Real time proof of Poyntings vector
 

On 7 Jun, 12:38, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:59:13 +0100, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

It was of course the fact that the cluster of elements and the
array were all in equilibrium and resonant in their entirety.

Hi Mike,

Anticipating that Arthur will use you as a authoritative reference,
what do you mean by equilibrium?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,

I am not certain that I have got it all completely straight in my head, but
I have taken it to mean that all the elements making up the array and the
array itself are designed to be resonant about a particular frequency. As
this type of antenna is intended for use with spread spectrum
communications, control over directivity is probably more of a consideration
than gain. At the multi GHz frequencies I believe these antennas will be
operating, they probably won't have any direct correlation to HF amateur
band techniques. The propogation properties of electromagnetic waves change
as frequency increases, so I believe that there is no hidden method behind
how these antennas might work, merely at best, an as yet unrecognised mode
of propogation.

Arts' postings have prompted me to do a little research into GHz frequency
techniques which is an area where I had virtually no knowledge apart from
installing commercial radar waveguide and making sure it was matched to the
scanner. I would hate to think I was an authoritative reference in this
field :-/

Cheers

Mike G0ULI

Mike, I would drop the subject if I were you. I would not wish on you
the ire of this group that even the faintest appearance of agreement
with me
would create. When the "burning water" subject came up LLewellyn
derided
the education of others and some demanded censoring, others told
others
they were silly or idiots and that thread is already over 90.
That is the sort of things that members of this group is interested
in,
not antennas. This group is famous for insults and the like from
anybody
who considers himself a professional of something where the
qualifications
needed is to be old and retired and the perpetuation of the old days.
I did appreciate your comments and thank you for supplying them but
caution is advised, this is America!
You are either with us or against us.
Cheers
Art

Real time proof of Poyntings vector
 

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 20:38:00 +0100, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

what do you mean by equilibrium?

I am not certain that I have got it all completely straight in my head, but
I have taken it to mean that all the elements making up the array and the
array itself are designed to be resonant about a particular frequency.

Hi Mike,

Then I take it by that response that the term equilibrium has no
meaning known to you in the context of antennas.

As
this type of antenna is intended for use with spread spectrum
communications,

Isn't that a bit of interpolation about spread spectrum? Arthur has,
to my knowledge, never used the term anywhere.

control over directivity is probably more of a consideration
than gain.

How do you distinguish directivity from gain?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Real time proof of Poyntings vector
 

snip
I did appreciate your comments and thank you for supplying them but
caution is advised, this is America!
You are either with us or against us.
Cheers
Art


Art,

I don't stand in judgement, I just say it as I see it.

I don't like to see an idea dismissed and ridiculed out of hand without a
fair hearing. Ham radio is a hobby that is supposed to be about
experimentation and self teaching, as much as contesting or chatting on the
air. You cannot learn without making mistakes and when errors are
discovered, a courteous explanation of the problem is somewhat better than
descent into personal diatribe.

I do not consider myself to be an authority on antennas but I have spent
years at college being taught the classical theory of how it all works. I am
prepared to accept that from time to time that theory needs to be updated or
adjusted in the light of new discoveries. I do not accept that any recent
antenna developments are likely to require a new form of physics in order to
explain their mode of operation. It is just that we haven't understood how
to apply existing theory in the correct way yet.

My position is essentially that of a neutral observer who intervened only in
order to restore some much needed balance to the debate.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

Real time proof of Poyntings vector
 

On 7 Jun, 16:35, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
snip

I did appreciate your comments and thank you for supplying them but
caution is advised, this is America!
You are either with us or against us.
Cheers
Art

Art,

I don't stand in judgement, I just say it as I see it.

I don't like to see an idea dismissed and ridiculed out of hand without a
fair hearing. Ham radio is a hobby that is supposed to be about
experimentation and self teaching, as much as contesting or chatting on the
air. You cannot learn without making mistakes and when errors are
discovered, a courteous explanation of the problem is somewhat better than
descent into personal diatribe.

I do not consider myself to be an authority on antennas but I have spent
years at college being taught the classical theory of how it all works. I am
prepared to accept that from time to time that theory needs to be updated or
adjusted in the light of new discoveries. I do not accept that any recent
antenna developments are likely to require a new form of physics in order to
explain their mode of operation. It is just that we haven't understood how
to apply existing theory in the correct way yet.

My position is essentially that of a neutral observer who intervened only in
order to restore some much needed balance to the debate.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

Spoken like a true Englishman I am proud of you.

Just remember you now are a target.

Judge the questions and answers given on the subject of antennas
before you get to involved on the subject of antennas. It is quite
easy to see who is knoweledgable but they usually are set ups
for every body to chime in.
For instance you have two questions already directed at you and
neither
is really looking for usefull information, both are easily
recognisable
as being set ups ,tho it is up to you in how you deal with them.

I read QST and also subscribe to RADCOM both of
which are hanging on to the old days with articles on how to make a
morse code keyer or a practical way of connecting a PL259 to coax.
Both
of these magazines are catered to the like of the old guys on this
newsgroup.
Antenna articles? No, not anymore, both magazines stay away from
conflict.
I now know who you are and what you are and I am pleased that I have
met you
Regards
Art

Real time proof of Poyntings vector
 

Now it's all clear!
Way to go Art da Troll of Goosie Antennas!
Mother Britannia is proud of you!

bada BUm

"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 7 Jun, 16:35, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
snip

I did appreciate your comments and thank you for supplying them but
caution is advised, this is America!
You are either with us or against us.
Cheers
Art

Art,

I don't stand in judgement, I just say it as I see it.

I don't like to see an idea dismissed and ridiculed out of hand without a
fair hearing. Ham radio is a hobby that is supposed to be about
experimentation and self teaching, as much as contesting or chatting on
the
air. You cannot learn without making mistakes and when errors are
discovered, a courteous explanation of the problem is somewhat better
than
descent into personal diatribe.

I do not consider myself to be an authority on antennas but I have spent
years at college being taught the classical theory of how it all works. I
am
prepared to accept that from time to time that theory needs to be updated
or
adjusted in the light of new discoveries. I do not accept that any recent
antenna developments are likely to require a new form of physics in order
to
explain their mode of operation. It is just that we haven't understood
how
to apply existing theory in the correct way yet.

My position is essentially that of a neutral observer who intervened only
in
order to restore some much needed balance to the debate.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

Spoken like a true Englishman I am proud of you.

Just remember you now are a target.

Judge the questions and answers given on the subject of antennas
before you get to involved on the subject of antennas. It is quite
easy to see who is knoweledgable but they usually are set ups
for every body to chime in.
For instance you have two questions already directed at you and
neither
is really looking for usefull information, both are easily
recognisable
as being set ups ,tho it is up to you in how you deal with them.

I read QST and also subscribe to RADCOM both of
which are hanging on to the old days with articles on how to make a
morse code keyer or a practical way of connecting a PL259 to coax.
Both
of these magazines are catered to the like of the old guys on this
newsgroup.
Antenna articles? No, not anymore, both magazines stay away from
conflict.
I now know who you are and what you are and I am pleased that I have
met you
Regards
Art

Real time proof of Poyntings vector
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 20:38:00 +0100, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

what do you mean by equilibrium?

I am not certain that I have got it all completely straight in my head,
but
I have taken it to mean that all the elements making up the array and the
array itself are designed to be resonant about a particular frequency.

Hi Mike,

Then I take it by that response that the term equilibrium has no
meaning known to you in the context of antennas.

As
this type of antenna is intended for use with spread spectrum
communications,

Isn't that a bit of interpolation about spread spectrum? Arthur has,
to my knowledge, never used the term anywhere.

control over directivity is probably more of a consideration
than gain.

How do you distinguish directivity from gain?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard

As a result of searches into gaussian antennae, it quickly became apparent
that commercial versions of these devices are being manufactured for use at
GHz frequencies. These designs all seem to use modified horns as the
transmitting element. I have not yet found a device made up of discrete
elements. At these sorts of frequencies, discrete element lengths may well
be all pretty much the same dimensions. I suspect equilibrium may not be the
right term to use but resonance is obviously not quite right either. Arthur
may be unwilling to give out too many details of his antenna, perhaps
because he wants to protect any future patent application. I inferred the
spread spectrum usage from the types of communication links that are being
developed for wi-fi and other links at these super high frequencies. I do
not make a distinction between directivity and gain because I believe that
the term 'gaussian' essentially implies a single transmission lobe. Gain may
be obtained at the expense of breaking a transmitted signal into several
highly directional lobes, which is not what is wanted from this antenna. I
would consider the ability to provide a predictabe pattern of signal
coverage more important than the outright range to which the signal could be
broadcast, hence directivity rather than gain. A predictable pattern and
field strength is a useful property in avoiding interference in congested
urban areas with limited spectrum availability. Gaussian distribution may
also be taken as applying to the way in which the antenna can deal with a
range of frequencies, although this applies to pretty much any antenna,
filter or other resonant circuit you might care to mention.

Arts' antenna may be built and may perform as he predicts. If it doesn't
then we will all have learned from the experience whatever the outcome. That
is the principle of scientific advancement. The way that patent law deals
with prior disclosure of an invention, leads to a great deal of vague
terminology and description being used when an inventor is sounding out new
ideas. I'm sure we would all prefer to be given precise component values and
dimensions, but it appears that this is just not possible or advisable until
a patent is registered.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

Real time proof of Poyntings vector
 

"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

Real time proof of Poyntings vector
 

On 7 Jun, 17:44, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 20:38:00 +0100, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

what do you mean by equilibrium?

I am not certain that I have got it all completely straight in my head,
but
I have taken it to mean that all the elements making up the array and the
array itself are designed to be resonant about a particular frequency.

Hi Mike,

Then I take it by that response that the term equilibrium has no
meaning known to you in the context of antennas.

As
this type of antenna is intended for use with spread spectrum
communications,

Isn't that a bit of interpolation about spread spectrum? Arthur has,
to my knowledge, never used the term anywhere.

control over directivity is probably more of a consideration
than gain.

How do you distinguish directivity from gain?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard

As a result of searches into gaussian antennae, it quickly became apparent
that commercial versions of these devices are being manufactured for use at
GHz frequencies. These designs all seem to use modified horns as the
transmitting element. I have not yet found a device made up of discrete
elements. At these sorts of frequencies, discrete element lengths may well
be all pretty much the same dimensions. I suspect equilibrium may not be the
right term to use but resonance is obviously not quite right either. Arthur
may be unwilling to give out too many details of his antenna, perhaps
because he wants to protect any future patent application. I inferred the
spread spectrum usage from the types of communication links that are being
developed for wi-fi and other links at these super high frequencies. I do
not make a distinction between directivity and gain because I believe that
the term 'gaussian' essentially implies a single transmission lobe. Gain may
be obtained at the expense of breaking a transmitted signal into several
highly directional lobes, which is not what is wanted from this antenna. I
would consider the ability to provide a predictabe pattern of signal
coverage more important than the outright range to which the signal could be
broadcast, hence directivity rather than gain. A predictable pattern and
field strength is a useful property in avoiding interference in congested
urban areas with limited spectrum availability. Gaussian distribution may
also be taken as applying to the way in which the antenna can deal with a
range of frequencies, although this applies to pretty much any antenna,
filter or other resonant circuit you might care to mention.

Arts' antenna may be built and may perform as he predicts. If it doesn't
then we will all have learned from the experience whatever the outcome. That
is the principle of scientific advancement. The way that patent law deals
with prior disclosure of an invention, leads to a great deal of vague
terminology and description being used when an inventor is sounding out new
ideas. I'm sure we would all prefer to be given precise component values and
dimensions, but it appears that this is just not possible or advisable until
a patent is registered.

Regards

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike, don't take every thing as gospel in what they say.
Archives on the Gaussian antenna shows that I have disclosed all.
Others have chimed in with independent mathematical analysis.
Also provided a Gaussian antenna figures of an array for them to model
using
any program that they like. One new guy volunteered to check
it out but nobody would help him to prove his point.
Finally he got help from a anonymus person and he verified
the accuracy of the array. Immediately Roy of the old eznec
program which is now superseded by more extensive computor
programs that do more than his ever did and are also free
immediately wanted to change things so that elements were
in line at the same time blasting the gain of the the very
simple example I gave with minimul changes so that it
the concept would be easier to understand.
Anyway because of Roy' peeveness I then supplied a series
of results of elements that were resonant but which I
forced into a planar aproach and I know that you have seen those.
I gave those not to prove anything but just to supply information
that they continually beg for so they can give out a blast.
Even when they talk gain they never distinguish what
polarization they are looking for such that an antenna
designed for circular polarization is deemed a dud.
As far as patents are concerned, yes I have a few of them
and this is no exception, this was filed a long while ago
and I suppose it is published some where under the new guide lines.
I then got comments that we all knew that all the time
which is the normal reaction to patent requests. Then it was
anybody can get a patent. Then it was that it already has been
invented.,
Now it is we don't understand it and we don't believe the
mathematical analysis given by the good Doctor from M.I.T.
Now they are attacking what Poyntings Vector really intended to mean
and even questioning what equilibrium means in the context
of Poyntings vector. They now also say that all elements must be fed
and they must be held in line like a Yagi. And it goes on and on.
But I learned a lesson form Cecil more than a score of years
ago which was stay your ground where the antagonists to prove
their point make wilder and wilder claims that all the silent viewers
can see. As time goes by the statements become more sillier
and without technical technical content until they move right
to the end of the gang plank and end the thread and or try
to change the subject. Just like Cecil I bring up the subject
again reminding them by quoting past postings and what they said
and I get my jollies all over again knowing that all the World
is reading what has been said so they can make their own judgements.
That is what this net is all about Roy w7el said many years ago he
was going after anybody that said anything wrong about antennas
meaning every body who disagreed with him.
True he and Richard got rid of many experts that didn't need that
sort of harrasment.One was Jewish and you can imagine what was
said then. Others were antenna articlel writers, experimentors
and even antenna builders but they also have now gone.
But me, Art, learned a lesson from Cecil and we are both still
are here letting the World decide who are the suedo experts and who
are here for auguments sake which you can tell by what they say.
So now you know the story of over twenty years of this newsgroup
activity.
All of what I have said is still in the archives if some want
to verify what I have said. As far as Gaussian antennas are
concerned just put in the key words for yourself to find out
the real truth and confirm for yourself who is telling lies.
If there is anything that you are unsure of technical or
otherwise feel free to ask and I will be happy to share with all
what I know about Gaussian antennas again. But please check
out the archives and don't let the heckling get to you.
Regards and have a good evening.
Art

Real time proof of Poyntings vector
 

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 01:44:06 +0100, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

As a result of searches into gaussian antennae, it quickly became apparent
that commercial versions of these devices are being manufactured for use at
GHz frequencies.

Hi Mike,

Your research would be evidence of substantial "prior art." However,
all previous contexts suggest otherwise and your research bears no
relation to the topic - as described to this point by Arthur.

These designs all seem to use modified horns as the
transmitting element.

This fairly cements the disconnect.

I have not yet found a device made up of discrete
elements. At these sorts of frequencies, discrete element lengths may well
be all pretty much the same dimensions.

Well, I have a Radar background too, and horns are hardly resonant and
are more designed for a match without fringing effects. To accomplish
this they deliberately employ a sweep of dimensions, not one single
but replicated dimension as is suggested by Arthur's descriptions.

I suspect equilibrium may not be the
right term to use but resonance is obviously not quite right either.

Equilibrium has long been a term of vague parentage. Resonance is
hardly a tripping point until you come to phase relationships. As
phase is the name of the game in gain/directivity, and multiple phase
relationships even more; then resonance occurs for at least one
element. However, it is not always necessary as revealed with
Rhombics which are non-resonant but exceedingly directional. Resonance
is more a desirable attribute for feeding the antenna. The upshot of
it all is that your last statement reveals how nebulous the topic is.

Arthur
may be unwilling to give out too many details of his antenna, perhaps
because he wants to protect any future patent application. I inferred the
spread spectrum usage from the types of communication links that are being
developed for wi-fi and other links at these super high frequencies.

As antenna design is scaleable, application defines what is needed,
not what is possible.

I do
not make a distinction between directivity and gain because I believe that
the term 'gaussian' essentially implies a single transmission lobe.

This would suggest that your research (noted above) led you to
geometric descriptions of lobe attributes. Arthur has never used the
term Gaussian in that sense. If he had, it would be distinct from
Lambertian - another term unused which again draws the distinction
away from geometry.

Arts' antenna may be built and may perform as he predicts. If it doesn't
then we will all have learned from the experience whatever the outcome. That
is the principle of scientific advancement.

Standard modeling programs have been proven robust in this regard. The
Status Quo has been maintained throughout. No surprises yet.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Real time proof of Poyntings vector
 

Richard Clark, KB7QHC quoted Mike Kalinski`s question: "What do you mean
by equilibrium?"

Richard also asked: 'How do you distinguish directivity from gain?"

Only Art knows what he means by "equilibrium".

Gain, however, is well defined by common usage and defined by experts.
Gain and directivity are close relatives. Terman wrote on page 870 of
his 1955 opus:
"Directive gain depends entirely on the distribution in space of the
radiated power. The power input to the antenna, the antenna losses, or
the power consumed in a terminating resistance have nothing to do with
directive gain. Such factors are taken into account in terms of power
gain of the antenna which is defined as the ratio of the power input to
the comparison antenna required to develop a particular field strength
in the direction of maximum radiation, to the power that must be
delivered to the directional antenna to produce the same field strength
in the same direction. Unless otherwise specified the comparison antenna
is a lossless isotropic radiator."

I`m no longer completely in the dark about Gaussian antennas since
finding pages from St. Andrews University about them on the internet.
It`s an extension of optical principles used at somewhat lower
frequencies in the millimeter and microwave frequency wavebands. All
antennas can be scaled but are not always practical when made larger or
smaller. Until Art comes clean about his ideas, we probably won`t know
the likelihood of his success.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI