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.