snip
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.
When reseaching the net I see numorous attempts to
provide a real time proof for it but nothing as factual as the
Gaussian antenna.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. 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 . 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.
What does come thru is that members of this newsgroup state that
the Gaussian antenna has already been invented but fail to point
out the paper on it. Stating that Maxwell provided a connection
by mathematics of the E and H fields is not enough to provide
proof and certainly not without introducing the Gaussian
connection so its use can be seen and verified.
If it has actually been pre invented then there must be a
paper conecting Poynting's vector and Gaussian statics law in
existence rather than a conoctation in mathematics alone but
without qualification, and certainly a reference to it in
Jasik or Krauss. However, members have failed to point out
such a reference where normally they always point to old books
on the subject. It is for this reason I am looking for a
real time proof of the Poynting's Vector because not only
for the mathematical aproach but also for its connection to
Poynting which you for one reject out of hand because of
some gut feeling. If faced with the same problem I have
no doubt you would procede the same way.
Art


Art

I have arrived at this thread rather late but it appears you believe that
you have arrived at an idea for some kind of new antenna which works on the
principle of Poyntings vector and Gaussian statics law.

Poyntings vector refers to the direction of motion of an electromagnetic
wave is is frequently used to calculate power per square metre of an
idealised wavefront impacting on an imaginary surface at an arbitary
distance from an isotropic (single point) radiator. This figure can then be
used to make a comparison with real life antennas to establish directions of
preferential gain or loss.

Gaussian 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.

Gaussian antennas are currently for sale and used as microwave horns to
modify low intensity radar beams used in intruder detection and door opening
systems. This ensures that the main lobe of power is directed to the most
useful area of detection. These devices typically generate a beam in the
form of a cone shape, with maximum intensity at the centre of the cone.

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.

I could be wrong, but I believe that you have reinvented the log periodic
antenna. This antenna has a single feedpoint, operates over typically 10:1
bandwidths with flat impedence and requires a minimum of ten elements to
achieve reasonable gain and bandwidth. Log periodic antennae typically have
as many as 30 elements. It was much favoured by the military for it's
ability to transmit a directional beam on any discrete frequency across the
whole of the HF spectrum. The advent of direct satellite communication
equipment has rendered these antennae somewhat redundant because they are
fairly large and require substantial towers and rotators to be used to
maximum advantage. They are still used where reliable, frequency agile,
point to point HF links are required. VHF and UHF versions would be small
enough to be suitable for installation in a typical domestic garden.

No new maths or physics are required to explain how this type of antenna
works and the principles have been well understood for over 50 years. A
Google search for log periodic antenna should reveal a wealth of research
material for you.

Apologies if I have completely misunderstood this thread and you have
invented a completely new antenna design.

Mike G0ULI

On 7 Jun, 06:50, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
snip





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.
When reseaching the net I see numorous attempts to
provide a real time proof for it but nothing as factual as the
Gaussian antenna.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. 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 . 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.
What does come thru is that members of this newsgroup state that
the Gaussian antenna has already been invented but fail to point
out the paper on it. Stating that Maxwell provided a connection
by mathematics of the E and H fields is not enough to provide
proof and certainly not without introducing the Gaussian
connection so its use can be seen and verified.
If it has actually been pre invented then there must be a
paper conecting Poynting's vector and Gaussian statics law in
existence rather than a conoctation in mathematics alone but
without qualification, and certainly a reference to it in
Jasik or Krauss. However, members have failed to point out
such a reference where normally they always point to old books
on the subject. It is for this reason I am looking for a
real time proof of the Poynting's Vector because not only
for the mathematical aproach but also for its connection to
Poynting which you for one reject out of hand because of
some gut feeling. If faced with the same problem I have
no doubt you would procede the same way.
Art

Art

I have arrived at this thread rather late but it appears you believe that
you have arrived at an idea for some kind of new antenna which works on the
principle of Poyntings vector and Gaussian statics law.

Poyntings vector refers to the direction of motion of an electromagnetic
wave is is frequently used to calculate power per square metre of an
idealised wavefront impacting on an imaginary surface at an arbitary
distance from an isotropic (single point) radiator. This figure can then be
used to make a comparison with real life antennas to establish directions of
preferential gain or loss.

Gaussian 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.

Gaussian antennas are currently for sale and used as microwave horns to
modify low intensity radar beams used in intruder detection and door opening
systems. This ensures that the main lobe of power is directed to the most
useful area of detection. These devices typically generate a beam in the
form of a cone shape, with maximum intensity at the centre of the cone.

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.

I could be wrong, but I believe that you have reinvented the log periodic
antenna. This antenna has a single feedpoint, operates over typically 10:1
bandwidths with flat impedence and requires a minimum of ten elements to
achieve reasonable gain and bandwidth. Log periodic antennae typically have
as many as 30 elements. It was much favoured by the military for it's
ability to transmit a directional beam on any discrete frequency across the
whole of the HF spectrum. The advent of direct satellite communication
equipment has rendered these antennae somewhat redundant because they are
fairly large and require substantial towers and rotators to be used to
maximum advantage. They are still used where reliable, frequency agile,
point to point HF links are required. VHF and UHF versions would be small
enough to be suitable for installation in a typical domestic garden.

No new maths or physics are required to explain how this type of antenna
works and the principles have been well understood for over 50 years. A
Google search for log periodic antenna should reveal a wealth of research
material for you.

Apologies if I have completely misunderstood this thread and you have
invented a completely new antenna design.

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thats O.K. Apologies accepted. It gave you a chance to write about
things that YOU wanted to write about.
Cheers and beers
Art

On 7 Jun, 06:50, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
snip





snip
Art

I have arrived at this thread rather late but it appears you believe that
you have arrived at an idea for some kind of new antenna which works on the
principle of Poyntings vector and Gaussian statics law.

Correct

Poyntings vector refers to the direction of motion of an electromagnetic
wave is is frequently used to calculate power per square metre of an
idealised wavefront impacting on an imaginary surface at an arbitary
distance from an isotropic (single point) radiator. This figure can then be
used to make a comparison with real life antennas to establish directions of
preferential gain or loss.

Correct

Gaussian 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.

Correct, very muchlike a band pass filter


Gaussian antennas are currently for sale and used as microwave horns to
modify low intensity radar beams used in intruder detection and door opening
systems. This ensures that the main lobe of power is directed to the most
useful area of detection. These devices typically generate a beam in the
form of a cone shape, with maximum intensity at the centre of the cone.

True


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

This antenna has a single feedpoint, operates over typically 10:1
bandwidths with flat impedence and requires a minimum of ten elements to
achieve reasonable gain and bandwidth. Log periodic antennae typically have
as many as 30 elements. It was much favoured by the military for it's
ability to transmit a directional beam on any discrete frequency across the
whole of the HF spectrum. The advent of direct satellite communication
equipment has rendered these antennae somewhat redundant because they are
fairly large and require substantial towers and rotators to be used to
maximum advantage. They are still used where reliable, frequency agile,
point to point HF links are required. VHF and UHF versions would be small
enough to be suitable for installation in a typical domestic garden.

Correct

No new maths or physics are required to explain how this type of antenna
works and the principles have been well understood for over 50 years. A
Google search for log periodic antenna should reveal a wealth of research
material for you.

I am quite familiar with the antenna concept.
I had a long discussion with the inventor before he retired
Also had a long discussion with Moxon at his last house on
your side of the pond before he died. Both were a
delight to discuss antennas with.

snip

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Regards
Art KB9MZ.....XG

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

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

Mike G0ULI

You find this entertaining? You must be into self flagellation and masochism
too. What part was enlightening?

W4ZCB

On 7 Jun, 07:59, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 7 Jun, 07:59, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
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
Yes, that is about it, you could also match that same definition
to Poyntings vector but even that comes under fire. There was also
a mathematical anylysis made by an individual contributor
connecting Gauss but that got hammered also. But lets face it they
are amateurs by definition.
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.

Certainly not, it achieves things other than focussing for gain
which is primarily the intent of the yagi. If the yagi satisfies all
then there would not be a need for other types of antennas
or multi books on the subject. Amateurs concentrate on the word
gain to the exclusion of consideration of other attributes.
The antenna trade magazine feels that the biggest needed advancement
is to get drivers to handle impedances lower than 5 ohm. Weather
people
are striving for minimum cross polarisation. Wi fi is striving for
maximum uniform coverage. Gauss's and Green's functions are being
utilised
to have multi channel operation at the same time using what is termed
a Gaussian antenna so named becaus of iterations used before
transmission.
Thus many things are sought after in todays world besides the almighty
gain.
It is unfortunate that the amateur community refuses the introduction
of antennas based on Gaussian law as well as Poynting's vector but the
fact
is that as amatures they cannot be expected to understand the
underpinnings
of radiation or to visualise a cluster of elements that some would
consider
it as an individual mass. The very idea that a single point of energy
supply
can evoke the emmission of flux from multi radiators that are randomly
arranged
and in equilibrium without reflectors or directors is completely
beyond
their ken and thus want to see it as a bolloxed Yagi.
I see advancement as the provision of something new that may or may
not
provide a clue for major advantage even tho each clue may not
necessarily
on its own be outstanding. By adding the unit of time to both sides
of the
gaussian equation for statics I have provided a correllation to
Poyntings vector
and a antenna array that follows that hypothesis. Existing mathematics
and computor programs confirm this aproach but amateurs have been
seething with
anger at the idea of some thing new as you can see by the comments.
Fortunatly there are some scholars around outside the amateur
community
who have verified independently what I have produced and the days
have
gone over this side of the pond that used to flourish in past glory
days
of ham radio.


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

Yes it has been entertaining for some who relish the idea of slander
and insulting behaviour which is what this newsgroup is famous for.
Basically that is what all things are about now on this side of the
pond
": You are either with us or against us" is now the mantra of the day.
Cheers and beers from an old East Ender
Art





Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art wrote:
"But let`s face it, they are amateurs by definition."

Kraus was an amateur, not to be disparaged!. W8JK.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art wrote:
"But let`s face it, they are amateurs by definition."

Kraus was an amateur, not to be disparaged!. W8JK.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


And Art is no Professional.
If Art had been a professional he would have made a comparison with his
antenna and a typical Yagi. That way he could demonstrate which is the
better. He would have posted design information, he would have met honest
questions with honest answers instead of telling his peers they are thick
headed and have no insight becuse they will not follow his lead like
Lemmings.

Jimmie

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
Yes, that is about it, you could also match that same definition
to Poyntings vector but even that comes under fire. There was also
a mathematical anylysis made by an individual contributor
connecting Gauss but that got hammered also. But lets face it they
are amateurs by definition.
snip


Art

I now know what you are trying to achieve and why. I was initially thinking
purely in terms of amateur band HF frequencies rather than the higher end of
the spectrum, where this antenna makes sense. Obviously as frequencies
increase, the properties of electromagnetic waves change in the way they
interact with materials. I still doubt whether any new physical theories are
needed to explain what is happening and doubtless careful analysis in the
future will reveal how it all works. As you suggest, spread spectrum, multi
channel communications are becoming more and more essential in order to
efficiently utilise the limited spectrum available and antenna designs like
yours will help to minimise unnecessary interference to other users while
preserving a high quality link.

Harold

Arts' postings have prompted me to investigate some areas for myself with
which I was unfamiliar. While I don't subscribe to needing to find some new
physical theory to explain how these antennae work, there are some
interesting ideas being developed in the GHz frequency ranges. My previous
professional experience revolved around radar (sorry about the pun). I
haven't really been paying too much attention to the way in which wi-fi and
other high frequency signalling systems worked, even though they were in
similar frequency bands.

I have learned something new and see some humour in posts on this subject.

Hence entertaining and enlightening - not sadism or masochism.

Cheers

Mike G0ULI