Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 24 Jun, 08:13, art wrote:
On 24 Jun, 04:09, "Dave" wrote:





"art" wrote in message

oups.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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Addition to the above

Maxwell collected all the obsevations by others and put a
three dimensional picture (Cartesian 3 dimensional) starting
at a particular observation and then built upon it like a
jigsaw puzzle progressively including observations of others
until
the full picture emerged from a mass of pieces.
As assemblers of jig saw puzzles know the intricacy
of placing the parts in the correct order depends on
the starting point and since the majority of observations
were of dynamic form it was a dynamic point that Maxwell
started from. However if Maxwell had started his
composition from a "static" point ala Gausses observations
he still would have achieved the final picture but by a
different route of clues given. On the other hand a yagi picture
is a two dimensional Cartesian picture where only the
equilibrium between two points come under consideration
tho Yagi came across it the back way where equilibrium was broken
and the radiation became bi directional and manipulated by coupling
to a common direction with the coupling moving energy fro a resonant
structure to a non resonant structure to a non resonant structure
with a lesser gravitational pull. Computor programs emulate this
procedure
by viewing each element as being resonant but at a different frequency
and where the energy transition is completed in serial form
with respect to time where as the Gaussian transition is completed
near instantaneously and as a whole.
If one were to place several elements in a cluster form saqy in the
shape
of a reversed letter 'C' it can be seen that on the application of a
time varying current the particles residing on the surface will be
propelled
to on end or the other depending on the direction of the current,
thus the emmision of particles will take place from two or more areas
of the misshapenned Poyntings circle in the shape of two swarms
of particles at places where there are irregularities of the closed
surface.
Of course the border openning are constantly closing and current
direction
changes in the pursuit of constantly changinging equilibrium.Thus some
particles
that have been propelled away from the element surface finds that its
exit
is closed off such that the gravitational pull of the element pulls
the
particle back where it meets a surface that is occupied by other
particles
leaving it no other place to go but beyond the surface towards the
center
where it decays
Thus we see the escaping partincles emminating from at least two
points
on the poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more
swarms of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known
as the near field. So when are particles 'matter' or when are they
'energy'?
Another day another dollar.
Art KB9MZ.....XG

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 24 Jun, 08:13, art wrote:
On 24 Jun, 04:09, "Dave" wrote:





"art" wrote in message

oups.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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Addition to the above

Maxwell collected all the obsevations by others and put a
three dimensional picture (Cartesian 3 dimensional) starting
at a particular observation and then built upon it like a
jigsaw puzzle progressively including observations of others
until
the full picture emerged from a mass of pieces.
As assemblers of jig saw puzzles know the intricacy
of placing the parts in the correct order depends on
the starting point and since the majority of observations
were of dynamic form it was a dynamic point that Maxwell
started from. However if Maxwell had started his
composition from a "static" point ala Gausses observations
he still would have achieved the final picture but by a
different route of clues given. On the other hand a yagi picture
is a two dimensional Cartesian picture where only the
equilibrium between two points come under consideration
tho Yagi came across it the back way where equilibrium was broken
and the radiation became bi directional and manipulated by coupling
to a common direction with the coupling moving energy fro a resonant
structure to a non resonant structure to a non resonant structure
with a lesser gravitational pull. Computor programs emulate this
procedure
by viewing each element as being resonant but at a different frequency
and where the energy transition is completed in serial form
with respect to time where as the Gaussian transition is completed
near instantaneously and as a whole.
If one were to place several elements in a cluster form saqy in the
shape
of a reversed letter 'C' it can be seen that on the application of a
time varying current the particles residing on the surface will be
propelled
to on end or the other depending on the direction of the current,
thus the emmision of particles will take place from two or more areas
of the misshapenned Poyntings circle in the shape of two swarms
of particles at places where there are irregularities of the closed
surface.
Of course the border openning are constantly closing and current
direction
changes in the pursuit of constantly changinging equilibrium.Thus some
particles
that have been propelled away from the element surface finds that its
exit
is closed off such that the gravitational pull of the element pulls
the
particle back where it meets a surface that is occupied by other
particles
leaving it no other place to go but beyond the surface towards the
center
where it decays
Thus we see the escaping partincles emminating from at least two
points
on the poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more
swarms of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known
as the near field. So when are particles 'matter' or when are they
'energy'?
Another day another dollar.
Art KB9MZ.....XG


another day, more meaningless bafflegab of strung together buzzwords. a
random phrase generator would make as much sense as what you have written.

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

Art, KB9MZ......XG wrote:
"Thus we see the escaping particles emminating from at least two points
in poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms
of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near
field."

Despite Art`s disdain of radio amateurs, competent authors, and parrots,
perhaps a mechanical engineer might be advised to consult
"Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith,
Jr., an electrical engineer from M.I.T., and a radio amateur, N5SU. He
clearly explains how directional antennas work.

Art should also study "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides" by
King, Mimno, and Wing. It was written for non-electrical engineers.

On page 86 it says:
"An effective abntenna is always an electric circuit that does not
satisfy the conditions for the near zone."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 24 Jun, 15:54, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art, KB9MZ......XG wrote:

"Thus we see the escaping particles emminating from at least two points
in poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms
of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near
field."

Despite Art`s disdain of radio amateurs, competent authors, and parrots,
perhaps a mechanical engineer might be advised to consult
"Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith,
Jr., an electrical engineer from M.I.T., and a radio amateur, N5SU. He
clearly explains how directional antennas work.

Art should also study "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides" by
King, Mimno, and Wing. It was written for non-electrical engineers.

On page 86 it says:
"An effective abntenna is always an electric circuit that does not
satisfy the conditions for the near zone."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

None of the above go into detail about the conservative and non
concervative
field transitions with respect to Gaussian law of Statics.
I don't think anybody has a problem with respect to planar or two
dimension
radiation forms but with three dimensional forms as with a sphere
radio amateurs
cannot seem to come to grips with it. As I have stated before it is
one thing
to learn things and it is another thing to understand it and it is
this
that separates engineers from amatuers .

Show me one resident of this newsgroup
which includes you that is able to discuss conservative and
non conservative fields, not one has come forward with corrective
analysis and that includes you.

Not one has discussed how a cluster of resonant
elements can actualy radiate when only one feed point is applied.

Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative
field
when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that
Maxwell
determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law.

Maxwell had many observations to play with which he condenses to four
laws,
that did not mean that the others were invalid but none provided a
transition from static to dynamic thus there was nothing at hand for
Maxwell to use for transition or the meshing with other observations.
When I added a varying time metric to Gaussian law that transition
became available
Some people have learned the equations by Maxwell but it appears
that few or none truly understand what Maxwell did to condense all to
four basic laws. Using Gaussian law to duplicate the process that
Maxwell initiated has not been done prior to my findings. Thus
nothing is in the books and niether were all the clues provided
by Gaussian law as evidence to formulate a Gaussian array.
If one was to use a optimisation computor program to find
the best array is it not surprising that even tho the program
is based on Maxwell laws it gyrates towards an three dimension
Gaussian array which follows the same trail as partially
provided by Gauss?
Because amateur minds cannot follow the inticracies of the
formation of Maxwells laws does not invalidate anything and
nothing provided by the naysayers such as you, have provided
one iota of intelligence to validate or invalidate what
I have provided.
Why? because it is not printed in the books yet,
so parrots such as you cannot verbalise what has not been written.

And finally on top of all that provided above, a Doctor John E
Davis
from MIT came out of nowhere and provided mathematical documentation
that agreed with what I was saying that connected with existing
Maxwellian law.
Richard, time is on my side, there are many experts out there who
understand physics as well as going thru just the learning process you
have gone thru. All the bad things said by you and others
will go by the wayside for historians to study the phenomina
of resistance to change and where new students have another
avenue to study to unlock the secrets of nature.
Regardless of what amateurs say all is not known about radiation
and I look forward to the next step made in the quest of knowekedge.
Art KB9MZ.....XG

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

art wrote:
On 24 Jun, 15:54, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art, KB9MZ......XG wrote:

"Thus we see the escaping particles emminating from at least two points
in poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms
of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near
field."

Despite Art`s disdain of radio amateurs, competent authors, and parrots,
perhaps a mechanical engineer might be advised to consult
"Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith,
Jr., an electrical engineer from M.I.T., and a radio amateur, N5SU. He
clearly explains how directional antennas work.

Art should also study "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides" by
King, Mimno, and Wing. It was written for non-electrical engineers.

On page 86 it says:
"An effective abntenna is always an electric circuit that does not
satisfy the conditions for the near zone."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

None of the above go into detail about the conservative and non
concervative
field transitions with respect to Gaussian law of Statics.
I don't think anybody has a problem with respect to planar or two
dimension
radiation forms but with three dimensional forms as with a sphere
radio amateurs
cannot seem to come to grips with it. As I have stated before it is
one thing
to learn things and it is another thing to understand it and it is
this
that separates engineers from amatuers .

Show me one resident of this newsgroup
which includes you that is able to discuss conservative and
non conservative fields, not one has come forward with corrective
analysis and that includes you.

Not one has discussed how a cluster of resonant
elements can actualy radiate when only one feed point is applied.

Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative
field
when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that
Maxwell
determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law.

Maxwell had many observations to play with which he condenses to four
laws,
that did not mean that the others were invalid but none provided a
transition from static to dynamic thus there was nothing at hand for
Maxwell to use for transition or the meshing with other observations.
When I added a varying time metric to Gaussian law that transition
became available
Some people have learned the equations by Maxwell but it appears
that few or none truly understand what Maxwell did to condense all to
four basic laws. Using Gaussian law to duplicate the process that
Maxwell initiated has not been done prior to my findings. Thus
nothing is in the books and niether were all the clues provided
by Gaussian law as evidence to formulate a Gaussian array.
If one was to use a optimisation computor program to find
the best array is it not surprising that even tho the program
is based on Maxwell laws it gyrates towards an three dimension
Gaussian array which follows the same trail as partially
provided by Gauss?
Because amateur minds cannot follow the inticracies of the
formation of Maxwells laws does not invalidate anything and
nothing provided by the naysayers such as you, have provided
one iota of intelligence to validate or invalidate what
I have provided.
Why? because it is not printed in the books yet,
so parrots such as you cannot verbalise what has not been written.

And finally on top of all that provided above, a Doctor John E
Davis
from MIT came out of nowhere and provided mathematical documentation
that agreed with what I was saying that connected with existing
Maxwellian law.
Richard, time is on my side, there are many experts out there who
understand physics as well as going thru just the learning process you
have gone thru. All the bad things said by you and others
will go by the wayside for historians to study the phenomina
of resistance to change and where new students have another
avenue to study to unlock the secrets of nature.
Regardless of what amateurs say all is not known about radiation
and I look forward to the next step made in the quest of knowekedge.
Art KB9MZ.....XG


Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) would certainly be surprised to see
his ideas used in this way. Art, if none of us swine can digest the
pearls you've cast before us, why do you continue to cast? You're using
the wrong side of your brain, Art. Maybe you _are_ a misunderstood
genius, but if you are, it's because you've lost the ability to
present your ideas in logical form. Anger and name calling are no
substitute for clarity and logic. Maybe you should get someone to help
you present your ideas using the same language the rest of us
use.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On Jun 24, 6:02 pm, art wrote:


Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative
field
when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that
Maxwell
determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law.

I thought an idea had to be proven before you could call it a "law"...
I would think this would also apply if you were to pervert an existing
law, and call it an "expanded" law..
What steps have to taken to prove this idea? Any at all?
Myself, I see this as a straw grasp of immense proportions..
As I remember, this Dr. Davis came along for a while, but it seems
to me once he got a grip on what you were proposing, he ran away
like a teenager "wahooing" beer from a 7-11 store..
MK

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 24 Jun, 17:49, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
art wrote:
On 24 Jun, 15:54, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art, KB9MZ......XG wrote:

"Thus we see the escaping particles emminating from at least two points
in poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms
of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near
field."

Despite Art`s disdain of radio amateurs, competent authors, and parrots,
perhaps a mechanical engineer might be advised to consult
"Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith,
Jr., an electrical engineer from M.I.T., and a radio amateur, N5SU. He
clearly explains how directional antennas work.

Art should also study "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides" by
King, Mimno, and Wing. It was written for non-electrical engineers.

On page 86 it says:
"An effective abntenna is always an electric circuit that does not
satisfy the conditions for the near zone."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

None of the above go into detail about the conservative and non
concervative
field transitions with respect to Gaussian law of Statics.
I don't think anybody has a problem with respect to planar or two
dimension
radiation forms but with three dimensional forms as with a sphere
radio amateurs
cannot seem to come to grips with it. As I have stated before it is
one thing
to learn things and it is another thing to understand it and it is
this
that separates engineers from amatuers .

Show me one resident of this newsgroup
which includes you that is able to discuss conservative and
non conservative fields, not one has come forward with corrective
analysis and that includes you.

Not one has discussed how a cluster of resonant
elements can actualy radiate when only one feed point is applied.

Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative
field
when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that
Maxwell
determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law.

Maxwell had many observations to play with which he condenses to four
laws,
that did not mean that the others were invalid but none provided a
transition from static to dynamic thus there was nothing at hand for
Maxwell to use for transition or the meshing with other observations.
When I added a varying time metric to Gaussian law that transition
became available
Some people have learned the equations by Maxwell but it appears
that few or none truly understand what Maxwell did to condense all to
four basic laws. Using Gaussian law to duplicate the process that
Maxwell initiated has not been done prior to my findings. Thus
nothing is in the books and niether were all the clues provided
by Gaussian law as evidence to formulate a Gaussian array.
If one was to use a optimisation computor program to find
the best array is it not surprising that even tho the program
is based on Maxwell laws it gyrates towards an three dimension
Gaussian array which follows the same trail as partially
provided by Gauss?
Because amateur minds cannot follow the inticracies of the
formation of Maxwells laws does not invalidate anything and
nothing provided by the naysayers such as you, have provided
one iota of intelligence to validate or invalidate what
I have provided.
Why? because it is not printed in the books yet,
so parrots such as you cannot verbalise what has not been written.

And finally on top of all that provided above, a Doctor John E
Davis
from MIT came out of nowhere and provided mathematical documentation
that agreed with what I was saying that connected with existing
Maxwellian law.
Richard, time is on my side, there are many experts out there who
understand physics as well as going thru just the learning process you
have gone thru. All the bad things said by you and others
will go by the wayside for historians to study the phenomina
of resistance to change and where new students have another
avenue to study to unlock the secrets of nature.
Regardless of what amateurs say all is not known about radiation
and I look forward to the next step made in the quest of knowekedge.
Art KB9MZ.....XG

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) would certainly be surprised to see
his ideas used in this way. Art, if none of us swine can digest the
pearls you've cast before us, why do you continue to cast? You're using
the wrong side of your brain, Art. Maybe you _are_ a misunderstood
genius, but if you are, it's because you've lost the ability to
present your ideas in logical form. Anger and name calling are no
substitute for clarity and logic. Maybe you should get someone to help
you present your ideas using the same language the rest of us
use.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom, with all due respect I respond in like form to name calling.
I know that what I am saying is enough to spark the interest of
academics.
Before I opened my mouth on this I asked and got conformation of a
discovery by a academic. On this newsgroup an academic popped
in and provided all the mathematical reasoning to connect up with
Maxwell so academia understands the logic of what I am saying.,
So now I am dealing with amateurs so I use amateur antenna computor
programs to disemminate an array that I provided which the
Maxwellian based program prompty did But I am dealing with amateurs
you believe all is known about antennas but I do know there are a
couple
of educated people on this newsgroup. So I start off my explanation
starting with Gauss's law of Statics with the standard 'Pill box,
picture
of a gaussian field which then generated a conservative field.
I went back to the very basics of what I expected american colleges
teach their student. To my surprise I found that those I thought was
educated knew about a Gaussian field and worst of all were confused
about the word "equiulibrium" which is part and parcel of Gaussian
law!
Even so I persued the subject hoping to find where the discontinuity
of education occurs but with out success. It becomes very hard to
keep my composure when people I thought were engineers of some sort
in actuallity were not even tho they baldfacely state that they are
engineers.
I am quite sure that even an older engineer may have forgotten the
basics
he would not lose his instinct to enquire at a point where he was
lost.
In this news group I never got past the basics of Gaussian law because
members did not know enough to ask a question. On the other hand
I got conformation of what I found to be a legitamate discovery.
So why the big gap in knoweledge? Is it resistance to some thing new?
Well JS got a torrent of disbelievers while all admitted they were
not quite sure of the design of the R.I. vertical so why the
assurance
of it being a fake? Even tho some denied that it could work even
nowing that
some information was missing the denial was based on the assertion
that
they had done all before, every thing was known.
So Tom even tho I have applied for a patent I am searching for the
return
of some of the more expert antenna people that have been driven away
in the
past so a true discussion or debate could start. True the debate has
not
yet begun in America but I have no doubts that academics are
reviewing
it in other Countries. Now you say it is a question of logic which by
its nature provides a trail or string of information. I thus start
with
Gauss's law but everybody goes blank! What do I have to do, go back
to
all the participants in science prior to Maxwell? No I can't because
the education gap is prior to Gauss but as yet nobody has placed a
morsel of challenge to what I have stated!.
Frankly I don't believe I should be the one to blame for the lack
of knoweledge or communication on this newsgroup if the group
consists of mainly high school graduates based on the knoweledge
that they expound. And finally a academic arrives on the scene
understands the discussion and provides the mathematic knoweledge
required for afformation. Yes you guessed it, in the main he was
rejected. Why? Because he didn't explain himself properly after
several tries. Well that excuse is getting pretty lame!
.. Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 24 Jun, 18:08, wrote:
On Jun 24, 6:02 pm, art wrote:



Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative
field
when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that
Maxwell
determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law.

I thought an idea had to be proven before you could call it a "law"...
I would think this would also apply if you were to pervert an existing
law, and call it an "expanded" law..
What steps have to taken to prove this idea? Any at all?
Myself, I see this as a straw grasp of immense proportions..
As I remember, this Dr. Davis came along for a while, but it seems
to me once he got a grip on what you were proposing, he ran away
like a teenager "wahooing" beer from a 7-11 store..
MK

No that is not true. After trying several times to educate the group
and getting responses such as yours he decided to move on as
other experts have done in the past. They are trying to help with the
amateur radio antenna group but realised quite quickly it was
mainly composed of the non antenna type people. They don't need
the sort of things that are stated they move on. He has a Doctorate
and thus he is qualified for some respect

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

Tom Donaly wrote:

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) would certainly be surprised to see
his ideas used in this way. Art, if none of us swine can digest the
pearls you've cast before us, why do you continue to cast? You're using
the wrong side of your brain, Art. Maybe you _are_ a misunderstood
genius, but if you are, it's because you've lost the ability to
present your ideas in logical form. Anger and name calling are no
substitute for clarity and logic. Maybe you should get someone to help
you present your ideas using the same language the rest of us
use.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom

All I am asking of Art, and I've asked before, is that he give us the
dimensions of one of his wonder antennas. If he gives us one of the
simpler ones, he has given little away, but will allow us to confirm his
claims. Since we, as a group of stupid EEs, can't possibly figure out
how to duplicate his method of making another better one, he has nothing
to lose.

Hopefully one of you will respond to his response to this as I plonked
the idiot months ago. I love to see his nonsensical responses.

tom
K0TAR

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On Jun 24, 8:01 pm, art wrote:


No that is not true. After trying several times to educate the group
and getting responses such as yours he decided to move on as
other experts have done in the past. They are trying to help with the
amateur radio antenna group but realised quite quickly it was
mainly composed of the non antenna type people. They don't need
the sort of things that are stated they move on. He has a Doctorate
and thus he is qualified for some respect

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r... bdc00f7e7cbcd

I had to refresh myself on the reasons of his departure..He never
really proved anything.. In fact, at
the end, Richard Clark seemed to be making a pretty good case that he
was misreading, or
misinterpreting the data.. But he never came back to respond to the
last posts.
The way I see it, it never really was agreed on one way or the other.
I'm fairly sure he
failed to convince a few on here. Seems to me, with his vast storages
of knowledge,
having a doctorate, papers on wall, etc, that he should have been
able to settle things
real quick just by shear brute force of reasoning. Didn't seem to work
that way.
But all this is really moot. It doesn't matter. Even if he was
correct, I'm still
fairly certain that the antennas you are cooking up don't rely on such
exotic
"gaussian" methods to function. Thats assuming you believe in such a
thing..
MK