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