On 2 Jun, 08:20, K7ITM wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you or do you not accept the mathematical explanation
of the connection between a conservative field and a non
conservative field that evolves around the Gaussian law of statics?
All this group rejects this connection and thus without
that foundation feel free to reject the discovery.
If the group rejects the idea of adding the unit of time
to both sides of the Gaussian equation it is futile to expand
on what that connection provides. Good, bad or whatever
a discovery has been made, proven by independent mathematical
analysis tho still rejected as viable by this group of
antenna experts. What point is there for me to do this or do that
and you 'will let me' when the very foundation of the antenna design
is rejected by the cream of amateur radio antenna designers, authors
critics e.t.c. If one wants to discuss antennas one
must have a foundation to build on. The professor from MIT
spent a lot of time and effort in a past thread on Gauss
with a mathematical analysis. Nobody has yet to prove faulty
mathematics but refuse to accept that given. One person made an effort
to double check facts using a antenna program, this group
refused to offer him any help because they rejected the
independent analysis provides.
Why should I answer to your requests if the very
foundation is rejected and thus provide fodder for abuse?
You could change the subject to the patent on Constant Impedance
Matching System since that also was rejected by the amateur
masses on this newsgroup to add fresh fire to the conversations.
You certainly will get a lot of support on this newsgroup.
A person asked me for a definition of the Gaussian antenna, I
carefully
formated one for that poster. You become indignant because
you don't care about definitions.......give me a break
Art

On Jun 2, 9:20 am, K7ITM wrote:
On Jun 2, 7:20 am, art wrote:


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


LOL, I can see in his answering post, that he did indeed ignore
your valid question, and spewed forth the usual whiny drivel...
Woe is me, sayeth Art...
Note this comment...
""You could change the subject to the patent on Constant Impedance
Matching System since that also was rejected by the amateur
masses on this newsgroup to add fresh fire to the conversations. ""
Heck, I modeled his small loop/cap thing and proved it did work.
Just fine as far as matching is concerned. But I didn't agree with
his other claims. IE: that there is substantial radiation from the
loop,
etc. He claimed you could steer the pattern, by changing the value
of the cap if I remember right.
I modeled said device, "I called it a loopole", and showed that this
wasn't true.
But I never said it didn't "work" as far as a matching device.
I just said it didn't work like he thinks it does.
This was basically ignored.. He has a fine system of ignoring
any information that does not suit his agenda.
The only problem is I have a fairly decent system of detecting
BS... I really don't even have to know much about whatever it is
being discussed..
If it's BS, I can usually smell it a mile away.. I may not know why
I smell the pecular aroma I do, but I will smell it none the less.
Woe is me, sayeth Art.
MK

On 1 Jun, 10:24, "Dave" wrote:
"Jimmie D" wrote in message

...





"Richard Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:03:09 -0700, art wrote:

From the above one can see that approx 15 dbi is the most
that can be expected from a forced inline array with the pattern
of radiation staying constant showing that max efficiency has
been reached. I will leave it to others to give their take on the
above
listing.

Hi Art,

With 2 minutes of modeling (and using the only 3 element yagi model
offered by EZNEC for FREE), I got 15.14 dBi.

Why does a gaussian array need 10 elements to get less?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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.

Jimmie

you got it. except art claims some kind of 'equilibrium' between the
elements... but then only 1 feed point, so it is basically a random
parasitic set of elements acting like a bad yagi.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 1 Jun, 10:24, "Dave" wrote:
"Jimmie D" wrote in message

...





"Richard Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:03:09 -0700, art wrote:

From the above one can see that approx 15 dbi is the most
that can be expected from a forced inline array with the pattern
of radiation staying constant showing that max efficiency has
been reached. I will leave it to others to give their take on the
above
listing.

Hi Art,

With 2 minutes of modeling (and using the only 3 element yagi model
offered by EZNEC for FREE), I got 15.14 dBi.

Why does a gaussian array need 10 elements to get less?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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.

Jimmie

you got it. except art claims some kind of 'equilibrium' between the
elements... but then only 1 feed point, so it is basically a random
parasitic set of elements acting like a bad yagi.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 1 Jun, 09:31, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message

...





On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:03:09 -0700, art wrote:

From the above one can see that approx 15 dbi is the most
that can be expected from a forced inline array with the pattern
of radiation staying constant showing that max efficiency has
been reached. I will leave it to others to give their take on the
above
listing.

Hi Art,

With 2 minutes of modeling (and using the only 3 element yagi model
offered by EZNEC for FREE), I got 15.14 dBi.

Why does a gaussian array need 10 elements to get less?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

3 elements does sound more efficient than 10 gassians
what woud the best 10 element gain look like?

On Jun 1, 10:05 am, art wrote:
On 1 Jun, 09:15, Richard Clark wrote:



On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:04:21 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

With 2 minutes of modeling (and using the only 3 element yagi model
offered by EZNEC for FREE), I got 15.14 dBi.

Add another minute, and I could raise it to:
15.23 dBi
no, no, another 15 seconds to get:
15.47 dBi

Do 10 element gaussian arrays have poor efficiency?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:04:21 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

With 2 minutes of modeling (and using the only 3 element yagi model
offered by EZNEC for FREE), I got 15.14 dBi.

Add another minute, and I could raise it to:
15.23 dBi
no, no, another 15 seconds to get:
15.47 dBi

Do 10 element gaussian arrays have poor efficiency?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Wouldnt it be nice if Art did the comparison. He could show how his gassian
antenna is better than a yagi. maybe he could find a 2 element antenna his
garison antenna is better than.

Jimmy D wrote:
"Wouldn`t it be nice if Art did the comparison?"

Yes. I thought a Gaussian was a 17-sided polygon.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

(Richard Harrison) wrote in news:28667-46639927-
:

Jimmy D wrote:
"Wouldn`t it be nice if Art did the comparison?"

Yes. I thought a Gaussian was a 17-sided polygon.

heptakaidecagon?

73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On 6 Jun, 18:00, Mike Coslo wrote:
(Richard Harrison) wrote in news:28667-46639927-
:

Jimmy D wrote:
"Wouldn`t it be nice if Art did the comparison?"

Yes. I thought a Gaussian was a 17-sided polygon.

heptakaidecagon?

73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Newsgroup members,
Thought I would give you another example to laugh at.
Looking at the 17th eddition of the ARRL Antenna handbook
page 11-18 I came across an optimised 20 metre antenna,
The shortest boom length was 16 feet for 3 element
and the spec was 20db F/B, SWR 2:1 and going for
maximum gain which amateurs seem to think is every
thing
The ARRL antenna achieved 7.5 dbi max
My antenna which is of GAUSSIAN form was also a 3 element
and achieved an average of 30 F/B and 20 db worst case.
SWR was 2:1 ofcourse ranging from 1.34 :1 worst case.
Gain figures were 11.45,11.3 and 10.9 dbi
The main lobe was 62 deg BW and TOA 14 degrees.
I didn't use the 16 foot boom length as the starting
point but held the beam to the required 3 elements.
So instead of using the ARRL 16 foot boom I used a
8 foot boom. Again I forced the antenna into a planar
mode so a reasonable comparison could be made.
So have at it. Point out the areas of specs that
the antenna fails and have a laugh at the same time.
I'll leave you to find the deliberate error if
there is one so you can have your moment in the sun.
Art