What you are proposing is a planar gaussian antenna which flattens the
cone
into more of a fan shape, displays a flat impedence over a wide
bandwidth
and requires around ten elements of different lengths mounted on a boom
support.
Incorrect. It is a cluster of elements in equilibrium where all
elements
are resonant as is the array in its entirety. I t all ha sbeen well
defined
in past postings on Gaussian antennas


I could be wrong, but I believe that you have reinvented the log
periodic
antenna.
Yes you are wrong



Art

Thank you for your courteous response. I thought I had to be missing
something. It was of course the fact that the cluster of elements and the
array were all in equilibrium and resonant in their entirety. That's the bit
that is obviously causing people problems and upsetting them although I must
confess I don't quite understand the advantages over existing designs. The
antenna is obviously directional and exhibits gain but apparently not at
levels that would render existing antennae obsolete.

Good luck with the project anyway, it makes for an entertaining and
enlightening read.

Mike G0ULI

Mike Kaliski wrote:
"Gausian statistics refer to the distribution of typically, power over a
given area or range. Generally more power is concentrated at the centre
of a range with power falling symmetrically either side of a central
high point."

Art replied:
"Correct, very nuch like a band pass filter."

In a band pass filter we are interested in frequency response. Mike was
speaking of beam forming. There is a difference between beam width and
bandwidth. I am still trying to decipher Art`s "Gausian antenna". It
would help me if Art didn`t muddle topics.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Dave" wrote in message
news:cZG9i.8665$fX4.703@trndny03...

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have spent a considerable amount of time in researching the above
subject
as a result of some comments made regarding Gauss's law of Statics
and its connection to the above Poynting's Vector. I have not yet
found
a description of an actual proof similar to described by the Gaussian
Antenna
and have found a number considerable number of " attempts" to provide
such a proof on the internet. But as yet none have been found as
substantial
as a clustered radiated elements in equilibrium.
What I did find was a indepth explanation of electro magnetism by
Harvey
on the net that discusses antenna radiation from it's beginnings
together
with past untruths that are put under the microscope. These papers may
not
be equal to what is presently understood by scholars but never the
less
I thought I would share it with the antenna and radiation minded
people
of this group.. If somebody knows of the existence of a real time
proof
of Poynting's Vector i.e by a bench experiment I would apreaciate a
pointer to where it can be seen
Ofcourse if there are some comments to be made on the Harvey papers
this would be a good place to put them.
Art

the Poynting vector is nothing but a way to represent power in 3
dimensions. That is it, nothing more, no magic, nothing worth proving,
just a simple statement of energy flowing through a surface. Now if you
could prove it wrong that might be interesting, but otherwise it follows
directly from conservation of energy and obeys all the related laws.



Dave , what kind of idiot are you not accepting Grassian antena theory.
I mean just because every Gaussy antenna array present has proven to be less
efficent than a standard yagi yo find reason not to think it is the greatest
thing since sliced bread. Damned just how thick headed are you? Cant you see
what a great breakthrough Gassious antennas are? 8-))

Jimmie

"I have spent a considerable amount of time in researching the above
subject
as a result of some comments made regarding Gauss's law of Statics
and its connection to the above Poynting's Vector. I have not yet
found
a description of an actual proof similar to described by the Gaussian
Antenna
and have found a number considerable number of " attempts" to provide
such a proof on the internet.

The problem that you have is that the Poynting Vector does not exist as
such, so it cannot be proved. It is nothing more than a mathematical nicety
that happens to yield a vector product that happens to be in the direction
of propagation. It is possible to devise an infinite number of similar
vectors that equally well (or better in some cases) describe the energy flow
through a surface.

There are plenty of derivations of the mathematical relevance of the
Poynting Vector available.

The Poynting Vector is favoured because it is mathematically simple and
describes energy flow adequately in a non-static case.

73
Jeff

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have spent a considerable amount of time in researching the above
subject
as a result of some comments made regarding Gauss's law of Statics
and its connection to the above Poynting's Vector. I have not yet
found
a description of an actual proof similar to described by the Gaussian
Antenna
and have found a number considerable number of " attempts" to provide
such a proof on the internet. But as yet none have been found as
substantial
as a clustered radiated elements in equilibrium.
What I did find was a indepth explanation of electro magnetism by
Harvey
on the net that discusses antenna radiation from it's beginnings
together
with past untruths that are put under the microscope. These papers may
not
be equal to what is presently understood by scholars but never the
less
I thought I would share it with the antenna and radiation minded
people
of this group.. If somebody knows of the existence of a real time
proof
of Poynting's Vector i.e by a bench experiment I would apreaciate a
pointer to where it can be seen
Ofcourse if there are some comments to be made on the Harvey papers
this would be a good place to put them.
Art


Please follow this trail Gauss, Maxwell/ Heavyside, Poynting/Heavyside.

Like all theories absolute proof may be unobtainable, gravity is a theory
but I am not worried about falling up when I get out of bed in the morning.

Jimmie