| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
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 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. |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
On 6 Jun, 15:57, "Dave" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
"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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
"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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 - |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 - |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
"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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
"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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message ... 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 I have learned quite a bit from those who have rreplied to Art. Jimmie |
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 |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
I apologize for adding an "n" to Mike Kaliski`s name in my previous
posting. I`m bad, bad, bad, Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
|
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... 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 My first encounter with Gaussian antenna was with microwave relay paths and "fly swatter" antennas. A gaussian antenna is on top of the site building rof point straight up. the beam is then reflected in the desired direction by the fly swatter reflector that would be at about 300 ft up on a tower. In this case gaussian antenna meant a parabolic reflector antenna whose beam was further focused and cohered by a fresnel lens. No resemblence at all to Arts definition. Jimmie |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:
"That is, Gaussian being wholly divorced from matters of current and more related to shape distribution?" Yes. Put your search engine to work on: "Radio & Coherent Techniques". Probably the first item to pop up will be: Scots_Guide/RadCom/introhtml. Part 11 of this is "Designing Quasi Optical Circuits". First example in this is a free space "Gaussian Beam" radiated from the enf of a glass fiber. Lots of pages and lots of stuff in those pages. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
Jimmie D wrote:
"My first encounter with Gaussian antenna was with microwave relay paths and "flyswatter" antennas." We called them periscope systems. Nice because instead of a waveguide loss, the periscope gave a gain over the dish alone. The reflector at the tower top has a cupping adjustment to refocus the energy thus boosting the gain. When satellite systems appeared, the FCC started to lean on private microwave users to replace existing periscopes with "high-performance" dishes at tower tops. Long after we complied, I noticed FAA relay systems still using periscopes. Part of the problem with periscopes, I believe, is the common practice to use tower top reflectoers that are too small, for economy and performance. Part of the would-be illumination is allowed to fall outside the surface of the reflector. This boosts gain of the periscope as the outside ring of the illumination is out-of-phase with that in the center. I don`t know about Gaussian dishes, but maybe they concentrate in-phase energy in a narrow beam and eliminate the out-of-phase energy. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
On 8 Jun, 06:31, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote: "That is, Gaussian being wholly divorced from matters of current and more related to shape distribution?" Yes. Put your search engine to work on: "Radio & Coherent Techniques". Probably the first item to pop up will be: Scots_Guide/RadCom/introhtml. Part 11 of this is "Designing Quasi Optical Circuits". First example in this is a free space "Gaussian Beam" radiated from the enf of a glass fiber. Lots of pages and lots of stuff in those pages. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI I also did a search also on "Gaussian antenna" in Google and was quite surprised that many of the groups comments were appearing at the beginning. I thought Google listed stuff based on activity around the World/net on the number of people looking up the subject. True it does describes the activity as "high" with respect to the subject, but to get close to the top of the listing shows that there is silent interest in the comments coming from the experts in this group. This ofcourse delights me as the group is now supplying to the World a window on its intelligence with respect to various subjects. Keep up the good work. Your efforts are being rewarded and your comments are providing high activity. As far as the difficulty that the word "equilibrium" presents to some of the old guys I am sure others may have use Google to resolve this sticky problem Some may have looked at the work of the Masters and when seeing constant use of this word got completely muddled up with respect to what that word really meant. That really messed up their interpretation of the laws and observations stated. For the life of me I cannot understand how these people view themselves as experts yet acknoweledge that they have no understanding of the word. To me it echoes those words once said about education. All can learn but to understand is another matter! Without the understanding of the meaning of " equilibrium" how does one interprete "conservative" or "non conservative" fields? What laws of the Masters evoke removal of "equilibrium" from their findings? Maybe there is a true scholar out there that will describe to radio amateurs what holds the World together and where "equilibrium" fits in. Old timers require that this problem be solved to see how this fits in with the teachings of the psuedo experts that reside on nearby couches. Art |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
Art wrote:
"Without the understanding of the meaning of "equilibrium" how does one interpret "comservative" or non conservative fields?" Equilibrium: Synonym=balance We know balanced antennas have the same impedance between each side of the antenna and the earth or some other chosen groundpoint. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... 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 Richard, Don't disagree with any of the above and of course the radar horn acts primarily as an impedence match. Radar 101. Whatever was I thinking - the brain does silly things at times. Mike G0ULI |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... I apologize for adding an "n" to Mike Kaliski`s name in my previous posting. I`m bad, bad, bad, Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Richard, You are just very naughty. Useful post though and thanks for the apology. Mike G0ULI |
Real time proof of Poyntings vector
On 8 Jun, 09:32, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "Without the understanding of the meaning of "equilibrium" how does one interpret "comservative" or non conservative fields?" Equilibrium: Synonym=balance We know balanced antennas have the same impedance between each side of the antenna and the earth or some other chosen groundpoint. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Bravo !!!! I recognise your improvement in education. Now you have to work on your "understanding" of what you read in the book and maybe now revise your previous posts on the meaning of "equilibrium". Or buy another book. On the other hand fix those senior moments that appear to be increasing |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:45 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com