On Jun 6, 6:04 pm, art wrote:
On 6 Jun, 15:57, "Dave" wrote:


But David, you reject the basics of a Gaussian antenna which is why I
have reservations about your logic tho granted others appear to
agree with you, so I want to read up on it for myself.

Shame on his mess...

When reseaching the net I see numorous attempts to
provide a real time proof for it but nothing as factual as the
Gaussian antenna.

What is a "gaussian" antenna as you consider it?
All the hints I've seen so far point to some kind of array with
all elements the same length.
Fed in equilibrium so you say... :/
What makes that special? Sounds like a perverted driven array
to me.. Something anyone with a crayon, or modeling program
could conjer up various versions till the cows come home.
Why would you need to rewrite proven theory to explain a driven
array?
Seems the performance of driven arrays is already fairly well
known. Even fairly perverted ones... :/

So contrary to what you say there is a lot going on
in trying to find a proof for it even tho you at the same time reject
the Gaussian connection.

A proof for what? Gaussian connection to what?
Who is doing all this whole lot of going on? Enquiring
minds wanna know...

After seeing the automatic rejection of
ANY ideas that represent new ideas in the amateur community I am
beginning to wonder if the E/H antennas is a victim of the same
syndrome .

The only ideas that seem to be rejected are the ones that distort
and mangle fairly well known principals.
Yes, I do compare your "gaussian" antenna to be about in
the same league as the E/H antenna because you both use
doo-doo bafflegab to try to "invent" yourselves some kind of new
antenna, which is really just a perverted version of an
existing known antenna.
Your's will actually perform a bit better though, since I
assume the feedline won't do the majority of the radiating,
as is the case with the E/H antenna.
But to me, both of you use what I consider as "doo-doo"
science to try to have some kind of explanation for whatever it
is you are trying to achieve.

I am coming across many papers that suggest that there
is more to radiation than scholars presently believe so it is
natural to me that amateurs would automatically reject any new
aproach by derisive comments such as junk science or similar.

It's not your antenna that is junk science.. It's just a perverted
driven array as far as I can tell.
It's the bafflegab you come up with to give it some kind of
divine level of performance that is junk science..
Just the way you constantly tweak the usual application of the
word "efficiency" is enough to scare many away.
And this "equilibrium" jibber jabber... Wouldn't it be easier to say
they are all fed in phase? Although some of our roving reporters
say you aren't actually feeding all the elements, in phase or not..
Seems to vary from day to day according to what kind of feedback
you get from the previous days posts..
I still wonder why in the heck you care what anyone here thinks
anyway.. I would just build the silly thing if it means that much
to you.
MK