Art wrote:
"When you refer it to a "mucked up Yagi" you must understand that the
Yagi is primarily set up to focus available radiation by redistribution,
where as with a Gaussian there is no focusing or relaying of energy by
coupling."

Words fail me. Without redistribution, there is only a point source.
More than one source is necessary for the radiant energy to produce
gain. It is immaterial whether the energy gets to a second source by
conduction or radiation. Interaction between the energies of more than
one source is essential for gain.

Focus is convergence of energy and is the stuff gain comes from.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 1 Jun, 15:25, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"When you refer it to a "mucked up Yagi" you must understand that the
Yagi is primarily set up to focus available radiation by redistribution,
where as with a Gaussian there is no focusing or relaying of energy by
coupling."

Words fail me. Without redistribution, there is only a point source.
More than one source is necessary for the radiant energy to produce
gain. It is immaterial whether the energy gets to a second source by
conduction or radiation. Interaction between the energies of more than
one source is essential for gain.

Focus is convergence of energy and is the stuff gain comes from.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Your last line is all I understand of your posting and I would
agree with that line. With respect to the rest your words they
fail me to.You are getting more like the other Richard every day
I will not even try to explain equilibrium to you as you are
incapable and are having to many senior moments.Seems like your
posting is a collection of line quotes taken from
different books on different subjects
Art

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:31:23 -0400, "Jimmie D"
wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
Why does a gaussian array need 10 elements to get less?
Has there ever been a definition of a guassian array. From the best I can
figure ART just claimed it otbe a bunch of random lengths mounted on a boom
but every time I see a model he presents its just a mucked up yagi.

Hi Jimmie,

The definition of a gaussian array, by "theory" is something that
changes to fit the occasion (or it could be said to be a new work of
science that is still in progress).

The definition of a gaussian array, by performance, is an inferior
antenna that is more difficult to erect than the relatively mundane
example of the NBS Yagi. I didn't pick the NBS for its spectacular
performance (there are better designs), I simply picked the first
model available so as to not waste time (yet again).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

An NBS beats it? Those are considered to be the absolute dreck of the
VHF and up antenna world.

Anyone could compete with this bunch. Would be a perfect government
contract.

tom
K0TAR

On Jun 1, 10:32 am, art wrote:


Jimmie
Let us talk common sense. Remember its origins is based on a static
field
...
Art

Art,

I don't much care what the _definition_ is, but I am interested in
what the _purpose_ is. In terms of "features and benefits," why would
I care about this antenna? At least with the "crossed field antenna"
and "fractal antennas," I understood _why_ one would be interested in
the claimed benefits (though they never seemed to actually be
delivered), but so far I haven't seen anything to get me excited and
wanting to learn more about this "Gaussian" thing you've been tossing
about with respect to antennas.

Please understand that there are plenty of cases to which "Gaussian"
is applied that I do see the benefit to, both practical and
theoretical, but this "Gaussian antenna" thing is just leaving me
cold, so far.

Cheers,
Tom

Art wrote:
"With respect to the rest of your words, they fail me too."

OK, I`ll try again.

Antenna gain results from interference, constructive and destructive.
Two or more sources are needed to interfere.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Jun 1, 11:30 am, Richard Clark wrote:


This means that the NBS yagi is 110% efficient compared to a gaussian
array. This is due to the physics of Newtonian Bales which is
superior to gaussian bundles.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hummm, I think newtonian bales, and gaussian bundles are both inferior
to cluster &^%$'s... :/
MK

On 1 Jun, 21:53, K7ITM wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:32 am, art wrote:

Jimmie
Let us talk common sense. Remember its origins is based on a static
field
...
Art

Art,

I don't much care what the _definition_ is, but I am interested in
what the _purpose_ is. In terms of "features and benefits," why would
I care about this antenna? At least with the "crossed field antenna"
and "fractal antennas," I understood _why_ one would be interested in
the claimed benefits (though they never seemed to actually be
delivered), but so far I haven't seen anything to get me excited and
wanting to learn more about this "Gaussian" thing you've been tossing
about with respect to antennas.

Please understand that there are plenty of cases to which "Gaussian"
is applied that I do see the benefit to, both practical and
theoretical, but this "Gaussian antenna" thing is just leaving me
cold, so far.

Cheers,
Tom

The definition was requested and I answed that request
The Gaussian thing I am tossing around is something that the experts
refuse
to acknoweledge in any way. Over more than twenty years this group of
experts have attacked all experimentors and have got away with it.
I am a experimentoras you know and I have been attacked since day one
over my experiments and patents. On the Gaussian thing they refuse to
acknoweledge
the connection between Gaussian statics law and other laws of the
masters.
Even a Doctrate holder tried to convince them of the connecting
mathematics
but they have rejected all. To me it suggest that over the years
many of these suedo experts have over estimated their abilities. Why
they refuse
the Gaussian connection I do not know but I am going to hammer away at
it because
there are many silent observers who surely understand the physics
involved.
And each time I bring the subject up I smile as protagonists continue
to deny the
Gaussian connection. Actually Tom if a person or group finally came to
their sences
and acknoweledged the Gaussian connection that I flaunt we all we be
on a more stable keel.
They asked for the mathematical proof after I presented the antenna,
that mathematical proof
was provided and the Gaussian connection was rejected.
To me and others this sort of thing has happened time and time again,
I am not running away
as other hams have been forced to do. I will stay until they are
forced to acknoweledge
the ficklties of science where ever it may lead and I will continue to
make an
example of the assailants inadequacies with respect to experimentation
and its findings.
I am an east ender from London, if I am wrongly pushed I will push
back regardles of the
inflicted pain that is applied to me so you better explore other
tactics to make your points.
Art

On 2 Jun, 05:02, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"With respect to the rest of your words, they fail me too."

OK, I`ll try again.

Antenna gain results from interference, constructive and destructive.
Two or more sources are needed to interfere.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Give me a hint, what is it that you are directing your comments at?
Iknow you don't accept the Gaussian story and I know I cannot
convince you otherwise and I have stopped trying. Is there something
else
that you are trying to get my attention?
Art

On Jun 2, 7:20 am, art wrote:
On 1 Jun, 21:53, K7ITM wrote:



On Jun 1, 10:32 am, art wrote:

Jimmie
Let us talk common sense. Remember its origins is based on a static
field
...
Art

Art,

I don't much care what the _definition_ is, but I am interested in
what the _purpose_ is. In terms of "features and benefits," why would
I care about this antenna? At least with the "crossed field antenna"
and "fractal antennas," I understood _why_ one would be interested in
the claimed benefits (though they never seemed to actually be
delivered), but so far I haven't seen anything to get me excited and
wanting to learn more about this "Gaussian" thing you've been tossing
about with respect to antennas.

Please understand that there are plenty of cases to which "Gaussian"
is applied that I do see the benefit to, both practical and
theoretical, but this "Gaussian antenna" thing is just leaving me
cold, so far.

Cheers,
Tom

The definition was requested and I answed that request
The Gaussian thing I am tossing around is something that the experts
refuse
to acknoweledge in any way. Over more than twenty years this group of
experts have attacked all experimentors and have got away with it.
I am a experimentoras you know and I have been attacked since day one
over my experiments and patents. On the Gaussian thing they refuse to
acknoweledge
the connection between Gaussian statics law and other laws of the
masters.
Even a Doctrate holder tried to convince them of the connecting
mathematics
but they have rejected all. To me it suggest that over the years
many of these suedo experts have over estimated their abilities. Why
they refuse
the Gaussian connection I do not know but I am going to hammer away at
it because
there are many silent observers who surely understand the physics
involved.
And each time I bring the subject up I smile as protagonists continue
to deny the
Gaussian connection. Actually Tom if a person or group finally came to
their sences
and acknoweledged the Gaussian connection that I flaunt we all we be
on a more stable keel.
They asked for the mathematical proof after I presented the antenna,
that mathematical proof
was provided and the Gaussian connection was rejected.
To me and others this sort of thing has happened time and time again,
I am not running away
as other hams have been forced to do. I will stay until they are
forced to acknoweledge
the ficklties of science where ever it may lead and I will continue to
make an
example of the assailants inadequacies with respect to experimentation
and its findings.
I am an east ender from London, if I am wrongly pushed I will push
back regardles of the
inflicted pain that is applied to me so you better explore other
tactics to make your points.
Art

Art,

I'm puzzled why you would go off on that same old rant and ignore the
key question I asked: why should I care about this antenna? What are
its features and benefits? What are its advantages over competing
antennas that have similar features and benefits? I'm not trying to
"make points" but simply to understand why I should care about this
antenna. You may have previously posted things about that, but I got
lost in all the other words that didn't get me excited about it--words
that never told me why I would care about it. Is it particularly
compact? Is it easy to build? Will it stay together well? Does it
do a better job letting me communicate than antennas I already know
about?

If it causes you too much pain to tell us why it's an antenna worthy
of consideration over other existing antennas, please just ignore my
question and I'll go away and let you write whatever you want about
it.

Cheers,
Tom

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:54:21 -0700, wrote:

Hummm, I think newtonian bales, and gaussian bundles are both inferior
to cluster &^%$'s... :/

Hmmmm, that's the first time I've seen &^%$ take the possessive - but
you're right, that's what we're gettin'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC