
news:ZTP_h.4028$Vi6.2131@edtnps82...
Frank, I could not find anything that would have caused a problem.
I intend now to up the segment a lot and then reload the program and
start again
which will take some time.
Art

Hold everything Art. It seems I did not understand how your
coordinates were set up. Thanks to somebody who pointed
out my error -- now back to the drawing board!!

Frank

Code modified as shown below:

CM Gaussian Array
CE
GW 1 31 273.3 164.1 820 273.3 -164.1 820 0.65
GW 2 41 25.1 203.3 1079 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65
GW 3 31 171.1 202.1 582 171.1 -202.1 582 0.65
GW 4 30 321.6 178.4 1036.5 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 5 41 2.1 206.5 701.2 2.1 -206.5 701.2 0.65
GW 6 31 153.5 194.5 1038.1 153.5 -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 1 361 1000 79 0 1 1
EN

Results at 14.25 MHz:

Gain = +14.6 dB
F/B ration = 31.5 dB
TOA = 11 degrees
Zin = 27.0 + j 0.25

These results appear to agree with your findings.
The structure could be fine tuned by including the insulation
and element tapering. Also I have not fully balanced the
segmentation. The only question I have is
how does this compare with a conventional 6 element
yagi at the same nominal height of 85 ft.

Frank

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

On 4 May, 18:08, "Frank's"
wrote:
"Frank's" wrote in message

news:ZTP_h.4028$Vi6.2131@edtnps82...

Frank, I could not find anything that would have caused a problem.
I intend now to up the segment a lot and then reload the program and
start again
which will take some time.
Art

Hold everything Art. It seems I did not understand how your
coordinates were set up. Thanks to somebody who pointed
out my error -- now back to the drawing board!!

Frank

Code modified as shown below:

CM Gaussian Array
CE
GW 1 31 273.3 164.1 820 273.3 -164.1 820 0.65
GW 2 41 25.1 203.3 1079 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65
GW 3 31 171.1 202.1 582 171.1 -202.1 582 0.65
GW 4 30 321.6 178.4 1036.5 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 5 41 2.1 206.5 701.2 2.1 -206.5 701.2 0.65
GW 6 31 153.5 194.5 1038.1 153.5 -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 1 361 1000 79 0 1 1
EN

Results at 14.25 MHz:

Gain = +14.6 dB
F/B ration = 31.5 dB
TOA = 11 degrees
Zin = 27.0 + j 0.25

These results appear to agree with your findings.
The structure could be fine tuned by including the insulation
and element tapering. Also I have not fully balanced the
segmentation. The only question I have is
how does this compare with a conventional 6 element
yagi at the same nominal height of 85 ft.

Frank

Frank,
I am very gratefull to both you and the other person who helped you
out.
To compare this particular model with say a yagi would be difficult. I
provided it as a sample only and in a simplistic form for review of
those you may be interested. What it does show is beam width that has
not been compressed by focussing as with the yagi as well as a
naturally high f/b even tho conventional reflectors are not used. What
is important to me is that it is back up proof of my concept in
addition to the mathematical aproach which has been rejected by all.
I see this as a major step forward in the design of antennas
especially for WiFi where even coverage
is desired Even with this bare model the beamwidth can be increased
enormously with just a slight modification, and the bandwidth can be
increased also over the Yagi.
There is no doubt that a fully developed gaussian array will provide
better results in many ways for real estate used, not that ships have
a requirement for an extra long yagi at HF. So again Frank thank you
so much for putting this thing to rest. It has been nearly 100 years
since the Yagi and a hard battle against those who followed the view
that all is known about antennas. Naturally I have not explored all
the variations of this new concept and I expect when industry gets a
hold of it more surprises will come to the fore since there are so
many universities joining the hunt for a better antennas for cell
phones because of the dropped call problems since this antenna allows
for more Gaussian channels because of its polarity purity. If you want
to write it up for any reason or show it to your club e.t.c
then be my guest tho I must tell you that a patent request has been in
the channels for quite a while. For myself I have no interest in
pursing it anymore since change is considered so unacceptable by many
that they resort to abuse. If you need any more info you can E mail me
any time at the address shown above and I will supply all I can. If
you look back a few weeks and months and even over a year you will see
many postings on the subject with a special reference to a gentleman
from M.I.T. a Doctor in fact who went to extraordinary lengths to
supply the mathematical proofs to this concept just a couple of weeks
ago and to whom I owe a lot of thanks since his apearance on the scene
was not exactly welcome by some of the couch masters..
So now thanks to you this subject can be seen as closed and insults
should now come to an end especially when written in a book which in
this group gives it overiding power. Now it will be interesting to see
what the amateur community can do with this new finding tho naturally
there will be a period where the average ham will enlarge on all the
negative things over any good things.
Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ ............XG
Bloomington IL

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

Frank's wrote:
. . .
These results appear to agree with your findings.
The structure could be fine tuned by including the insulation
and element tapering. Also I have not fully balanced the
segmentation. The only question I have is
how does this compare with a conventional 6 element
yagi at the same nominal height of 85 ft.

Out of curiosity, I brought up an EZNEC model of two stacked 5 element
beams from the ARRL Antenna Book, 20th Ed., model ARRL_5L15 95'.EZ. I
deleted half the elements to leave a single 5 element array, and lowered
it to 65 feet. I also changed the current source to a voltage source for
simplicity, and removed the wire loss (which EZNEC translates to NEC as
a bunch of loads) -- the wire loss makes a difference of only 0.05 dB.
Here's an NEC model of the 5 element array up 65':

CM 5L15 95'
CE
GW 1,11,-3.464585,-3.528538,19.812,-3.464585,3.528612,19.812,.008906
GW 2,11,-1.766258,-3.345701,19.812,-1.766258,3.3457,19.812,.0088644
GW 3,11,-.4925144,-3.283913,19.812,-.4925144,3.283913,19.812,.0089841
GW 4,11,1.120895,-2.98782,19.812,1.120895,2.98782,19.812,.0087506
GW 5,11,3.464584,-2.793987,19.812,3.464584,2.793987,19.812,.009137
GE 1
FR 0,1,0,0,21.2
GN 2,0,0,0,13.,.005
EX 0,2,6,0,1.414214,0.
RP 0,1,361,1000,80.,0.,0.,1.,0.
EN

Gain as-is is 14.11 dBi; with loss, 14.07 dBi. Zin = 21.51 - j22.26
ohms. Takeoff angle is 10 degrees.

Seems to me this would be a lot easier to build and support than the
"Gaussian" model. And I'll bet you could make up the half dB gain
difference quite easily by adding a sixth element.

People with the 20th Edition of the Antenna Book can open the model,
make the same modifications I did, and run it with the EZNEC ARRL
program furnished with the Antenna Book, or any EZNEC program type
except the demo.

Anyone who's impressed with the gain figure of either antenna should
model a dipole at the same height for comparison.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 4 May, 18:08, "Frank's"
wrote:
What it does show is beam width that has
not been compressed by focussing as with the yagi as well as a

wider beam equals lower gain, this is and advantage??

naturally high f/b even tho conventional reflectors are not used.

this is easy to do without reflectors, 2 element vertical arrays can have
extremely high f/b ratios with no 'conventional reflector'.

phones because of the dropped call problems since this antenna allows
for more Gaussian channels because of its polarity purity. If you want

define: 'Gaussian channel' and 'polarity purity' and how they prevent
dropped calls.

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

On Sat, 05 May 2007 00:20:08 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Anyone who's impressed with the gain figure of either antenna should
model a dipole at the same height for comparison.


Hi Roy,

A useful suggestion. Having a reference is always the point to start
from.

Another option, as for all of Art's designs, throw away half the
elements to improve performance.

Easier yet, simply pull up a design that has been around 80 years
(found in most books on the subject of Antennas), the Yagi. Case in
point (and illustrating my comment about throwing away three of those
six wires) is available without thinking, designing, or going to the
library: simply use the free version of EZNEC and open NBSYAGI.EZ.

To make it comparable to the description that has taken a dozen
postings to sort out:
1. shift the units to inches (makes absolutely no difference on the
original design);
2. shift the frequency, along with a rescale, to 14.25 Mhz (makes
absolutely no difference on the original design);
3. raise the antenna by 1400 inches (makes absolutely no difference
on the original design);
4. change the ground type to perfect (makes absolutely no difference
on the original design);
5. change the plot type to 3D (makes absolutely no difference on the
original design);
6. change the Step Size to 1 degree (makes absolutely no difference
on the original design).

Now, to enjoy the rewards of the triumph of truth:
1. press the FF Plot
2. press the show 2D plot

Results:
Gain: 15.58 dBi
toa: 8 degrees

Differences?
MORE GAIN THAN THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE
LOWER LAUNCH ANGLE THAN THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE
HALF THE ELEMENTS OF THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE
SIMPLER TO CONSTRUCT THAN THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE
THEORY AVAILABLE, NOT SO WITH THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE
DESIGN IS FREE, NOT SO WITH THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE

[no Gauss were harmed during the analysis of these antennas]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:
"Having a reference is always the point to start from."

Kraus compares his W8JK array with its two dipoles spaced only
1/8-wavelength apart, against an array with its two dipoles spaced
1/2-wavelength, one dipole above the other. These two arrays are both
pictured on page 184 of the 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas". Though the
gain of either array is about 6 dB, the inherent impedance of the W8JK
array is low due to its close spacing and coupling. Impedance of the
1/2-wave-spaced array is 333 ohms at its drivepoint. Impedance of the
W8JK is adjusted with a stub to match the feedline. Its inherent low
impedance may cost the W8JK about a fraction of a dB in efficiency (see
page 187) but as both dipoles are high (sharing the same horizontal
plane) a lowered angle of maximum radiation has proved advantageous for
the W8JK.

Kraus` comparison seems fair and his disclosure seems complete. Maybe
that`s why the the antenna array known by his amateur radio call sign is
famous.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

Out of curiosity, I brought up an EZNEC model of two stacked 5 element
beams from the ARRL Antenna Book, 20th Ed., model ARRL_5L15 95'.EZ. I
deleted half the elements to leave a single 5 element array, and lowered
it to 65 feet. I also changed the current source to a voltage source for
simplicity, and removed the wire loss (which EZNEC translates to NEC as a
bunch of loads) -- the wire loss makes a difference of only 0.05 dB.
Here's an NEC model of the 5 element array up 65':

CM 5L15 95'
CE
GW 1,11,-3.464585,-3.528538,19.812,-3.464585,3.528612,19.812,.008906
GW 2,11,-1.766258,-3.345701,19.812,-1.766258,3.3457,19.812,.0088644
GW 3,11,-.4925144,-3.283913,19.812,-.4925144,3.283913,19.812,.0089841
GW 4,11,1.120895,-2.98782,19.812,1.120895,2.98782,19.812,.0087506
GW 5,11,3.464584,-2.793987,19.812,3.464584,2.793987,19.812,.009137
GE 1
FR 0,1,0,0,21.2
GN 2,0,0,0,13.,.005
EX 0,2,6,0,1.414214,0.
RP 0,1,361,1000,80.,0.,0.,1.,0.
EN

Gain as-is is 14.11 dBi; with loss, 14.07 dBi. Zin = 21.51 - j22.26 ohms.
Takeoff angle is 10 degrees.

Seems to me this would be a lot easier to build and support than the
"Gaussian" model. And I'll bet you could make up the half dB gain
difference quite easily by adding a sixth element.

People with the 20th Edition of the Antenna Book can open the model, make
the same modifications I did, and run it with the EZNEC ARRL program
furnished with the Antenna Book, or any EZNEC program type except the
demo.

Anyone who's impressed with the gain figure of either antenna should model
a dipole at the same height for comparison.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

A dipole at 85 ft shows a gain of 7.5 dBi, with a TOA of 11 degrees.
Using ARRL's program "YW" a 6 element Yagi at 85 ft has a gain
of 16.7 dBi on 14 MHz.

Running Roy's program, above, I get exactly the same results. The
F/B ratio is also excellent at 28 dB.

Frank

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

"Frank's" wrote in message
news:WW4%h.5980$au6.1475@edtnps90...
Out of curiosity, I brought up an EZNEC model of two stacked 5 element
beams from the ARRL Antenna Book, 20th Ed., model ARRL_5L15 95'.EZ. I
deleted half the elements to leave a single 5 element array, and lowered
it to 65 feet. I also changed the current source to a voltage source for
simplicity, and removed the wire loss (which EZNEC translates to NEC as a
bunch of loads) -- the wire loss makes a difference of only 0.05 dB.
Here's an NEC model of the 5 element array up 65':

CM 5L15 95'
CE
GW 1,11,-3.464585,-3.528538,19.812,-3.464585,3.528612,19.812,.008906
GW 2,11,-1.766258,-3.345701,19.812,-1.766258,3.3457,19.812,.0088644
GW 3,11,-.4925144,-3.283913,19.812,-.4925144,3.283913,19.812,.0089841
GW 4,11,1.120895,-2.98782,19.812,1.120895,2.98782,19.812,.0087506
GW 5,11,3.464584,-2.793987,19.812,3.464584,2.793987,19.812,.009137
GE 1
FR 0,1,0,0,21.2
GN 2,0,0,0,13.,.005
EX 0,2,6,0,1.414214,0.
RP 0,1,361,1000,80.,0.,0.,1.,0.
EN

Gain as-is is 14.11 dBi; with loss, 14.07 dBi. Zin = 21.51 - j22.26 ohms.
Takeoff angle is 10 degrees.

Seems to me this would be a lot easier to build and support than the
"Gaussian" model. And I'll bet you could make up the half dB gain
difference quite easily by adding a sixth element.

People with the 20th Edition of the Antenna Book can open the model, make
the same modifications I did, and run it with the EZNEC ARRL program
furnished with the Antenna Book, or any EZNEC program type except the
demo.

Anyone who's impressed with the gain figure of either antenna should
model a dipole at the same height for comparison.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

A dipole at 85 ft shows a gain of 7.5 dBi, with a TOA of 11 degrees.
Using ARRL's program "YW" a 6 element Yagi at 85 ft has a gain
of 16.7 dBi on 14 MHz.

Running Roy's program, above, I get exactly the same results. The
F/B ratio is also excellent at 28 dB.

Frank

Is it possible to post an image of what Art's antenna would look like?
I would like to so what his antenna looks like as his discription has gone
beyound my imagination.

Jimmie.

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

Is it possible to post an image of what Art's antenna would look like?
I would like to so what his antenna looks like as his discription has gone
beyound my imagination.

Jimmie.

I can send you a JPEG of an NEC graphic. It is only 9 kB. The array
looks like two stacked 3 element yagis, with only the upper array
driven. I deleted the lower array, and it only made a slight
difference to the performance.

Frank

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

Frank's wrote:

I can send you a JPEG of an NEC graphic. It is only 9 kB. The array
looks like two stacked 3 element yagis, with only the upper array
driven. I deleted the lower array, and it only made a slight
difference to the performance.

Sure doesn't look like stacked Yagis to me. No two elements are at the
same height. Or are we talking about the same model?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

On Sat, 05 May 2007 16:15:13 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Sure doesn't look like stacked Yagis to me. No two elements are at the
same height.

Hi Roy,

Ever the conventionalist. Elements needn't be at the same height to
perform this job. Maybe to perform a better job, maybe not; but it
doesn't seem like anyone will visit this one again soon. Antennas
seem to have the capacity to present a better model than the last one
shown. Using the NBS Yagi to compare certainly wasn't the epitome of
design.

Or are we talking about the same model?

Only one person could possible confirm that, and history has revealed
we have NEVER seen that happen.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Frank's wrote:

I can send you a JPEG of an NEC graphic. It is only 9 kB. The array
looks like two stacked 3 element yagis, with only the upper array
driven. I deleted the lower array, and it only made a slight
difference to the performance.

Sure doesn't look like stacked Yagis to me. No two elements are at the
same height. Or are we talking about the same model?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

If I got the coordinates right, then tags 2, 4, and 6 are within +/- 2 ft of
the
same plane and parallel to the Y axis. Tag 6 is in the middle, and is the
driven element. Tag 2 is longer (Reflector) than the driven element, and
Tag 4 is
shorter (director). The currents in these 3 elements appear to be about
what
I would expect in a 3 element beam. The other three Tags (1, 3, & 5) are
more random in their placement, and far removed from the "Yagi" like plane.
The do not seem to contribute very much
to the performance. The radiation pattern is very close to a Yagi
pattern, although the vertical beam width appears wider.

Just to be sure I did not mess up -- again! -- I have pasted the code below.

Frank

CM Gaussian Array
CE
GW 1 31 273.3 164.1 820 273.3 -164.1 820 0.65
GW 2 41 25.1 203.3 1079 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65
GW 3 31 171.1 202.1 582 171.1 -202.1 582 0.65
GW 4 30 321.6 178.4 1036.5 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 5 41 2.1 206.5 701.2 2.1 -206.5 701.2 0.65
GW 6 31 153.5 194.5 1038.1 153.5 -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 0 1 1
EN

Gaussian cluster antenna array data
 

"Frank's" wrote in message
news:%V6%h.6012$au6.5029@edtnps90...
Is it possible to post an image of what Art's antenna would look like?
I would like to so what his antenna looks like as his discription has
gone beyound my imagination.

Jimmie.

I can send you a JPEG of an NEC graphic. It is only 9 kB. The array
looks like two stacked 3 element yagis, with only the upper array
driven. I deleted the lower array, and it only made a slight
difference to the performance.

Frank

If you could send me the jpg I would appreciate it. I had been trying to
picture what this may look like from Art's discription. I was imaginining a
cluster of elements of random lengths pointing in all kind of different
directions all fed from a common feedpoint.

Thanks
Jimmie