|
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 20 Jun, 08:58, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "Thought I would give you another example to laugh at." Laughing is good for you but I`m still not laughing. Art may have a valuable contribution to make. He gave some respectable performance figures but I`m in the dark on how to reproduce them. How an antenna`s gain adds up is shown by Kraus in his explanation of the Deutche Welle antenna featured on the rear cover of the paperback 3rd edition of "Antennas". It starts on page 703 and continues on page 705. "Solution: (a) The gain of a single half-wave dipole is 2.15 dBi and of 2 collinear in-phase half-wave dipoles is 3.8 dBi. The array of 8 such collinear dipoles adds 3+3+3=9 dB. The reflector screen adds 3 dB more and the ground bounce another 6 dB for a total gain of 3.8+9+3+6=21.8 dBi or a directivity of 151 approx." As for denigration, John D. Kraus was a radio amateur, W8JK. Best regards, Richard Harrison. KB5WZI Why can't you get it thru your head that the antenna is NOT a Yagi nor does it work like a Yagi.A yagi is based on coupling that allows for focussing of radiation. The Yagi antenna is not in a state of equilibrium. The new antenna is a subject of a patent thus it is not in your books or any book as yet. I suggest you wait until it is printed in a book instead of just thrashing around. On the other side of the coin, all details are clearly stated over the past year or more on this newsgroup. Unfortunately until the term equilibrium with respect antenna elements which requires understanding not just learning from a book you are out in left field. With respect to Kraus you are not a John Kraus |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:45:53 -0700, art wrote:
On the other side of the coin, all details are clearly stated over the past year or more on this newsgroup. Bull Looney. You have simply robbed graves and used the headstones to adorn your postings. You couldn't even explain the significance of "equilibrium." However, that hardly matters because in plain English it maintains the entire absence of dynamism. Antennas are dynamic. Yours are dead? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form"
Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Jun 21, 12:44 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:45:53 -0700, art wrote: On the other side of the coin, all details are clearly stated over the past year or more on this newsgroup. Bull Looney. You have simply robbed graves and used the headstones to adorn your postings. You couldn't even explain the significance of "equilibrium." However, that hardly matters because in plain English it maintains the entire absence of dynamism. Antennas are dynamic. Yours are dead? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC OED's at home, but I doubt that the definition found there is much different than, "a condition of balance between opposites," found in an American Heritage desk dictionary, or "equal balance between any powers, influences, etc.; equality of effect," found at www.dictionary.com. Systems in equilibrium can be very dynamic, with lots going on, as in chemical reactions. Old-growth forests reach a state of equilibrium, but that certainly doesn't mean they are static. When you turn on a faucet, there's an initial transient but quite rapidly, a condition of equilibrium is reached wherein the amount of water flowing into the far end of the pipe equals the amount delivered by the faucet (assuming no leaks along the way); but that's a dynamic system too. Just what Art means when he writes about "equilibrium" with respect to antennas is a total mystery to me, though. I have not a clue in what way his "Gaussian" antenna is either more in equilibrium than a Yagi or a doublet or a coat-hanger or a bed-spring, or for that matter is "Gaussian" in any sense that my dictionaries define "Gaussian." (I suppose he'll say I've become "indignant" about it, or that I have dismissed his ideas, in which case he's totally missed the point...) But then, I'd probably get fired and sued for publicly writing details about an idea that was the subject of a patent application... Cheers, Tom |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:19:20 -0700, K7ITM wrote:
OED's at home, but I doubt that the definition found there is much different than, "a condition of balance between opposites," Which is rather static. Balance (passive) is not the same as balancing (active); otherwise the term would be equilibrating - and it is not. However, the OED does offer: "The condition of indecision or indifference...." which seems wholly appropriate, but unintentionally ironic. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote:
Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF The description and the mathematics and a sample antenna is on this newsgroup plus the computor program that independendently checked it out. The two Richards can't figure it out but that doesn't mean that the more educated in the group can't figure it out disregarding any puny attempts of mine to share it. I have even shown its beginnings from the Gaussian law of Statics, a non conservative field thru a transition to a non conservative field Now the Richards say they don't understand it and there fore it is just another fake antenna. Many of this group are not evaluating for themselves they are following the Richards, and that is their choice. Gambling odds suggest you are more correct than incorrect to say that there is nothing new in antennas especially if you don't have to declare why. So if you want to think for yourself you first must know how to read so that you can read the archives on the Gaussian antenna. Remember the Richards say they do not understand it so why not see if you can understand it then you can make rational postings where they cannot. Now the naysayers will now chime in with their chanting that suggest that if you are not with them then you are against them, so only you can decide what measure of man you are. I have shared everything with all, nothing held back. I have petitioned for a patent and I assume that the PTO has printed it. I have nothing more to give you especially if you are not willing to do something for yourself. Why gamble if you are smart enough to pre determine the odds? There is nothing in the books or in any Amateur magazines or writings by self styled experts, the only place where you may find the information is here at this newsgroup or at the PTO Art ..KB9MZ.......XG |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote:
Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I did my best in answering questions even in the face of ridicule. Any more questions are probably repeats but I still keep trying knowing that in the main the interest is not the antenna but the missives fired. Not one person has stated what parts he does understand and needs help to move on to the next step. But I can't make up for education not taken by the posters. Even with basic mathematics there are many that say you can't add the same thing to both sides of a mathematical equation, so how can I help such people? I stated that the elements as is the antenna as a whole is in equilibrium, they respond that it is a botched form of Yagi. They then ask what is meant by equilibrium and I say that the current in the elements change direction at the same time, and they don't accept that. Yes it is all my fault, I am a fraud, the antenna can't possibly work, I have not explained it well enough for the lower educated, if it worked people would be knocking at my door, If it worked then I knew about it all along. Yes I knew about it but I didn't think it would work so I forgot about it. What use is it and on and on.It seems that this newsgroup is a microcosm of the direction of where ham radio is going but I keep hoping that somebody will come along and show me where I am wrong but unfortunately the real experts have decided that they don't need all these insults and have moved on. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote:
Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote: Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, "Dave" wrote:
the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason. You've pretty much nailed it on the head... Pretty much delusions of grandeur induced by a modeling program. I can make a simple dipole have loads and loads of gain in a modeling program.. Now getting power to it's very low Z in the real world? Good luck in the contest is all I can say.. MK |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 22 Jun, 11:57, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote: Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I volunteered not admitted that I am a mechanical, but even mechanical engineers are aware of what it takes to change a conservative field into a nonconservative field. You SAY you are a EE, well I don't believe you! Your comments so far deny the very possibility. You are not aware of electrical fields ala conservative fields as in a static field and a non conservative field as in a time variable electromagnetic fields, you cannot possibly be a EE. It would appear that only non EE's have ventured forward to deny the underpinnings where- as those that obviously have a E.E. have not denied the mathematics, or the program results e.t.c. .If one had a degree, any sort of a degree, he would have presented data that demonstrated the faults of my position. The E.E.,s on this group of which there are many have not done this or even mildly echoed your position. You sir are not now in a position to call yourself an electrical engineer and your postings thoroughly confirm that you are a fraud. Art KB9MZ.....XG |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"art" wrote in message ups.com... On 22 Jun, 11:57, "Dave" wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.com... On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote: Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I volunteered not admitted that I am a mechanical, but even mechanical engineers are aware of what it takes to change a conservative field into a nonconservative field. You SAY you are a EE, well I don't believe you! Your comments so far deny the very possibility. You are not aware of electrical fields ala conservative fields as in a static field and a non conservative field as in a time variable electromagnetic fields, you cannot possibly be a EE. It would appear that only non EE's have ventured forward to deny the underpinnings where- as those that obviously have a E.E. have not denied the mathematics, or the program results e.t.c. .If one had a degree, any sort of a degree, he would have presented data that demonstrated the faults of my position. The E.E.,s on this group of which there are many have not done this or even mildly echoed your position. You sir are not now in a position to call yourself an electrical engineer and your postings thoroughly confirm that you are a fraud. Art KB9MZ.....XG you have not presented any facts to rebut. start with one fact, define 'gaussian antenna'. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 23 Jun, 08:54, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message ups.com... On 22 Jun, 11:57, "Dave" wrote: "art" wrote in message groups.com... On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote: Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I volunteered not admitted that I am a mechanical, but even mechanical engineers are aware of what it takes to change a conservative field into a nonconservative field. You SAY you are a EE, well I don't believe you! Your comments so far deny the very possibility. You are not aware of electrical fields ala conservative fields as in a static field and a non conservative field as in a time variable electromagnetic fields, you cannot possibly be a EE. It would appear that only non EE's have ventured forward to deny the underpinnings where- as those that obviously have a E.E. have not denied the mathematics, or the program results e.t.c. .If one had a degree, any sort of a degree, he would have presented data that demonstrated the faults of my position. The E.E.,s on this group of which there are many have not done this or even mildly echoed your position. You sir are not now in a position to call yourself an electrical engineer and your postings thoroughly confirm that you are a fraud. Art KB9MZ.....XG you have not presented any facts to rebut. start with one fact, define 'gaussian antenna'.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That has been done, It is not my problem that you are not an engineer |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 23 Jun, 08:54, "Dave" wrote: "art" wrote in message ups.com... On 22 Jun, 11:57, "Dave" wrote: "art" wrote in message groups.com... On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote: Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I volunteered not admitted that I am a mechanical, but even mechanical engineers are aware of what it takes to change a conservative field into a nonconservative field. You SAY you are a EE, well I don't believe you! Your comments so far deny the very possibility. You are not aware of electrical fields ala conservative fields as in a static field and a non conservative field as in a time variable electromagnetic fields, you cannot possibly be a EE. It would appear that only non EE's have ventured forward to deny the underpinnings where- as those that obviously have a E.E. have not denied the mathematics, or the program results e.t.c. .If one had a degree, any sort of a degree, he would have presented data that demonstrated the faults of my position. The E.E.,s on this group of which there are many have not done this or even mildly echoed your position. You sir are not now in a position to call yourself an electrical engineer and your postings thoroughly confirm that you are a fraud. Art KB9MZ.....XG you have not presented any facts to rebut. start with one fact, define 'gaussian antenna'.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That has been done, It is not my problem that you are not an engineer no it hasn't. you have waived your arms about it being in 'equilibrium', you have mis-used an imaginary surface around it as some kind of magical boundry where it suddenly starts radiating, you have made some kind of claim about it being resonant, and you have given several vague descriptions of examples that sound like various kinds of driven or parasitic elements randomly arranged, but you have never defined it in terms that an ee would understand, let alone enough for anyone else who might be interested in creating their own version. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"Dave" wrote in message news:CLdfi.655$t95.38@trndny01... That has been done, It is not my problem that you are not an engineer no it hasn't. you have waived your arms about it being in 'equilibrium', you have mis-used an imaginary surface around it as some kind of magical boundry where it suddenly starts radiating, you have made some kind of claim about it being resonant, and you have given several vague descriptions of examples that sound like various kinds of driven or parasitic elements randomly arranged, but you have never defined it in terms that an ee would understand, let alone enough for anyone else who might be interested in creating their own version. You already defined it: Guessitian antenna. Guess anything you want, and you gotit. What you expect from the ARTist who has a patent on "reflector is shorter than driven el." and "director is longer than driven". Either patent office is dimm, or the "inventor". Troll, troll,.... Yuri |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 23 Jun, 13:01, "Yuri Blanarovich" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message news:CLdfi.655$t95.38@trndny01... That has been done, It is not my problem that you are not an engineer no it hasn't. you have waived your arms about it being in 'equilibrium', you have mis-used an imaginary surface around it as some kind of magical boundry where it suddenly starts radiating, you have made some kind of claim about it being resonant, and you have given several vague descriptions of examples that sound like various kinds of driven or parasitic elements randomly arranged, but you have never defined it in terms that an ee would understand, let alone enough for anyone else who might be interested in creating their own version. You already defined it: Guessitian antenna. Guess anything you want, and you gotit. What you expect from the ARTist who has a patent on "reflector is shorter than driven el." and "director is longer than driven". Either patent office is dimm, or the "inventor". Troll, troll,.... Yuri Yuri, why do you perpetually embarrass yourself with silly postings. Eventually hams will realise that they are meeting the real you. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 23 Jun, 13:01, "Yuri Blanarovich" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message news:CLdfi.655$t95.38@trndny01... You already defined it: Guessitian antenna. Guess anything you want, and you gotit. What you expect from the ARTist who has a patent on "reflector is shorter than driven el." and "director is longer than driven". Either patent office is dimm, or the "inventor". Troll, troll,.... Yuri Yuri, why do you perpetually embarrass yourself with silly postings. Eventually hams will realise that they are meeting the real you. What's perpetually embarrassing: your patent and immortalizing in patent office document for whole world to see that you don't know difference between director and reflector, or me having some fun with your mumbo-jumbo??? bada goose BUm |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 22 Jun, 11:57, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote: Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It is not my problem that you can't understand it I suggest you consult an engineer for help.As I have said many times before the antenna array is resonant in its entirety as is the contributing radiating elements. That definition therefore is describing an array in equilibrium. From that definition it is obvious that there is no coupling as with a Yagi design i.e. it is NOT a parassitic array and you are not an engineer, you are a fraud.By the way I volunteered that I was a mechanical engineer, I wasn't tortured or any thing like that so I would "admit" it. But even mechanical engineers understand conservative and non conservative fields and what is required to transform from one to another by adding the varient time factor ( see mathematical analysis by DrJohn E Davis of M.I.T. in the Gaussian Static Law thread dated March 13.} While you are at it see the independent antenna program check by Frank Dated May 4 in thread Gaussian Cluster Antenna Array Data General viewers should also insert the word Gaussian as the key search word above to read reactions by the many esteemed experts in this antenna group which will amaze you With all this information you still cling to the silly idea that you are a E.E. when obviously you are just a fraud. Find yourself a real engineer to agree with you first before you make an idiot of yourself again Art KB9MZ......XG |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"art" wrote in message ups.com... On 22 Jun, 11:57, "Dave" wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.com... On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote: Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It is not my problem that you can't understand it I suggest you consult an engineer for help.As I have said many times before the antenna array is resonant in its entirety as is the contributing radiating elements. so is a yagi... have you ever measured the feed point impedance of a yagi? do you not see a resonance in that? have you changed lengths or spacings of elements in a yagi and seen the resonance move? That definition therefore is describing an array in equilibrium. From that definition it is obvious that there is no coupling as with a Yagi design i.e. it is NOT a parassitic array and you are not an if it's not parasitic then it is driven, meaning every element has power applied to it from a feedline... but you have described it as driving one element, do if the others are supplying power to contribute to the pattern then it is a parasitic array and falls in the same class as yagis. as for equilibrium, that still makes no sense in relation to antennas unless you are trying to say that power in equals power out, which is a truism (if you ignore resistive losses). nothing new there. but it sounds like you have some other meaning for 'equilibrium' which you have not adequately provided equations for. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 24 Jun, 04:09, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message ups.com... On 22 Jun, 11:57, "Dave" wrote: "art" wrote in message groups.com... On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote: Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It is not my problem that you can't understand it I suggest you consult an engineer for help.As I have said many times before the antenna array is resonant in its entirety as is the contributing radiating elements. so is a yagi... have you ever measured the feed point impedance of a yagi? do you not see a resonance in that? Wrong....With a yagi only the driven element is in equilibrium have you changed lengths or spacings of elements in a yagi and seen the resonance move? If you change the proximetry of other elements then the driven element nust also physically change to maintain equilibrium That definition therefore is describing an array in equilibrium. From that definition it is obvious that there is no coupling as with a Yagi design i.e. it is NOT a parassitic array and you are not an if it's not parasitic then it is driven, meaning every element has power applied to it from a feedline... but you have described it as driving one element, do if the others are supplying power to contribute to the pattern then it is a parasitic array and falls in the same class as yagis. No it does not. Radiation comes in two forms each abiding by the laws of maxwell One is by coupling where one element is resonant at a particular frequency and where one is not. The other method of radiation is where both elements are resonant at the same frequency. These elements can be randomly placed and shaped as well as being resonant in situ, these elements can be seen as being in equilibrium or in concert with each other or by stretching definitions a homogenous mass where energy is applied to the mass as a whole. as for equilibrium, that still makes no sense in relation to antennas unless you are trying to say that power in equals power out, which is a truism (if you ignore resistive losses). Go back to Gaussian law of statics, it is based around a mass in equilibrium ( some equate mass with energy) held within the confines of a boundary where the gravitational pull on the contents equals the outward pull of exteria gravitational actions thus providing a frictionless surrounding area. This can also be seen as the basis for Poyntings Vector diagram nothing new there. but it sounds like you have some other meaning for 'equilibrium' which you have not adequately provided equations for.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The universe is in a state of equilibrium where all integral forces cancel out to zero. Even a small piece of metal has it own gravitational center that acts in concert with with all mass or swarms of energy that surrounds it. If the gravitational pull of energy exceeds tne surrounding energies you get what is known as a "black hole:. If the opposite comes about then an explosion occures, the opposite to an implosion and parts separate and join other gravitational centers to reform as a different swarm of particles drawn to a different center of gravity. All the masters were not mathematicians but all formed their conclusions based on their observations of the Universe i.e equilibrium. It was Maxwell who drew all the observations and placed them ina mathematical form taking care with the use of the "equal" sign to ensure when used it simulated a state of equilibrium. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 24 Jun, 08:13, art wrote:
On 24 Jun, 04:09, "Dave" wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.com... On 22 Jun, 11:57, "Dave" wrote: "art" wrote in message groups.com... On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote: Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It is not my problem that you can't understand it I suggest you consult an engineer for help.As I have said many times before the antenna array is resonant in its entirety as is the contributing radiating elements. so is a yagi... have you ever measured the feed point impedance of a yagi? do you not see a resonance in that? Wrong....With a yagi only the driven element is in equilibrium have you changed lengths or spacings of elements in a yagi and seen the resonance move? If you change the proximetry of other elements then the driven element nust also physically change to maintain equilibrium That definition therefore is describing an array in equilibrium. From that definition it is obvious that there is no coupling as with a Yagi design i.e. it is NOT a parassitic array and you are not an if it's not parasitic then it is driven, meaning every element has power applied to it from a feedline... but you have described it as driving one element, do if the others are supplying power to contribute to the pattern then it is a parasitic array and falls in the same class as yagis. No it does not. Radiation comes in two forms each abiding by the laws of maxwell One is by coupling where one element is resonant at a particular frequency and where one is not. The other method of radiation is where both elements are resonant at the same frequency. These elements can be randomly placed and shaped as well as being resonant in situ, these elements can be seen as being in equilibrium or in concert with each other or by stretching definitions a homogenous mass where energy is applied to the mass as a whole. as for equilibrium, that still makes no sense in relation to antennas unless you are trying to say that power in equals power out, which is a truism (if you ignore resistive losses). Go back to Gaussian law of statics, it is based around a mass in equilibrium ( some equate mass with energy) held within the confines of a boundary where the gravitational pull on the contents equals the outward pull of exteria gravitational actions thus providing a frictionless surrounding area. This can also be seen as the basis for Poyntings Vector diagram nothing new there. but it sounds like you have some other meaning for 'equilibrium' which you have not adequately provided equations for.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The universe is in a state of equilibrium where all integral forces cancel out to zero. Even a small piece of metal has it own gravitational center that acts in concert with with all mass or swarms of energy that surrounds it. If the gravitational pull of energy exceeds tne surrounding energies you get what is known as a "black hole:. If the opposite comes about then an explosion occures, the opposite to an implosion and parts separate and join other gravitational centers to reform as a different swarm of particles drawn to a different center of gravity. All the masters were not mathematicians but all formed their conclusions based on their observations of the Universe i.e equilibrium. It was Maxwell who drew all the observations and placed them ina mathematical form taking care with the use of the "equal" sign to ensure when used it simulated a state of equilibrium.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Addition to the above Maxwell collected all the obsevations by others and put a three dimensional picture (Cartesian 3 dimensional) starting at a particular observation and then built upon it like a jigsaw puzzle progressively including observations of others until the full picture emerged from a mass of pieces. As assemblers of jig saw puzzles know the intricacy of placing the parts in the correct order depends on the starting point and since the majority of observations were of dynamic form it was a dynamic point that Maxwell started from. However if Maxwell had started his composition from a "static" point ala Gausses observations he still would have achieved the final picture but by a different route of clues given. On the other hand a yagi picture is a two dimensional Cartesian picture where only the equilibrium between two points come under consideration tho Yagi came across it the back way where equilibrium was broken and the radiation became bi directional and manipulated by coupling to a common direction with the coupling moving energy fro a resonant structure to a non resonant structure to a non resonant structure with a lesser gravitational pull. Computor programs emulate this procedure by viewing each element as being resonant but at a different frequency and where the energy transition is completed in serial form with respect to time where as the Gaussian transition is completed near instantaneously and as a whole. If one were to place several elements in a cluster form saqy in the shape of a reversed letter 'C' it can be seen that on the application of a time varying current the particles residing on the surface will be propelled to on end or the other depending on the direction of the current, thus the emmision of particles will take place from two or more areas of the misshapenned Poyntings circle in the shape of two swarms of particles at places where there are irregularities of the closed surface. Of course the border openning are constantly closing and current direction changes in the pursuit of constantly changinging equilibrium.Thus some particles that have been propelled away from the element surface finds that its exit is closed off such that the gravitational pull of the element pulls the particle back where it meets a surface that is occupied by other particles leaving it no other place to go but beyond the surface towards the center where it decays Thus we see the escaping partincles emminating from at least two points on the poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near field. So when are particles 'matter' or when are they 'energy'? Another day another dollar. Art KB9MZ.....XG |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 24 Jun, 08:13, art wrote: On 24 Jun, 04:09, "Dave" wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.com... On 22 Jun, 11:57, "Dave" wrote: "art" wrote in message groups.com... On 21 Jun, 14:11, "Richard Fry" wrote: Art wrote about "Gaussian antenna in planar form" Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. (etc) ___________ ART: Probably some of your readers are hoping for your posts in plainer form, so they might hope to understand what you mean. RF I am sharing my findings that are not declared in any books. I did my best. I have answered all questions at least once. In the archives are the mathematical details, samples of antennas, independent computor program checking, independent mathematical explanations and every stage of the transition from Gaussian law of Statics,conservative field to a non concervative field. An explanation of the clustered elements being in equilibrium by virtue of all current directions change at the same time. That the Gaussian array is resonant in its entirety as well as each element alone. Yes, if you want to gamble you can follow the two Richards line and say it is a fake or if you are capable in basic science you can tackle it yourself and not have to resort to the postings of the two Richards, both of which state they don't understand it so what use are their comments. If you are of the opinion that you cannot add the same factor to both sides of a mathematical equation as in simple algebra as David has said time and time again then don't even try to understand the rest. Art KB9MZ...XG the real problem is that art is using a software program that makes proper use of coupling between elements that he doesn't understand. he has come up with some odd parasitic array that doesn't look like a yagi for some reason, and came up with some off the wall theory about why it works. he grabbed a few buzzwords and put together a mantra and he is sticking with it. he has admitted he doesn't have an ee background and yet he is trying to convince those of us that do that we can't possibly understand what he has created, even if he can't put together a coherent explanation of it in proper em terms. its nothing magic, its just another form of a parasitic array that happens to do something that he thinks is interesting for some reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It is not my problem that you can't understand it I suggest you consult an engineer for help.As I have said many times before the antenna array is resonant in its entirety as is the contributing radiating elements. so is a yagi... have you ever measured the feed point impedance of a yagi? do you not see a resonance in that? Wrong....With a yagi only the driven element is in equilibrium have you changed lengths or spacings of elements in a yagi and seen the resonance move? If you change the proximetry of other elements then the driven element nust also physically change to maintain equilibrium That definition therefore is describing an array in equilibrium. From that definition it is obvious that there is no coupling as with a Yagi design i.e. it is NOT a parassitic array and you are not an if it's not parasitic then it is driven, meaning every element has power applied to it from a feedline... but you have described it as driving one element, do if the others are supplying power to contribute to the pattern then it is a parasitic array and falls in the same class as yagis. No it does not. Radiation comes in two forms each abiding by the laws of maxwell One is by coupling where one element is resonant at a particular frequency and where one is not. The other method of radiation is where both elements are resonant at the same frequency. These elements can be randomly placed and shaped as well as being resonant in situ, these elements can be seen as being in equilibrium or in concert with each other or by stretching definitions a homogenous mass where energy is applied to the mass as a whole. as for equilibrium, that still makes no sense in relation to antennas unless you are trying to say that power in equals power out, which is a truism (if you ignore resistive losses). Go back to Gaussian law of statics, it is based around a mass in equilibrium ( some equate mass with energy) held within the confines of a boundary where the gravitational pull on the contents equals the outward pull of exteria gravitational actions thus providing a frictionless surrounding area. This can also be seen as the basis for Poyntings Vector diagram nothing new there. but it sounds like you have some other meaning for 'equilibrium' which you have not adequately provided equations for.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The universe is in a state of equilibrium where all integral forces cancel out to zero. Even a small piece of metal has it own gravitational center that acts in concert with with all mass or swarms of energy that surrounds it. If the gravitational pull of energy exceeds tne surrounding energies you get what is known as a "black hole:. If the opposite comes about then an explosion occures, the opposite to an implosion and parts separate and join other gravitational centers to reform as a different swarm of particles drawn to a different center of gravity. All the masters were not mathematicians but all formed their conclusions based on their observations of the Universe i.e equilibrium. It was Maxwell who drew all the observations and placed them ina mathematical form taking care with the use of the "equal" sign to ensure when used it simulated a state of equilibrium.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Addition to the above Maxwell collected all the obsevations by others and put a three dimensional picture (Cartesian 3 dimensional) starting at a particular observation and then built upon it like a jigsaw puzzle progressively including observations of others until the full picture emerged from a mass of pieces. As assemblers of jig saw puzzles know the intricacy of placing the parts in the correct order depends on the starting point and since the majority of observations were of dynamic form it was a dynamic point that Maxwell started from. However if Maxwell had started his composition from a "static" point ala Gausses observations he still would have achieved the final picture but by a different route of clues given. On the other hand a yagi picture is a two dimensional Cartesian picture where only the equilibrium between two points come under consideration tho Yagi came across it the back way where equilibrium was broken and the radiation became bi directional and manipulated by coupling to a common direction with the coupling moving energy fro a resonant structure to a non resonant structure to a non resonant structure with a lesser gravitational pull. Computor programs emulate this procedure by viewing each element as being resonant but at a different frequency and where the energy transition is completed in serial form with respect to time where as the Gaussian transition is completed near instantaneously and as a whole. If one were to place several elements in a cluster form saqy in the shape of a reversed letter 'C' it can be seen that on the application of a time varying current the particles residing on the surface will be propelled to on end or the other depending on the direction of the current, thus the emmision of particles will take place from two or more areas of the misshapenned Poyntings circle in the shape of two swarms of particles at places where there are irregularities of the closed surface. Of course the border openning are constantly closing and current direction changes in the pursuit of constantly changinging equilibrium.Thus some particles that have been propelled away from the element surface finds that its exit is closed off such that the gravitational pull of the element pulls the particle back where it meets a surface that is occupied by other particles leaving it no other place to go but beyond the surface towards the center where it decays Thus we see the escaping partincles emminating from at least two points on the poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near field. So when are particles 'matter' or when are they 'energy'? Another day another dollar. Art KB9MZ.....XG another day, more meaningless bafflegab of strung together buzzwords. a random phrase generator would make as much sense as what you have written. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Art, KB9MZ......XG wrote:
"Thus we see the escaping particles emminating from at least two points in poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near field." Despite Art`s disdain of radio amateurs, competent authors, and parrots, perhaps a mechanical engineer might be advised to consult "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr., an electrical engineer from M.I.T., and a radio amateur, N5SU. He clearly explains how directional antennas work. Art should also study "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides" by King, Mimno, and Wing. It was written for non-electrical engineers. On page 86 it says: "An effective abntenna is always an electric circuit that does not satisfy the conditions for the near zone." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 24 Jun, 15:54, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art, KB9MZ......XG wrote: "Thus we see the escaping particles emminating from at least two points in poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near field." Despite Art`s disdain of radio amateurs, competent authors, and parrots, perhaps a mechanical engineer might be advised to consult "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr., an electrical engineer from M.I.T., and a radio amateur, N5SU. He clearly explains how directional antennas work. Art should also study "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides" by King, Mimno, and Wing. It was written for non-electrical engineers. On page 86 it says: "An effective abntenna is always an electric circuit that does not satisfy the conditions for the near zone." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI None of the above go into detail about the conservative and non concervative field transitions with respect to Gaussian law of Statics. I don't think anybody has a problem with respect to planar or two dimension radiation forms but with three dimensional forms as with a sphere radio amateurs cannot seem to come to grips with it. As I have stated before it is one thing to learn things and it is another thing to understand it and it is this that separates engineers from amatuers . Show me one resident of this newsgroup which includes you that is able to discuss conservative and non conservative fields, not one has come forward with corrective analysis and that includes you. Not one has discussed how a cluster of resonant elements can actualy radiate when only one feed point is applied. Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative field when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that Maxwell determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law. Maxwell had many observations to play with which he condenses to four laws, that did not mean that the others were invalid but none provided a transition from static to dynamic thus there was nothing at hand for Maxwell to use for transition or the meshing with other observations. When I added a varying time metric to Gaussian law that transition became available Some people have learned the equations by Maxwell but it appears that few or none truly understand what Maxwell did to condense all to four basic laws. Using Gaussian law to duplicate the process that Maxwell initiated has not been done prior to my findings. Thus nothing is in the books and niether were all the clues provided by Gaussian law as evidence to formulate a Gaussian array. If one was to use a optimisation computor program to find the best array is it not surprising that even tho the program is based on Maxwell laws it gyrates towards an three dimension Gaussian array which follows the same trail as partially provided by Gauss? Because amateur minds cannot follow the inticracies of the formation of Maxwells laws does not invalidate anything and nothing provided by the naysayers such as you, have provided one iota of intelligence to validate or invalidate what I have provided. Why? because it is not printed in the books yet, so parrots such as you cannot verbalise what has not been written. And finally on top of all that provided above, a Doctor John E Davis from MIT came out of nowhere and provided mathematical documentation that agreed with what I was saying that connected with existing Maxwellian law. Richard, time is on my side, there are many experts out there who understand physics as well as going thru just the learning process you have gone thru. All the bad things said by you and others will go by the wayside for historians to study the phenomina of resistance to change and where new students have another avenue to study to unlock the secrets of nature. Regardless of what amateurs say all is not known about radiation and I look forward to the next step made in the quest of knowekedge. Art KB9MZ.....XG |
Gaussian antenna planar form
art wrote:
On 24 Jun, 15:54, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art, KB9MZ......XG wrote: "Thus we see the escaping particles emminating from at least two points in poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near field." Despite Art`s disdain of radio amateurs, competent authors, and parrots, perhaps a mechanical engineer might be advised to consult "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr., an electrical engineer from M.I.T., and a radio amateur, N5SU. He clearly explains how directional antennas work. Art should also study "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides" by King, Mimno, and Wing. It was written for non-electrical engineers. On page 86 it says: "An effective abntenna is always an electric circuit that does not satisfy the conditions for the near zone." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI None of the above go into detail about the conservative and non concervative field transitions with respect to Gaussian law of Statics. I don't think anybody has a problem with respect to planar or two dimension radiation forms but with three dimensional forms as with a sphere radio amateurs cannot seem to come to grips with it. As I have stated before it is one thing to learn things and it is another thing to understand it and it is this that separates engineers from amatuers . Show me one resident of this newsgroup which includes you that is able to discuss conservative and non conservative fields, not one has come forward with corrective analysis and that includes you. Not one has discussed how a cluster of resonant elements can actualy radiate when only one feed point is applied. Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative field when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that Maxwell determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law. Maxwell had many observations to play with which he condenses to four laws, that did not mean that the others were invalid but none provided a transition from static to dynamic thus there was nothing at hand for Maxwell to use for transition or the meshing with other observations. When I added a varying time metric to Gaussian law that transition became available Some people have learned the equations by Maxwell but it appears that few or none truly understand what Maxwell did to condense all to four basic laws. Using Gaussian law to duplicate the process that Maxwell initiated has not been done prior to my findings. Thus nothing is in the books and niether were all the clues provided by Gaussian law as evidence to formulate a Gaussian array. If one was to use a optimisation computor program to find the best array is it not surprising that even tho the program is based on Maxwell laws it gyrates towards an three dimension Gaussian array which follows the same trail as partially provided by Gauss? Because amateur minds cannot follow the inticracies of the formation of Maxwells laws does not invalidate anything and nothing provided by the naysayers such as you, have provided one iota of intelligence to validate or invalidate what I have provided. Why? because it is not printed in the books yet, so parrots such as you cannot verbalise what has not been written. And finally on top of all that provided above, a Doctor John E Davis from MIT came out of nowhere and provided mathematical documentation that agreed with what I was saying that connected with existing Maxwellian law. Richard, time is on my side, there are many experts out there who understand physics as well as going thru just the learning process you have gone thru. All the bad things said by you and others will go by the wayside for historians to study the phenomina of resistance to change and where new students have another avenue to study to unlock the secrets of nature. Regardless of what amateurs say all is not known about radiation and I look forward to the next step made in the quest of knowekedge. Art KB9MZ.....XG Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) would certainly be surprised to see his ideas used in this way. Art, if none of us swine can digest the pearls you've cast before us, why do you continue to cast? You're using the wrong side of your brain, Art. Maybe you _are_ a misunderstood genius, but if you are, it's because you've lost the ability to present your ideas in logical form. Anger and name calling are no substitute for clarity and logic. Maybe you should get someone to help you present your ideas using the same language the rest of us use. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Jun 24, 6:02 pm, art wrote:
Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative field when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that Maxwell determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law. I thought an idea had to be proven before you could call it a "law"... I would think this would also apply if you were to pervert an existing law, and call it an "expanded" law.. What steps have to taken to prove this idea? Any at all? Myself, I see this as a straw grasp of immense proportions.. As I remember, this Dr. Davis came along for a while, but it seems to me once he got a grip on what you were proposing, he ran away like a teenager "wahooing" beer from a 7-11 store.. MK |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 24 Jun, 17:49, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
art wrote: On 24 Jun, 15:54, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art, KB9MZ......XG wrote: "Thus we see the escaping particles emminating from at least two points in poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near field." Despite Art`s disdain of radio amateurs, competent authors, and parrots, perhaps a mechanical engineer might be advised to consult "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr., an electrical engineer from M.I.T., and a radio amateur, N5SU. He clearly explains how directional antennas work. Art should also study "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides" by King, Mimno, and Wing. It was written for non-electrical engineers. On page 86 it says: "An effective abntenna is always an electric circuit that does not satisfy the conditions for the near zone." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI None of the above go into detail about the conservative and non concervative field transitions with respect to Gaussian law of Statics. I don't think anybody has a problem with respect to planar or two dimension radiation forms but with three dimensional forms as with a sphere radio amateurs cannot seem to come to grips with it. As I have stated before it is one thing to learn things and it is another thing to understand it and it is this that separates engineers from amatuers . Show me one resident of this newsgroup which includes you that is able to discuss conservative and non conservative fields, not one has come forward with corrective analysis and that includes you. Not one has discussed how a cluster of resonant elements can actualy radiate when only one feed point is applied. Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative field when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that Maxwell determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law. Maxwell had many observations to play with which he condenses to four laws, that did not mean that the others were invalid but none provided a transition from static to dynamic thus there was nothing at hand for Maxwell to use for transition or the meshing with other observations. When I added a varying time metric to Gaussian law that transition became available Some people have learned the equations by Maxwell but it appears that few or none truly understand what Maxwell did to condense all to four basic laws. Using Gaussian law to duplicate the process that Maxwell initiated has not been done prior to my findings. Thus nothing is in the books and niether were all the clues provided by Gaussian law as evidence to formulate a Gaussian array. If one was to use a optimisation computor program to find the best array is it not surprising that even tho the program is based on Maxwell laws it gyrates towards an three dimension Gaussian array which follows the same trail as partially provided by Gauss? Because amateur minds cannot follow the inticracies of the formation of Maxwells laws does not invalidate anything and nothing provided by the naysayers such as you, have provided one iota of intelligence to validate or invalidate what I have provided. Why? because it is not printed in the books yet, so parrots such as you cannot verbalise what has not been written. And finally on top of all that provided above, a Doctor John E Davis from MIT came out of nowhere and provided mathematical documentation that agreed with what I was saying that connected with existing Maxwellian law. Richard, time is on my side, there are many experts out there who understand physics as well as going thru just the learning process you have gone thru. All the bad things said by you and others will go by the wayside for historians to study the phenomina of resistance to change and where new students have another avenue to study to unlock the secrets of nature. Regardless of what amateurs say all is not known about radiation and I look forward to the next step made in the quest of knowekedge. Art KB9MZ.....XG Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) would certainly be surprised to see his ideas used in this way. Art, if none of us swine can digest the pearls you've cast before us, why do you continue to cast? You're using the wrong side of your brain, Art. Maybe you _are_ a misunderstood genius, but if you are, it's because you've lost the ability to present your ideas in logical form. Anger and name calling are no substitute for clarity and logic. Maybe you should get someone to help you present your ideas using the same language the rest of us use. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Tom, with all due respect I respond in like form to name calling. I know that what I am saying is enough to spark the interest of academics. Before I opened my mouth on this I asked and got conformation of a discovery by a academic. On this newsgroup an academic popped in and provided all the mathematical reasoning to connect up with Maxwell so academia understands the logic of what I am saying., So now I am dealing with amateurs so I use amateur antenna computor programs to disemminate an array that I provided which the Maxwellian based program prompty did But I am dealing with amateurs you believe all is known about antennas but I do know there are a couple of educated people on this newsgroup. So I start off my explanation starting with Gauss's law of Statics with the standard 'Pill box, picture of a gaussian field which then generated a conservative field. I went back to the very basics of what I expected american colleges teach their student. To my surprise I found that those I thought was educated knew about a Gaussian field and worst of all were confused about the word "equiulibrium" which is part and parcel of Gaussian law! Even so I persued the subject hoping to find where the discontinuity of education occurs but with out success. It becomes very hard to keep my composure when people I thought were engineers of some sort in actuallity were not even tho they baldfacely state that they are engineers. I am quite sure that even an older engineer may have forgotten the basics he would not lose his instinct to enquire at a point where he was lost. In this news group I never got past the basics of Gaussian law because members did not know enough to ask a question. On the other hand I got conformation of what I found to be a legitamate discovery. So why the big gap in knoweledge? Is it resistance to some thing new? Well JS got a torrent of disbelievers while all admitted they were not quite sure of the design of the R.I. vertical so why the assurance of it being a fake? Even tho some denied that it could work even nowing that some information was missing the denial was based on the assertion that they had done all before, every thing was known. So Tom even tho I have applied for a patent I am searching for the return of some of the more expert antenna people that have been driven away in the past so a true discussion or debate could start. True the debate has not yet begun in America but I have no doubts that academics are reviewing it in other Countries. Now you say it is a question of logic which by its nature provides a trail or string of information. I thus start with Gauss's law but everybody goes blank! What do I have to do, go back to all the participants in science prior to Maxwell? No I can't because the education gap is prior to Gauss but as yet nobody has placed a morsel of challenge to what I have stated!. Frankly I don't believe I should be the one to blame for the lack of knoweledge or communication on this newsgroup if the group consists of mainly high school graduates based on the knoweledge that they expound. And finally a academic arrives on the scene understands the discussion and provides the mathematic knoweledge required for afformation. Yes you guessed it, in the main he was rejected. Why? Because he didn't explain himself properly after several tries. Well that excuse is getting pretty lame! .. Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 24 Jun, 18:08, wrote:
On Jun 24, 6:02 pm, art wrote: Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative field when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that Maxwell determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law. I thought an idea had to be proven before you could call it a "law"... I would think this would also apply if you were to pervert an existing law, and call it an "expanded" law.. What steps have to taken to prove this idea? Any at all? Myself, I see this as a straw grasp of immense proportions.. As I remember, this Dr. Davis came along for a while, but it seems to me once he got a grip on what you were proposing, he ran away like a teenager "wahooing" beer from a 7-11 store.. MK No that is not true. After trying several times to educate the group and getting responses such as yours he decided to move on as other experts have done in the past. They are trying to help with the amateur radio antenna group but realised quite quickly it was mainly composed of the non antenna type people. They don't need the sort of things that are stated they move on. He has a Doctorate and thus he is qualified for some respect |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Tom Donaly wrote:
Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) would certainly be surprised to see his ideas used in this way. Art, if none of us swine can digest the pearls you've cast before us, why do you continue to cast? You're using the wrong side of your brain, Art. Maybe you _are_ a misunderstood genius, but if you are, it's because you've lost the ability to present your ideas in logical form. Anger and name calling are no substitute for clarity and logic. Maybe you should get someone to help you present your ideas using the same language the rest of us use. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Tom All I am asking of Art, and I've asked before, is that he give us the dimensions of one of his wonder antennas. If he gives us one of the simpler ones, he has given little away, but will allow us to confirm his claims. Since we, as a group of stupid EEs, can't possibly figure out how to duplicate his method of making another better one, he has nothing to lose. Hopefully one of you will respond to his response to this as I plonked the idiot months ago. I love to see his nonsensical responses. tom K0TAR |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Jun 24, 8:01 pm, art wrote:
No that is not true. After trying several times to educate the group and getting responses such as yours he decided to move on as other experts have done in the past. They are trying to help with the amateur radio antenna group but realised quite quickly it was mainly composed of the non antenna type people. They don't need the sort of things that are stated they move on. He has a Doctorate and thus he is qualified for some respect http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r... bdc00f7e7cbcd I had to refresh myself on the reasons of his departure..He never really proved anything.. In fact, at the end, Richard Clark seemed to be making a pretty good case that he was misreading, or misinterpreting the data.. But he never came back to respond to the last posts. The way I see it, it never really was agreed on one way or the other. I'm fairly sure he failed to convince a few on here. Seems to me, with his vast storages of knowledge, having a doctorate, papers on wall, etc, that he should have been able to settle things real quick just by shear brute force of reasoning. Didn't seem to work that way. But all this is really moot. It doesn't matter. Even if he was correct, I'm still fairly certain that the antennas you are cooking up don't rely on such exotic "gaussian" methods to function. Thats assuming you believe in such a thing.. MK |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 24 Jun, 20:00, wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:01 pm, art wrote: No that is not true. After trying several times to educate the group and getting responses such as yours he decided to move on as other experts have done in the past. They are trying to help with the amateur radio antenna group but realised quite quickly it was mainly composed of the non antenna type people. They don't need the sort of things that are stated they move on. He has a Doctorate and thus he is qualified for some respect http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...a/browse_frm/t... I had to refresh myself on the reasons of his departure..He never really proved anything.. In fact, at the end, Richard Clark seemed to be making a pretty good case that he was misreading, or misinterpreting the data.. But he never came back to respond to the last posts. The way I see it, it never really was agreed on one way or the other. I'm fairly sure he failed to convince a few on here. Seems to me, with his vast storages of knowledge, having a doctorate, papers on wall, etc, that he should have been able to settle things real quick just by shear brute force of reasoning. Didn't seem to work that way. But all this is really moot. It doesn't matter. Even if he was correct, I'm still fairly certain that the antennas you are cooking up don't rely on such exotic "gaussian" methods to function. Thats assuming you believe in such a thing.. MK This debate has finally supplied the reason why Industry is demanding more immigration from other countries. It wasn't like this in my working years but Bill Gates is adament that the present crop of graduates is not up to snuff for reasons I do not know. The Insurance industry is making no bones about the same thing. In my town we have two universities and another two within 60 miles yet we also have a thriving business for the importation of Indian engineers, 100s of them with families. GE has basically left as has Eureka vacuum machines and many other industries There has been one replacement that came here from Japan building cars but they need more and more money to stay here. Why our education system is failing or if this group is representitive of what industry does not want I do not know, but the fact is to pay thousands of dollars for an experience that industry is not interested in will lead to a further decrease in education as the surge of imported education fills the ever increasing gap. Ofcourse we can threaten other countries that have supplied our rust belt with statements like 'you are with us or against us' but the fact is we are not a world leader anymore but an importer of what we cannot produce for ourselves to make a paper empire. It used to be that capitalism was the envy of the world where the market ruled until America found out it was much cheaper to manipulate the market to suit and where education can be outscourced. I suppose the question has to be asked, is this group representitive of an America that we want to see in our grandchildrens future or does arrogance have a down side of a World wide nature? Art |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Jun 24, 9:51 pm, art wrote:
Majority of whiny "woe is the U.S." drivel deleted... I suppose the question has to be asked, is this group representitive of an America that we want to see in our grandchildrens future or does arrogance have a down side of a World wide nature? Art If you spent 2 percent of the time actually providing facts about your antennas, as you do all this whiny "woe is Art drivel", you would not have near the problem you do. As an example, Tom Ring said: ****Tom All I am asking of Art, and I've asked before, is that he give us the dimensions of one of his wonder antennas. If he gives us one of the simpler ones, he has given little away, but will allow us to confirm his claims. Since we, as a group of stupid EEs, can't possibly figure out how to duplicate his method of making another better one, he has nothing to lose. ***** Do you try to provide any of this info, which would be required to make any kind of decent analysis of the antenna? No, You are sitting here wasting your time with me, acting basically like a whiner. It's kinda of sickening to me... I'm a redneck. Rednecks generally find whiners to be kind of disgusting... I think what it boils down to, is you want patent "Validation" via usenet.. LOL... Kind reminds me of that Edwards guy that says he talks to dead people... He's just a slick cold reader.. I also hear he probably bugs the waiting rooms, etc. Maybe you should try his show for better results.. I know for myself, I still don't have any clue what this antenna really looks like, how it's fed, etc.. One day you say all the elements are fed in "equilibrium", which most rational people would probably assume all are fed in phase as a driven array. But then you change your mind and say only one element is actually fed. So being no one can tell how it's fed, we can only assume it's a close spaced yagi with unoptimum element lengths, or a driven array. Most of us don't buy all the voodoo science mumbo jumbo.. But you can't even enlighten anyone to how it's actually fed. You would rather waste time writing line, after line, after line, after line, after line, after line, of whiny "woe is Art" drivel. Yuri had it right. You should call it the "Geussian" antenna. I've only said this about 29 times, but why don't you just ignore everyone and build the freaking thing and see if it works for yourself. It's obvious not many others seem to care one way or the other. But I don't think you can even get around to that because you are too busy whining all the time. Unbelievable... I'm not going to bother you anymore about it. I think it's hopeless. I'll just continue to chuckle along in the background. You are better than the comedy channel any day of the week. MK |
Gaussian antenna planar form
wrote in message I think what it boils down to, is you want patent "Validation" via usenet.. LOL... Worse than that, he wants SELF validation via usenet. Jimmie |
Gaussian antenna planar form
|
Gaussian antenna planar form
snip
73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard, I have read your letter several times. Even parts that I considered not pertinent to the subject at hand since a lot of it is just opinion some of which I disagree. However it would appear to be the beginnings of a debate in an area that others are uncomfortable and for that I thank you The following provides the crux of the debate. 'The "law" used to prove a concept, was in fact, Maxwells extension of statics to the time domain' I have no problem with that statement so it provides an ideal starting point. My understanding is that Maxwell had a host of theorems by many scientists from which to draw information from, many of which gave the connection of the statics to time domain aproach. I am not aware of any evidence that he drew on Gauss for this since Gauss had not provided this extension. Can you supply me a source that verifies this fact? We then come to a very important question with regard to my patent request. Since you say it has already been invented this inferres that you are aware of a source where the transition from Gauss was documented as the foundation of a new antenna design. This surely will put my submission back to the dark ages. Would you care to share this with the group? Thus from the above you will see that curtailed the length of this post to two questions only so differences cannot be skirted unless intended Regards Art |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Art wrote:
"This surely will put my submission back to the dark ages." That`s where it belongs. Coulomb`s Law is a producct of the 1780`s, and Gauss was a conteporary. Unification of all known electrical laws by James Clerk Maxwell and their formulation by Oliver Heaviside was the proudest accomplishment of the 19th cenury physics according to Wikipedia. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:57:32 -0700, art wrote:
'The "law" used to prove a concept, was in fact, Maxwells extension of statics to the time domain' Arthur, I have no problem with that statement so it provides an ideal starting point. There are accepted convention in faithfully quoting a document you are immediately responding to. To take my words and re-arrange them to suit your own way of understanding is NOT a quote from me. My understanding is that Maxwell had a host of theorems by many scientists from which to draw information from, many of which gave the connection of the statics to time domain aproach. I am not aware of any evidence that he drew on Gauss for this since Gauss had not provided this extension. Can you supply me a source that verifies this fact? You mean like he NAMED one of his laws after Gauss? Doesn't that give you a clue? Dr. D. already supplied the source, I responded to it and corrected Dr. D's error of attribution. Read the source we BOTH refer to. It has been offered to you by us BOTH. We then come to a very important question with regard to my patent request. Since you say it has already been invented Show my statement, in my own words, quoted in the accepted convention from the exact source (in other words, highlight the statement in the original posting I made, and post that here). If you cannot perform the minimum practices of quoting, then there's nothing more to be said. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 25 Jun, 16:21, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:57:32 -0700, art wrote: 'The "law" used to prove a concept, was in fact, Maxwells extension of statics to the time domain' Arthur, I have no problem with that statement so it provides an ideal starting point. There are accepted convention in faithfully quoting a document you are immediately responding to. To take my words and re-arrange them to suit your own way of understanding is NOT a quote from me. If you will be specific I will gladly change to your satisfaction and apologise if required. I don't remember using double quotes("..") but I am not going to quibble. My understanding is that Maxwell had a host of theorems by many scientists from which to draw information from, many of which gave the connection of the statics to time domain aproach. I am not aware of any evidence that he drew on Gauss for this since Gauss had not provided this extension. Can you supply me a source that verifies this fact? You mean like he NAMED one of his laws after Gauss? Doesn't that give you a clue? Dr. D. already supplied the source, I responded to it and corrected Dr. D's error of attribution. I would be more than happy to read that source if you state without qualification that Gauss's law of Statics was modified by Maxwell to form a basis of a radiating antenna is illustrated in that book. I know of no reference anywhere that refers to a radiator or cluster of radiators loaded with static particles in a closed loop or "pill box" as defined by Gaussian law. Certainly the good Doctor did not intimate that such a reference was in that book but I welcome a snippit of that conversation that tells me otherwise. If you can state what page where it can be seen I would be most gratefull and certainly would provide it to the PTO as required by law . If Feynman supplied that history that would be fine by me. Such a reference is not only required by law but it would also provide a reference of prior use of that "law" against which my request can be referred to for similarities, together with a description of that antenna that the public can also see for there own education. Providing this reference would be seen as a courtesy by me and supplied without rancour and certainly would provide what the group has been asking for i.e. something that everybody can understand and be grateful for. Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG ............................ The rest to be responded to later if necessary or required Read the source we BOTH refer to. It has been offered to you by us BOTH. We then come to a very important question with regard to my patent request. Since you say it has already been invented Show my statement, in my own words, quoted in the accepted convention from the exact source (in other words, highlight the statement in the original posting I made, and post that here). If you cannot perform the minimum practices of quoting, then there's nothing more to be said. I will deal with this after question 1 is responded to in a proper manner Question 1 is the very description that the naysayers are asking for so they can understand the antenna but Q1 comes before Q2. In fact if question 1 is satified it also satisfies Question 2 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 25 Jun, 16:21, Richard Clark wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:57:32 -0700, art wrote: 'The "law" used to prove a concept, was in fact, Maxwells extension of statics to the time domain' Arthur, I have no problem with that statement so it provides an ideal starting point. There are accepted convention in faithfully quoting a document you are immediately responding to. To take my words and re-arrange them to suit your own way of understanding is NOT a quote from me. If you will be specific I will gladly change to your satisfaction and apologise if required. I don't remember using double quotes("..") but I am not going to quibble. My understanding is that Maxwell had a host of theorems by many scientists from which to draw information from, many of which gave the connection of the statics to time domain aproach. I am not aware of any evidence that he drew on Gauss for this since Gauss had not provided this extension. Can you supply me a source that verifies this fact? You mean like he NAMED one of his laws after Gauss? Doesn't that give you a clue? Dr. D. already supplied the source, I responded to it and corrected Dr. D's error of attribution. I would be more than happy to read that source if you state without qualification that Gauss's law of Statics was modified by Maxwell to form a basis of a radiating antenna is illustrated in that book. I know of no reference anywhere that refers to a radiator or cluster of radiators loaded with static particles in a closed loop or "pill box" as defined by Gaussian law. Certainly the good Doctor did not intimate that such a reference was in that book but I welcome a snippit of that conversation that tells me otherwise. If you can state what page where it can be seen I would be most gratefull and certainly would provide it to the PTO as required by law . If Feynman supplied that history that would be fine by me. Such a reference is not only required by law but it would also provide a reference of prior use of that "law" against which my request can be referred to for similarities, together with a description of that antenna that the public can also see for there own education. Providing this reference would be seen as a courtesy by me and supplied without rancour and certainly would provide what the group has been asking for i.e. something that everybody can understand and be grateful for. Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG ........................... The rest to be responded to later if necessary or required Read the source we BOTH refer to. It has been offered to you by us BOTH. We then come to a very important question with regard to my patent request. Since you say it has already been invented Show my statement, in my own words, quoted in the accepted convention from the exact source (in other words, highlight the statement in the original posting I made, and post that here). If you cannot perform the minimum practices of quoting, then there's nothing more to be said. I will deal with this after question 1 is responded to in a proper manner Question 1 is the very description that the naysayers are asking for so they can understand the antenna but Q1 comes before Q2. In fact if question 1 is satified it also satisfies Question 2 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Art et al. I am not aware if this reference has been posted to this newsgroup. http://n-t.ru/tpe/ng/gvg.htm It seems to concern research conducted in Russia and to be relevant to what Art is trying to explain. The article and references appear genuine as far as I can ascertain, but the English translation leaves a bit to be desired. Strictly a neutral bystander in this discussion Regards Mike G0ULI |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:
"You mean he named one of his laws after Gauss?" I suggested Art read Griffith`s "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals". It opens with a brief history of electrical knowledge. It says that Michael Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction in 1831 and that simultaneously, far away in America, a professor named Joseph Henry independently made the same discovery. By this time we already had Colounb`s Law, Ampere`s rule, Gauss` Law, concerning the relationship between the magnetic field and induced voltage. Nothing seemed to tie these miscellaneous relationships together until James Clerk Maxwell, a child prodigy, who entered the University of Edinburg at age 13 years and was a brilliant student, put it all together in his unifying equations and published a book, Electromagnetic Theory. Oliver Heaviside read the book and simplified for the less erudite, teaching himself the mathematics necessary to understand Maxwell as he went. Unless Art has something that Maxwell and Heaviside didn`t cover, it`s no time to shout eureka! We`ve taken Gauss from the static and made him dynamic. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com