Gaussian antenna planar form
 

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
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


define 'gaussian form'.

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

"Dave" wrote in message
"art" wrote in message
Newsgroup members,
Thought I would give you another example to laugh at.

Snip of quasi-technical junk

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


define 'gaussian form'.

Dave: He cannot define several of the terms that he uses,
but he pretty much defines "blithering idiot"

Mike W5CHR

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
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


I never modeled it but it seemed that for all practical purposes the cap
was shorted by the low inductance of the coil/loop and should have from no
to negligable effect on tunning.

Jimmie

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 17 Jun, 18:48, "Jimmie D" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





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

I never modeled it but it seemed that for all practical purposes the cap
was shorted by the low inductance of the coil/loop and should have from no
to negligable effect on tunning.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim, You never modelled it? The capacitor changes the frequency of the
loop.
Thus you have 2 current curves with the loop in the center.
Ofcource the current at the ends of the element is always zero
when the loop is resonant. When the frequency gets to 28 Mhz it is
basically two dipoles side by side with the loop at the center.
If I remember rightly for the loop you need a 5 thru 50 pF variable.
Frequency responce is 14 thru 28 Mhz. But that antenna is from the
past
ie constant impedance antenna.
The newly provided antenna is just a three element on a boom which I
have compared with a ARRL optimised antenna that they have in their
antenna handbook.People like comparisons so I supplied comparisons,
mine compared with the ARRL antenna. Ofcourse mine is half the boom
length of the ARRL form and with more gain. This should give even
novices something to look at tho Extras will still complain.
Element lengths are similar in both models so you could call both
of them Yagi's or anything else that you want to call them.
The new antenna does not follow the general boom length/
gain antenna curve that is printed in most antenna books
for a Yagi tho I suppose that doesn't matter much to some.
Somebody however will find something to complain about so
it should be interesting to see what they can come up with.
Both by the way have a single feed point if that matters.
Burning water is not used in any way.

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
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


define 'gaussian form'.



All I'd like to see is a couple real hard numbers. Like element length
and position on boom.

And I'd bet lunch at Ruth's Chris, even though I don't like steak at
all, that if the thing really shows the numbers Art claims, that the
real drive point impedance is in the range of 5 ohms or less.

Come on Art, you won't give away a million dollar idea if you publish
the construction details of an 8 foot long 3 element 20 meter beam. You
will be able to squash anyone like a bug with your 30 foot version.

tom
K0TAR

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 18 Jun, 19:30, Tom Ring wrote:
Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
roups.com...
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

define 'gaussian form'.

All I'd like to see is a couple real hard numbers. Like element length
and position on boom.

And I'd bet lunch at Ruth's Chris, even though I don't like steak at
all, that if the thing really shows the numbers Art claims, that the
real drive point impedance is in the range of 5 ohms or less.

Come on Art, you won't give away a million dollar idea if you publish
the construction details of an 8 foot long 3 element 20 meter beam. You
will be able to squash anyone like a bug with your 30 foot version.

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No,No.No. The criteria used by the arrl woulod not allow me to do
that.
I never go below 20 ohms so I can use a 2:1 balun.
Actualy I just added another element to make it 4 el on a 8 foot boom
I havent finished it yet but at the moment it is around 40 ohms, less
than 2:1 swr
F/B is 30 db worst case and the gain is about 1/2 db more than the
three element.
The elements are std length as per a yagi but bent a bit so they
are all in equilibrium. Anyway, I added one element but I have only
optimised
two elements so far so it probably will get better when I include
the other two elements in situ for optimisation. Tom what you don't
realise
is that the boom length on a Yagi is to focus the main lobe, it does
not
supply an increase in actual radiation so getting 11dbi with a 8 foot
boom
is no big deal as the gain is limited regardles of boom length or
elements used.
The beam width will always be around 60 degrees because of the lack of
focussing.
As far as giving out details of the design I have done all that.
Limit the boom length and then use an optimiser on all dimensions.
Elements are best made of at least three sections each
With respect to the low impedance you were expecting. I mentioned
right at the onset
that F/B,SWR and gain across the band has symetry so compromises are
not required
as per a yagi. But why would you want details of a Gaussian antenna
since it has been thoroughly discounted by all as well as confusing
people
as well as what it looks like. Amateurs on this group can smell a
fake
and don't need to know how it is made. I gave a model of a extended
zepp
with a loop antenna at the center. One guy said he could smell a fake
so didn't need to model it. I am amazed that a antenna compamy hasn't
offered employment to a lot of the posters after seeing their
interlects
have no bounds. I have no need for more money so I am not disapointed
that the headhunters have not come after me, after all I am a fraud.
Regards
Art

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On Jun 18, 10:36 pm, art wrote:


Come on Art, you won't give away a million dollar idea if you publish
the construction details of an 8 foot long 3 element 20 meter beam. You
will be able to squash anyone like a bug with your 30 foot version.

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No,No.No. The criteria used by the arrl woulod not allow me to do
that.

What does the ARRL have to do with anything?
Besides, they are just a bunch of lowly amateurs..
According to you, the likelyhood of them understanding a
word you say is slim..
I agree really, but fer different reasons... :/

I never go below 20 ohms so I can use a 2:1 balun.
Actualy I just added another element to make it 4 el on a 8 foot boom
I havent finished it yet but at the moment it is around 40 ohms, less
than 2:1 swr
F/B is 30 db worst case and the gain is about 1/2 db more than the
three element.

F/B is easy to get with a short boom.. Big deal..

The elements are std length as per a yagi but bent a bit so they
are all in equilibrium.

I love it when you talk like that...There is something about the word
"equilibrium" that reminds me of Pleasant Valley®.. Where all is
at peace in the universe, and the skies are not cloudy all day...
We can all sit around the campfire and sing, home, home on the
range! Where the fractals and the gaussians play!
Where seldom is heard, a coherant word, and I'll probably wanna
stay drunk all day!
That way I can fit in better..
Well, I digress... back to the jibber jabber at hand...

Tom what you don't
realise
is that the boom length on a Yagi is to focus the main lobe, it does
not
supply an increase in actual radiation so getting 11dbi with a 8 foot
boom
is no big deal as the gain is limited regardles of boom length or
elements used.

This is the statement which drew my attention.. Shame on the mess...
You think I can't get more than 11 dbi with a yagi? I've got models
of some for 70 cm that do 17 dbi, and I haven't even manually tweaked
them yet.. I can make ones that do more too..
The addition of gain does not stop at some specific boom length.
It does decrease bit by bit as you add each element, but you can
sure get a lot more gain from a yagi than you advertise.
And adding more boom length and elements does add more gain ,
although the payoff diminishes to the point where it's not worth
doing for a single antenna. They start stacking them when they
get to that point.
You keep talking about these short boom things and acting like
there is no more gain to be had by adding more elements..
That #$%@ ain't right, as the song by the Saddlesores goes..
MK

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 18 Jun, 21:36, art wrote:
On 18 Jun, 19:30, Tom Ring wrote:





Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
roups.com...
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

define 'gaussian form'.

All I'd like to see is a couple real hard numbers. Like element length
and position on boom.

And I'd bet lunch at Ruth's Chris, even though I don't like steak at
all, that if the thing really shows the numbers Art claims, that the
real drive point impedance is in the range of 5 ohms or less.

Come on Art, you won't give away a million dollar idea if you publish
the construction details of an 8 foot long 3 element 20 meter beam. You
will be able to squash anyone like a bug with your 30 foot version.

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No,No.No. The criteria used by the arrl woulod not allow me to do
that.
I never go below 20 ohms so I can use a 2:1 balun.
Actualy I just added another element to make it 4 el on a 8 foot boom
I havent finished it yet but at the moment it is around 40 ohms, less
than 2:1 swr
F/B is 30 db worst case and the gain is about 1/2 db more than the
three element.
The elements are std length as per a yagi but bent a bit so they
are all in equilibrium. Anyway, I added one element but I have only
optimised
two elements so far so it probably will get better when I include
the other two elements in situ for optimisation. Tom what you don't
realise
is that the boom length on a Yagi is to focus the main lobe, it does
not
supply an increase in actual radiation so getting 11dbi with a 8 foot
boom
is no big deal as the gain is limited regardles of boom length or
elements used.
The beam width will always be around 60 degrees because of the lack of
focussing.
As far as giving out details of the design I have done all that.
Limit the boom length and then use an optimiser on all dimensions.
Elements are best made of at least three sections each
With respect to the low impedance you were expecting. I mentioned
right at the onset
that F/B,SWR and gain across the band has symetry so compromises are
not required
as per a yagi. But why would you want details of a Gaussian antenna
since it has been thoroughly discounted by all as well as confusing
people
as well as what it looks like. Amateurs on this group can smell a
fake
and don't need to know how it is made. I gave a model of a extended
zepp
with a loop antenna at the center. One guy said he could smell a fake
so didn't need to model it. I am amazed that a antenna compamy hasn't
offered employment to a lot of the posters after seeing their
interlects
have no bounds. I have no need for more money so I am not disapointed
that the headhunters have not come after me, after all I am a fraud.
Regards
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correction;
I said worst case F/B was 30 db
Should have read Front /Rear worst case 30 db
No big deal as it still meets the ARRL criteria of
20 db F/B
Art

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

I am not disapointed
that the headhunters have not come after me, after all I am a fraud.
Regards
Art


Finally some sense :-)

bada goosian BUm

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

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