|
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 |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Art wrote:
"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 focusing or relaying of energy by coupling." Words fail me. Without redistribution, there is only a point source. More than one source is necessary for the radiant energy to produce gain. It is immaterial whether the energy gets to a second source by conduction or radiation. Interaction between the energies of more than one source is essential for gain. Focus is convergence of energy and is the stuff gain comes from. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 1 Jun, 15:25, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "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 focusing or relaying of energy by coupling." Words fail me. Without redistribution, there is only a point source. More than one source is necessary for the radiant energy to produce gain. It is immaterial whether the energy gets to a second source by conduction or radiation. Interaction between the energies of more than one source is essential for gain. Focus is convergence of energy and is the stuff gain comes from. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Your last line is all I understand of your posting and I would agree with that line. With respect to the rest your words they fail me to.You are getting more like the other Richard every day I will not even try to explain equilibrium to you as you are incapable and are having to many senior moments.Seems like your posting is a collection of line quotes taken from different books on different subjects Art |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Richard Clark wrote:
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 An NBS beats it? Those are considered to be the absolute dreck of the VHF and up antenna world. Anyone could compete with this bunch. Would be a perfect government contract. ;) tom K0TAR |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Jun 1, 10:32 am, art wrote:
Jimmie Let us talk common sense. Remember its origins is based on a static field ... Art Art, I don't much care what the _definition_ is, but I am interested in what the _purpose_ is. In terms of "features and benefits," why would I care about this antenna? At least with the "crossed field antenna" and "fractal antennas," I understood _why_ one would be interested in the claimed benefits (though they never seemed to actually be delivered), but so far I haven't seen anything to get me excited and wanting to learn more about this "Gaussian" thing you've been tossing about with respect to antennas. Please understand that there are plenty of cases to which "Gaussian" is applied that I do see the benefit to, both practical and theoretical, but this "Gaussian antenna" thing is just leaving me cold, so far. Cheers, Tom |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Art wrote:
"With respect to the rest of your words, they fail me too." OK, I`ll try again. Antenna gain results from interference, constructive and destructive. Two or more sources are needed to interfere. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Jun 1, 11:30 am, Richard Clark wrote:
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 Hummm, I think newtonian bales, and gaussian bundles are both inferior to cluster &^%$'s... :/ MK |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 1 Jun, 21:53, K7ITM wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:32 am, art wrote: Jimmie Let us talk common sense. Remember its origins is based on a static field ... Art Art, I don't much care what the _definition_ is, but I am interested in what the _purpose_ is. In terms of "features and benefits," why would I care about this antenna? At least with the "crossed field antenna" and "fractal antennas," I understood _why_ one would be interested in the claimed benefits (though they never seemed to actually be delivered), but so far I haven't seen anything to get me excited and wanting to learn more about this "Gaussian" thing you've been tossing about with respect to antennas. Please understand that there are plenty of cases to which "Gaussian" is applied that I do see the benefit to, both practical and theoretical, but this "Gaussian antenna" thing is just leaving me cold, so far. Cheers, Tom The definition was requested and I answed that request The Gaussian thing I am tossing around is something that the experts refuse to acknoweledge in any way. Over more than twenty years this group of experts have attacked all experimentors and have got away with it. I am a experimentoras you know and I have been attacked since day one over my experiments and patents. On the Gaussian thing they refuse to acknoweledge the connection between Gaussian statics law and other laws of the masters. Even a Doctrate holder tried to convince them of the connecting mathematics but they have rejected all. To me it suggest that over the years many of these suedo experts have over estimated their abilities. Why they refuse the Gaussian connection I do not know but I am going to hammer away at it because there are many silent observers who surely understand the physics involved. And each time I bring the subject up I smile as protagonists continue to deny the Gaussian connection. Actually Tom if a person or group finally came to their sences and acknoweledged the Gaussian connection that I flaunt we all we be on a more stable keel. They asked for the mathematical proof after I presented the antenna, that mathematical proof was provided and the Gaussian connection was rejected. To me and others this sort of thing has happened time and time again, I am not running away as other hams have been forced to do. I will stay until they are forced to acknoweledge the ficklties of science where ever it may lead and I will continue to make an example of the assailants inadequacies with respect to experimentation and its findings. I am an east ender from London, if I am wrongly pushed I will push back regardles of the inflicted pain that is applied to me so you better explore other tactics to make your points. Art |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 2 Jun, 05:02, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "With respect to the rest of your words, they fail me too." OK, I`ll try again. Antenna gain results from interference, constructive and destructive. Two or more sources are needed to interfere. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Give me a hint, what is it that you are directing your comments at? Iknow you don't accept the Gaussian story and I know I cannot convince you otherwise and I have stopped trying. Is there something else that you are trying to get my attention? Art |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Jun 2, 7:20 am, art wrote:
On 1 Jun, 21:53, K7ITM wrote: On Jun 1, 10:32 am, art wrote: Jimmie Let us talk common sense. Remember its origins is based on a static field ... Art Art, I don't much care what the _definition_ is, but I am interested in what the _purpose_ is. In terms of "features and benefits," why would I care about this antenna? At least with the "crossed field antenna" and "fractal antennas," I understood _why_ one would be interested in the claimed benefits (though they never seemed to actually be delivered), but so far I haven't seen anything to get me excited and wanting to learn more about this "Gaussian" thing you've been tossing about with respect to antennas. Please understand that there are plenty of cases to which "Gaussian" is applied that I do see the benefit to, both practical and theoretical, but this "Gaussian antenna" thing is just leaving me cold, so far. Cheers, Tom The definition was requested and I answed that request The Gaussian thing I am tossing around is something that the experts refuse to acknoweledge in any way. Over more than twenty years this group of experts have attacked all experimentors and have got away with it. I am a experimentoras you know and I have been attacked since day one over my experiments and patents. On the Gaussian thing they refuse to acknoweledge the connection between Gaussian statics law and other laws of the masters. Even a Doctrate holder tried to convince them of the connecting mathematics but they have rejected all. To me it suggest that over the years many of these suedo experts have over estimated their abilities. Why they refuse the Gaussian connection I do not know but I am going to hammer away at it because there are many silent observers who surely understand the physics involved. And each time I bring the subject up I smile as protagonists continue to deny the Gaussian connection. Actually Tom if a person or group finally came to their sences and acknoweledged the Gaussian connection that I flaunt we all we be on a more stable keel. They asked for the mathematical proof after I presented the antenna, that mathematical proof was provided and the Gaussian connection was rejected. To me and others this sort of thing has happened time and time again, I am not running away as other hams have been forced to do. I will stay until they are forced to acknoweledge the ficklties of science where ever it may lead and I will continue to make an example of the assailants inadequacies with respect to experimentation and its findings. I am an east ender from London, if I am wrongly pushed I will push back regardles of the inflicted pain that is applied to me so you better explore other tactics to make your points. Art Art, I'm puzzled why you would go off on that same old rant and ignore the key question I asked: why should I care about this antenna? What are its features and benefits? What are its advantages over competing antennas that have similar features and benefits? I'm not trying to "make points" but simply to understand why I should care about this antenna. You may have previously posted things about that, but I got lost in all the other words that didn't get me excited about it--words that never told me why I would care about it. Is it particularly compact? Is it easy to build? Will it stay together well? Does it do a better job letting me communicate than antennas I already know about? If it causes you too much pain to tell us why it's an antenna worthy of consideration over other existing antennas, please just ignore my question and I'll go away and let you write whatever you want about it. Cheers, Tom |
Gaussian antenna planar form
|
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 2 Jun, 08:20, K7ITM wrote:
On Jun 2, 7:20 am, art wrote: On 1 Jun, 21:53, K7ITM wrote: On Jun 1, 10:32 am, art wrote: Jimmie Let us talk common sense. Remember its origins is based on a static field ... Art Art, I don't much care what the _definition_ is, but I am interested in what the _purpose_ is. In terms of "features and benefits," why would I care about this antenna? At least with the "crossed field antenna" and "fractal antennas," I understood _why_ one would be interested in the claimed benefits (though they never seemed to actually be delivered), but so far I haven't seen anything to get me excited and wanting to learn more about this "Gaussian" thing you've been tossing about with respect to antennas. Please understand that there are plenty of cases to which "Gaussian" is applied that I do see the benefit to, both practical and theoretical, but this "Gaussian antenna" thing is just leaving me cold, so far. Cheers, Tom The definition was requested and I answed that request The Gaussian thing I am tossing around is something that the experts refuse to acknoweledge in any way. Over more than twenty years this group of experts have attacked all experimentors and have got away with it. I am a experimentoras you know and I have been attacked since day one over my experiments and patents. On the Gaussian thing they refuse to acknoweledge the connection between Gaussian statics law and other laws of the masters. Even a Doctrate holder tried to convince them of the connecting mathematics but they have rejected all. To me it suggest that over the years many of these suedo experts have over estimated their abilities. Why they refuse the Gaussian connection I do not know but I am going to hammer away at it because there are many silent observers who surely understand the physics involved. And each time I bring the subject up I smile as protagonists continue to deny the Gaussian connection. Actually Tom if a person or group finally came to their sences and acknoweledged the Gaussian connection that I flaunt we all we be on a more stable keel. They asked for the mathematical proof after I presented the antenna, that mathematical proof was provided and the Gaussian connection was rejected. To me and others this sort of thing has happened time and time again, I am not running away as other hams have been forced to do. I will stay until they are forced to acknoweledge the ficklties of science where ever it may lead and I will continue to make an example of the assailants inadequacies with respect to experimentation and its findings. I am an east ender from London, if I am wrongly pushed I will push back regardles of the inflicted pain that is applied to me so you better explore other tactics to make your points. Art Art, I'm puzzled why you would go off on that same old rant and ignore the key question I asked: why should I care about this antenna? What are its features and benefits? What are its advantages over competing antennas that have similar features and benefits? I'm not trying to "make points" but simply to understand why I should care about this antenna. You may have previously posted things about that, but I got lost in all the other words that didn't get me excited about it--words that never told me why I would care about it. Is it particularly compact? Is it easy to build? Will it stay together well? Does it do a better job letting me communicate than antennas I already know about? If it causes you too much pain to tell us why it's an antenna worthy of consideration over other existing antennas, please just ignore my question and I'll go away and let you write whatever you want about it. Cheers, Tom- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Do you or do you not accept the mathematical explanation of the connection between a conservative field and a non conservative field that evolves around the Gaussian law of statics? All this group rejects this connection and thus without that foundation feel free to reject the discovery. If the group rejects the idea of adding the unit of time to both sides of the Gaussian equation it is futile to expand on what that connection provides. Good, bad or whatever a discovery has been made, proven by independent mathematical analysis tho still rejected as viable by this group of antenna experts. What point is there for me to do this or do that and you 'will let me' when the very foundation of the antenna design is rejected by the cream of amateur radio antenna designers, authors critics e.t.c. If one wants to discuss antennas one must have a foundation to build on. The professor from MIT spent a lot of time and effort in a past thread on Gauss with a mathematical analysis. Nobody has yet to prove faulty mathematics but refuse to accept that given. One person made an effort to double check facts using a antenna program, this group refused to offer him any help because they rejected the independent analysis provides. Why should I answer to your requests if the very foundation is rejected and thus provide fodder for abuse? You could change the subject to the patent on Constant Impedance Matching System since that also was rejected by the amateur masses on this newsgroup to add fresh fire to the conversations. You certainly will get a lot of support on this newsgroup. A person asked me for a definition of the Gaussian antenna, I carefully formated one for that poster. You become indignant because you don't care about definitions.......give me a break Art |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Jun 2, 9:20 am, K7ITM wrote:
On Jun 2, 7:20 am, art wrote: If it causes you too much pain to tell us why it's an antenna worthy of consideration over other existing antennas, please just ignore my question and I'll go away and let you write whatever you want about it. Cheers, Tom LOL, I can see in his answering post, that he did indeed ignore your valid question, and spewed forth the usual whiny drivel... Woe is me, sayeth Art... Note this comment... ""You could change the subject to the patent on Constant Impedance Matching System since that also was rejected by the amateur masses on this newsgroup to add fresh fire to the conversations. "" Heck, I modeled his small loop/cap thing and proved it did work. Just fine as far as matching is concerned. But I didn't agree with his other claims. IE: that there is substantial radiation from the loop, etc. He claimed you could steer the pattern, by changing the value of the cap if I remember right. I modeled said device, "I called it a loopole", and showed that this wasn't true. But I never said it didn't "work" as far as a matching device. I just said it didn't work like he thinks it does. This was basically ignored.. He has a fine system of ignoring any information that does not suit his agenda. The only problem is I have a fairly decent system of detecting BS... I really don't even have to know much about whatever it is being discussed.. If it's BS, I can usually smell it a mile away.. I may not know why I smell the pecular aroma I do, but I will smell it none the less. Woe is me, sayeth Art. MK |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 1 Jun, 10:24, "Dave" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 1 Jun, 10:24, "Dave" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
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 - |
Gaussian antenna planar form
3 elements does sound more efficient than 10 gassians
what woud the best 10 element gain look like? On Jun 1, 10:05 am, art wrote: 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... 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 Wouldnt it be nice if Art did the comparison. He could show how his gassian antenna is better than a yagi. maybe he could find a 2 element antenna his garison antenna is better than. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Jimmy D wrote:
"Wouldn`t it be nice if Art did the comparison?" Yes. I thought a Gaussian was a 17-sided polygon. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Gaussian antenna planar form
|
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 6 Jun, 18:00, Mike Coslo wrote:
(Richard Harrison) wrote in news:28667-46639927- : Jimmy D wrote: "Wouldn`t it be nice if Art did the comparison?" Yes. I thought a Gaussian was a 17-sided polygon. heptakaidecagon? 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. Looking at the 17th eddition of the ARRL Antenna handbook page 11-18 I came across an optimised 20 metre antenna, The shortest boom length was 16 feet for 3 element and the spec was 20db F/B, SWR 2:1 and going for maximum gain which amateurs seem to think is every thing The ARRL antenna achieved 7.5 dbi max My antenna which is of GAUSSIAN form was also a 3 element and achieved an average of 30 F/B and 20 db worst case. SWR was 2:1 ofcourse ranging from 1.34 :1 worst case. Gain figures were 11.45,11.3 and 10.9 dbi The main lobe was 62 deg BW and TOA 14 degrees. I didn't use the 16 foot boom length as the starting point but held the beam to the required 3 elements. So instead of using the ARRL 16 foot boom I used a 8 foot boom. Again I forced the antenna into a planar mode so a reasonable comparison could be made. So have at it. Point out the areas of specs that the antenna fails and have a laugh at the same time. I'll leave you to find the deliberate error if there is one so you can have your moment in the sun. Art |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 6 Jun, 18:00, Mike Coslo wrote: (Richard Harrison) wrote in news:28667-46639927- : Jimmy D wrote: "Wouldn`t it be nice if Art did the comparison?" Yes. I thought a Gaussian was a 17-sided polygon. heptakaidecagon? 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. Looking at the 17th eddition of the ARRL Antenna handbook page 11-18 I came across an optimised 20 metre antenna, The shortest boom length was 16 feet for 3 element and the spec was 20db F/B, SWR 2:1 and going for maximum gain which amateurs seem to think is every thing The ARRL antenna achieved 7.5 dbi max My antenna which is of GAUSSIAN form was also a 3 element and achieved an average of 30 F/B and 20 db worst case. SWR was 2:1 ofcourse ranging from 1.34 :1 worst case. Gain figures were 11.45,11.3 and 10.9 dbi The main lobe was 62 deg BW and TOA 14 degrees. I didn't use the 16 foot boom length as the starting point but held the beam to the required 3 elements. So instead of using the ARRL 16 foot boom I used a 8 foot boom. Again I forced the antenna into a planar mode so a reasonable comparison could be made. So have at it. Point out the areas of specs that the antenna fails and have a laugh at the same time. I'll leave you to find the deliberate error if there is one so you can have your moment in the sun. Art define 'gaussian form'. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
"Dave" wrote in message "art" wrote in message Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. Snip of quasi-technical junk So have at it. Point out the areas of specs that the antenna fails and have a laugh at the same time. I'll leave you to find the deliberate error if there is one so you can have your moment in the sun. Art define 'gaussian form'. Dave: He cannot define several of the terms that he uses, but he pretty much defines "blithering idiot" Mike W5CHR |
Gaussian antenna planar form
wrote in message ups.com... On Jun 2, 9:20 am, K7ITM wrote: On Jun 2, 7:20 am, art wrote: If it causes you too much pain to tell us why it's an antenna worthy of consideration over other existing antennas, please just ignore my question and I'll go away and let you write whatever you want about it. Cheers, Tom LOL, I can see in his answering post, that he did indeed ignore your valid question, and spewed forth the usual whiny drivel... Woe is me, sayeth Art... Note this comment... ""You could change the subject to the patent on Constant Impedance Matching System since that also was rejected by the amateur masses on this newsgroup to add fresh fire to the conversations. "" Heck, I modeled his small loop/cap thing and proved it did work. Just fine as far as matching is concerned. But I didn't agree with his other claims. IE: that there is substantial radiation from the loop, etc. He claimed you could steer the pattern, by changing the value of the cap if I remember right. I modeled said device, "I called it a loopole", and showed that this wasn't true. But I never said it didn't "work" as far as a matching device. I just said it didn't work like he thinks it does. This was basically ignored.. He has a fine system of ignoring any information that does not suit his agenda. The only problem is I have a fairly decent system of detecting BS... I really don't even have to know much about whatever it is being discussed.. If it's BS, I can usually smell it a mile away.. I may not know why I smell the pecular aroma I do, but I will smell it none the less. Woe is me, sayeth Art. MK I never modeled it but it seemed that for all practical purposes the cap was shorted by the low inductance of the coil/loop and should have from no to negligable effect on tunning. Jimmie |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 17 Jun, 18:48, "Jimmie D" wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... On Jun 2, 9:20 am, K7ITM wrote: On Jun 2, 7:20 am, art wrote: If it causes you too much pain to tell us why it's an antenna worthy of consideration over other existing antennas, please just ignore my question and I'll go away and let you write whatever you want about it. Cheers, Tom LOL, I can see in his answering post, that he did indeed ignore your valid question, and spewed forth the usual whiny drivel... Woe is me, sayeth Art... Note this comment... ""You could change the subject to the patent on Constant Impedance Matching System since that also was rejected by the amateur masses on this newsgroup to add fresh fire to the conversations. "" Heck, I modeled his small loop/cap thing and proved it did work. Just fine as far as matching is concerned. But I didn't agree with his other claims. IE: that there is substantial radiation from the loop, etc. He claimed you could steer the pattern, by changing the value of the cap if I remember right. I modeled said device, "I called it a loopole", and showed that this wasn't true. But I never said it didn't "work" as far as a matching device. I just said it didn't work like he thinks it does. This was basically ignored.. He has a fine system of ignoring any information that does not suit his agenda. The only problem is I have a fairly decent system of detecting BS... I really don't even have to know much about whatever it is being discussed.. If it's BS, I can usually smell it a mile away.. I may not know why I smell the pecular aroma I do, but I will smell it none the less. Woe is me, sayeth Art. MK I never modeled it but it seemed that for all practical purposes the cap was shorted by the low inductance of the coil/loop and should have from no to negligable effect on tunning. Jimmie- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Jim, You never modelled it? The capacitor changes the frequency of the loop. Thus you have 2 current curves with the loop in the center. Ofcource the current at the ends of the element is always zero when the loop is resonant. When the frequency gets to 28 Mhz it is basically two dipoles side by side with the loop at the center. If I remember rightly for the loop you need a 5 thru 50 pF variable. Frequency responce is 14 thru 28 Mhz. But that antenna is from the past ie constant impedance antenna. The newly provided antenna is just a three element on a boom which I have compared with a ARRL optimised antenna that they have in their antenna handbook.People like comparisons so I supplied comparisons, mine compared with the ARRL antenna. Ofcourse mine is half the boom length of the ARRL form and with more gain. This should give even novices something to look at tho Extras will still complain. Element lengths are similar in both models so you could call both of them Yagi's or anything else that you want to call them. The new antenna does not follow the general boom length/ gain antenna curve that is printed in most antenna books for a Yagi tho I suppose that doesn't matter much to some. Somebody however will find something to complain about so it should be interesting to see what they can come up with. Both by the way have a single feed point if that matters. Burning water is not used in any way. |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 6 Jun, 18:00, Mike Coslo wrote: (Richard Harrison) wrote in news:28667-46639927- : Jimmy D wrote: "Wouldn`t it be nice if Art did the comparison?" Yes. I thought a Gaussian was a 17-sided polygon. heptakaidecagon? 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. Looking at the 17th eddition of the ARRL Antenna handbook page 11-18 I came across an optimised 20 metre antenna, The shortest boom length was 16 feet for 3 element and the spec was 20db F/B, SWR 2:1 and going for maximum gain which amateurs seem to think is every thing The ARRL antenna achieved 7.5 dbi max My antenna which is of GAUSSIAN form was also a 3 element and achieved an average of 30 F/B and 20 db worst case. SWR was 2:1 ofcourse ranging from 1.34 :1 worst case. Gain figures were 11.45,11.3 and 10.9 dbi The main lobe was 62 deg BW and TOA 14 degrees. I didn't use the 16 foot boom length as the starting point but held the beam to the required 3 elements. So instead of using the ARRL 16 foot boom I used a 8 foot boom. Again I forced the antenna into a planar mode so a reasonable comparison could be made. So have at it. Point out the areas of specs that the antenna fails and have a laugh at the same time. I'll leave you to find the deliberate error if there is one so you can have your moment in the sun. Art define 'gaussian form'. All I'd like to see is a couple real hard numbers. Like element length and position on boom. And I'd bet lunch at Ruth's Chris, even though I don't like steak at all, that if the thing really shows the numbers Art claims, that the real drive point impedance is in the range of 5 ohms or less. Come on Art, you won't give away a million dollar idea if you publish the construction details of an 8 foot long 3 element 20 meter beam. You will be able to squash anyone like a bug with your 30 foot version. tom K0TAR |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 18 Jun, 19:30, Tom Ring wrote:
Dave wrote: "art" wrote in message roups.com... On 6 Jun, 18:00, Mike Coslo wrote: (Richard Harrison) wrote in news:28667-46639927- : Jimmy D wrote: "Wouldn`t it be nice if Art did the comparison?" Yes. I thought a Gaussian was a 17-sided polygon. heptakaidecagon? 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. Looking at the 17th eddition of the ARRL Antenna handbook page 11-18 I came across an optimised 20 metre antenna, The shortest boom length was 16 feet for 3 element and the spec was 20db F/B, SWR 2:1 and going for maximum gain which amateurs seem to think is every thing The ARRL antenna achieved 7.5 dbi max My antenna which is of GAUSSIAN form was also a 3 element and achieved an average of 30 F/B and 20 db worst case. SWR was 2:1 ofcourse ranging from 1.34 :1 worst case. Gain figures were 11.45,11.3 and 10.9 dbi The main lobe was 62 deg BW and TOA 14 degrees. I didn't use the 16 foot boom length as the starting point but held the beam to the required 3 elements. So instead of using the ARRL 16 foot boom I used a 8 foot boom. Again I forced the antenna into a planar mode so a reasonable comparison could be made. So have at it. Point out the areas of specs that the antenna fails and have a laugh at the same time. I'll leave you to find the deliberate error if there is one so you can have your moment in the sun. Art define 'gaussian form'. All I'd like to see is a couple real hard numbers. Like element length and position on boom. And I'd bet lunch at Ruth's Chris, even though I don't like steak at all, that if the thing really shows the numbers Art claims, that the real drive point impedance is in the range of 5 ohms or less. Come on Art, you won't give away a million dollar idea if you publish the construction details of an 8 foot long 3 element 20 meter beam. You will be able to squash anyone like a bug with your 30 foot version. tom K0TAR- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No,No.No. The criteria used by the arrl woulod not allow me to do that. I never go below 20 ohms so I can use a 2:1 balun. Actualy I just added another element to make it 4 el on a 8 foot boom I havent finished it yet but at the moment it is around 40 ohms, less than 2:1 swr F/B is 30 db worst case and the gain is about 1/2 db more than the three element. The elements are std length as per a yagi but bent a bit so they are all in equilibrium. Anyway, I added one element but I have only optimised two elements so far so it probably will get better when I include the other two elements in situ for optimisation. Tom what you don't realise is that the boom length on a Yagi is to focus the main lobe, it does not supply an increase in actual radiation so getting 11dbi with a 8 foot boom is no big deal as the gain is limited regardles of boom length or elements used. The beam width will always be around 60 degrees because of the lack of focussing. As far as giving out details of the design I have done all that. Limit the boom length and then use an optimiser on all dimensions. Elements are best made of at least three sections each With respect to the low impedance you were expecting. I mentioned right at the onset that F/B,SWR and gain across the band has symetry so compromises are not required as per a yagi. But why would you want details of a Gaussian antenna since it has been thoroughly discounted by all as well as confusing people as well as what it looks like. Amateurs on this group can smell a fake and don't need to know how it is made. I gave a model of a extended zepp with a loop antenna at the center. One guy said he could smell a fake so didn't need to model it. I am amazed that a antenna compamy hasn't offered employment to a lot of the posters after seeing their interlects have no bounds. I have no need for more money so I am not disapointed that the headhunters have not come after me, after all I am a fraud. Regards Art |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On Jun 18, 10:36 pm, art wrote:
Come on Art, you won't give away a million dollar idea if you publish the construction details of an 8 foot long 3 element 20 meter beam. You will be able to squash anyone like a bug with your 30 foot version. tom K0TAR- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No,No.No. The criteria used by the arrl woulod not allow me to do that. What does the ARRL have to do with anything? Besides, they are just a bunch of lowly amateurs.. According to you, the likelyhood of them understanding a word you say is slim.. I agree really, but fer different reasons... :/ I never go below 20 ohms so I can use a 2:1 balun. Actualy I just added another element to make it 4 el on a 8 foot boom I havent finished it yet but at the moment it is around 40 ohms, less than 2:1 swr F/B is 30 db worst case and the gain is about 1/2 db more than the three element. F/B is easy to get with a short boom.. Big deal.. The elements are std length as per a yagi but bent a bit so they are all in equilibrium. I love it when you talk like that...There is something about the word "equilibrium" that reminds me of Pleasant Valley®.. Where all is at peace in the universe, and the skies are not cloudy all day... We can all sit around the campfire and sing, home, home on the range! Where the fractals and the gaussians play! Where seldom is heard, a coherant word, and I'll probably wanna stay drunk all day! That way I can fit in better.. Well, I digress... back to the jibber jabber at hand... Tom what you don't realise is that the boom length on a Yagi is to focus the main lobe, it does not supply an increase in actual radiation so getting 11dbi with a 8 foot boom is no big deal as the gain is limited regardles of boom length or elements used. This is the statement which drew my attention.. Shame on the mess... You think I can't get more than 11 dbi with a yagi? I've got models of some for 70 cm that do 17 dbi, and I haven't even manually tweaked them yet.. I can make ones that do more too.. The addition of gain does not stop at some specific boom length. It does decrease bit by bit as you add each element, but you can sure get a lot more gain from a yagi than you advertise. And adding more boom length and elements does add more gain , although the payoff diminishes to the point where it's not worth doing for a single antenna. They start stacking them when they get to that point. You keep talking about these short boom things and acting like there is no more gain to be had by adding more elements.. That #$%@ ain't right, as the song by the Saddlesores goes.. MK |
Gaussian antenna planar form
On 18 Jun, 21:36, art wrote:
On 18 Jun, 19:30, Tom Ring wrote: Dave wrote: "art" wrote in message roups.com... On 6 Jun, 18:00, Mike Coslo wrote: (Richard Harrison) wrote in news:28667-46639927- : Jimmy D wrote: "Wouldn`t it be nice if Art did the comparison?" Yes. I thought a Gaussian was a 17-sided polygon. heptakaidecagon? 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Newsgroup members, Thought I would give you another example to laugh at. Looking at the 17th eddition of the ARRL Antenna handbook page 11-18 I came across an optimised 20 metre antenna, The shortest boom length was 16 feet for 3 element and the spec was 20db F/B, SWR 2:1 and going for maximum gain which amateurs seem to think is every thing The ARRL antenna achieved 7.5 dbi max My antenna which is of GAUSSIAN form was also a 3 element and achieved an average of 30 F/B and 20 db worst case. SWR was 2:1 ofcourse ranging from 1.34 :1 worst case. Gain figures were 11.45,11.3 and 10.9 dbi The main lobe was 62 deg BW and TOA 14 degrees. I didn't use the 16 foot boom length as the starting point but held the beam to the required 3 elements. So instead of using the ARRL 16 foot boom I used a 8 foot boom. Again I forced the antenna into a planar mode so a reasonable comparison could be made. So have at it. Point out the areas of specs that the antenna fails and have a laugh at the same time. I'll leave you to find the deliberate error if there is one so you can have your moment in the sun. Art define 'gaussian form'. All I'd like to see is a couple real hard numbers. Like element length and position on boom. And I'd bet lunch at Ruth's Chris, even though I don't like steak at all, that if the thing really shows the numbers Art claims, that the real drive point impedance is in the range of 5 ohms or less. Come on Art, you won't give away a million dollar idea if you publish the construction details of an 8 foot long 3 element 20 meter beam. You will be able to squash anyone like a bug with your 30 foot version. tom K0TAR- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No,No.No. The criteria used by the arrl woulod not allow me to do that. I never go below 20 ohms so I can use a 2:1 balun. Actualy I just added another element to make it 4 el on a 8 foot boom I havent finished it yet but at the moment it is around 40 ohms, less than 2:1 swr F/B is 30 db worst case and the gain is about 1/2 db more than the three element. The elements are std length as per a yagi but bent a bit so they are all in equilibrium. Anyway, I added one element but I have only optimised two elements so far so it probably will get better when I include the other two elements in situ for optimisation. Tom what you don't realise is that the boom length on a Yagi is to focus the main lobe, it does not supply an increase in actual radiation so getting 11dbi with a 8 foot boom is no big deal as the gain is limited regardles of boom length or elements used. The beam width will always be around 60 degrees because of the lack of focussing. As far as giving out details of the design I have done all that. Limit the boom length and then use an optimiser on all dimensions. Elements are best made of at least three sections each With respect to the low impedance you were expecting. I mentioned right at the onset that F/B,SWR and gain across the band has symetry so compromises are not required as per a yagi. But why would you want details of a Gaussian antenna since it has been thoroughly discounted by all as well as confusing people as well as what it looks like. Amateurs on this group can smell a fake and don't need to know how it is made. I gave a model of a extended zepp with a loop antenna at the center. One guy said he could smell a fake so didn't need to model it. I am amazed that a antenna compamy hasn't offered employment to a lot of the posters after seeing their interlects have no bounds. I have no need for more money so I am not disapointed that the headhunters have not come after me, after all I am a fraud. Regards Art- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Correction; I said worst case F/B was 30 db Should have read Front /Rear worst case 30 db No big deal as it still meets the ARRL criteria of 20 db F/B Art |
Gaussian antenna planar form
I am not disapointed
that the headhunters have not come after me, after all I am a fraud. Regards Art Finally some sense :-) bada goosian BUm |
Gaussian antenna planar form
Art wrote:
"Thought I would give you another example to laugh at." Laughing is good for you but I`m still not laughing. Art may have a valuable contribution to make. He gave some respectable performance figures but I`m in the dark on how to reproduce them. How an antenna`s gain adds up is shown by Kraus in his explanation of the Deutche Welle antenna featured on the rear cover of the paperback 3rd edition of "Antennas". It starts on page 703 and continues on page 705. "Solution: (a) The gain of a single half-wave dipole is 2.15 dBi and of 2 collinear in-phase half-wave dipoles is 3.8 dBi. The array of 8 such collinear dipoles adds 3+3+3=9 dB. The reflector screen adds 3 dB more and the ground bounce another 6 dB for a total gain of 3.8+9+3+6=21.8 dBi or a directivity of 151 approx." As for denigration, John D. Kraus was a radio amateur, W8JK. Best regards, Richard Harrison. KB5WZI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com