Gaussian antenna planar form
 

Since in the past I noted that amateurs
preffered their antennas to be planar I thought
I would force Gaussian elements to be
constructed some what in line like a yagi
but ofcourse spacings will go where ever they want
to attain over all equilibrium.
The results are as follows when striving for
maximum gain. ( 14.25 Mhz)

# el boom lth inches gain dbi

2 125 12.85
3 454 14.96
4 460 14.85
5 451 14.98
6 448 14.89
7 440 15.18
8 441 15.20
9 434 15.18
10 434 15.13
A gaussian has a natural good reasonable front to back
so I left that out of the equation.
The above did not show any variation in band width ie
it stayed around 65 degrees so there is no focussing effect
around which a yagi is designed
As can be seen from the above, after you get a length of approx 34
feet
no amount of extra elements added is going to provide more gain
or change in radiated pattern and this pattern will be achieved
with as little as 3 elements.
A normal gaussian normally moves to a cubical volume similar
to a stacked arrangement while still only requiring a single feed
point so later I will take a look at that.
From the above one can see that approx 15 dbi is the most
that can be expected from a forced inline array with the pattern
of radiation staying constant showing that max efficiency has
been reached. I will leave it to others to give their take on the
above
listing.
Art

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 1 Jun, 08:03, art wrote:
Since in the past I noted that amateurs
preffered their antennas to be planar I thought
I would force Gaussian elements to be
constructed some what in line like a yagi
but ofcourse spacings will go where ever they want
to attain over all equilibrium.
The results are as follows when striving for
maximum gain. ( 14.25 Mhz)

# el boom lth inches gain dbi

2 125 12.85
3 454 14.96
4 460 14.85
5 451 14.98
6 448 14.89
7 440 15.18
8 441 15.20
9 434 15.18
10 434 15.13
A gaussian has a natural good reasonable front to back
so I left that out of the equation.
The above did not show any variation in band width ie
it stayed around 65 degrees so there is no focussing effect
around which a yagi is designed
As can be seen from the above, after you get a length of approx 34
feet
no amount of extra elements added is going to provide more gain
or change in radiated pattern and this pattern will be achieved
with as little as 3 elements.
A normal gaussian normally moves to a cubical volume similar
to a stacked arrangement while still only requiring a single feed
point so later I will take a look at that.From the above one can see that approx 15 dbi is the most

that can be expected from a forced inline array with the pattern
of radiation staying constant showing that max efficiency has
been reached. I will leave it to others to give their take on the
above
listing.
Art

Note I used the term BAND width above here I meant to say BEAM width.
Consequential bandwidth changes were not noted to minimise variables.
Art

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

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

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

Hi Art,

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

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

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

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

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

Do 10 element gaussian arrays have poor efficiency?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

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

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

Hi Art,

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

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Has there ever been a definition of a guassian array. From the best I can
figure ART just claimed it otbe a bunch of random lengths mounted on a boom
but every time I see a model he presents its just a mucked up yagi.

Jimmie

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:31:23 -0400, "Jimmie D"
wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
Why does a gaussian array need 10 elements to get less?

Has there ever been a definition of a guassian array. From the best I can
figure ART just claimed it otbe a bunch of random lengths mounted on a boom
but every time I see a model he presents its just a mucked up yagi.

Hi Jimmie,

The definition of a gaussian array, by "theory" is something that
changes to fit the occasion (or it could be said to be a new work of
science that is still in progress).

The definition of a gaussian array, by performance, is an inferior
antenna that is more difficult to erect than the relatively mundane
example of the NBS Yagi. I didn't pick the NBS for its spectacular
performance (there are better designs), I simply picked the first
model available so as to not waste time (yet again).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 1 Jun, 09:15, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:04:21 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

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

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

Do 10 element gaussian arrays have poor efficiency?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

"Jimmie D" wrote in message
...

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

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

Hi Art,

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

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Has there ever been a definition of a guassian array. From the best I can
figure ART just claimed it otbe a bunch of random lengths mounted on a
boom but every time I see a model he presents its just a mucked up yagi.

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

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

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

# el boom lth inches gain dbi
4 460 14.85

Let's see, by adding one more element to the NBS Yagi, I got 15.72
dBi.

This means that the NBS yagi is 110% efficient compared to a gaussian
array. This is due to the physics of Newtonian Bales which is
superior to gaussian bundles.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

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

...





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

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

Hi Art,

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

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Has there ever been a definition of a guassian array. From the best I can
figure ART just claimed it otbe a bunch of random lengths mounted on a boom
but every time I see a model he presents its just a mucked up yagi.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jimmie
Let us talk common sense. Remember its origins is based on a static
field
where all of the field was in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium can
be seen as
a cluster of elements where the current flow in all elements flow in
unison
and change direction in unison. There is no need to add a boom in the
definition as a supporting framework since we are looking at radiation
results.
On the arrangement given I forced the elements to take up a horizontal
or
planar position away from the natural formation form which is
approximately
1/2 wave cubed. When you refer it to a "mucked up Yagi" you must
understand
that the Yagi is primarily set up to focus available radiation by
redistribution,
where as with a Gaussian there is no focussing or relaying of energy
by coupling.
Later I will investigate maximum radiated area of the radiated field
with
respect to element arrangement rather than providing a maximised beam
length.
Art