On 8 Jun, 12:59, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 7 Jun, 03:23, wrote:
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

I suppose a request for help is in order to respond in a fair way
to this particular posting. The poster is complaining that I have
only give hints with respect to this antenna. Harrison says the same.
Others say the Poynting vector does not have a need a "proof"
Another knows enough so as to say that it has already been invented
but refuses to amplify. Also one states that the computor programs
prove there is nothing new. Another states that there must be coupling
of some sort what ever he was trying to say. Another questions what
is new when all elements in the array are resonant. Another says
that it is really a messed up Yagi. Another advocates that elements
should be put in line. On top of that many question the meaning
of the word " equilibrium. What on earth can one do to placate
the baying of the wolves and the procedure back to infancy.

Answer reasonable questions with reasonable answers.

When you make references to someone elses work that you think proves your
point reference where you found them so that others may review them.

Do Not try to redefine existing words. You have miss used words so foten no
one knows if you are talking about the classical meaning of the word or your
own definition.

When you tell how superior your antenna to an XYZ antenna show comparisons
of both. No one should have to do this for you.

Try these for starters, I and others can come up with a few more.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can you show me how you define gravity as a theory that was taught in
Florida?
I think that would be a good example for me to follow.
Any other comments from other members as how I can satisfy the
learning problems
of this person? A discussion regarding gravity by those who know
something about it
would be enlightning. I would like to know when a theory becomes a law
as an
amateur radio operator sees it.
Richard asks for no over elabaration.
One liners please and try to follow his example.
Some body could also what materials can be turned into gold
(With references ofcourse)with definition of words and sources used.
I know you have to assume that others have some intelligence.
Most know how to change a light bulb on a tower as they have had
that experience over and over in their respective tower maintenance
careers.