art wrote:

For those you may be interested I did not move to E mail
it was just that the interogation stopped after
my last response. Why I do not know but at least you
know that the thread stopping was not due to anything
on my part. Obviously this thread is now dead.
Regards
Art


Art:

If you ever present enough data where a simple 3 element construction of
your design might be attempted--I'll be there ...

Regards,
JS

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:34:17 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

art wrote:
Obviously this thread is now dead.

DOA is the technical term.

If you ever present enough data where a simple 3 element construction of
your design might be attempted--I'll be there ...

He did that. You weren't there? The invitation was probably lost in
the mail. This 3 element construction conformed to the conventional
outcome of poor performance for having ignored first principles. Note
that ignorance was a forced choice, not a haphazard accident. Arthur
worked hard to design efficiency out of his theory.

Optimization, ironically, is forced out of the goal of the software he
uses to "optimize" through a crippled set of constraints. There are
certainly a lot of conflicting goals here, but achieving a patent and
validation here must be worth the pain. Reminds me of the "Life of
Brian."

What Arthur is laying claim to is his unique description of a jumble
of elements that can only be expected to perform to the same degree of
inadequacy. Hence, the gausssian arrays paradigm explains how a
hodge-podge of elements, that through poor efficiency and total lack
of consideration for effectively adding their phase contributions,
present a muddled performance at best. I must admit that few patents
deliberately seek to corner mediocrity.

It has been long established through common sense that optimal
performance is intrinsically related to all elements presenting a
boresight alignment to the wave front such that each element offers
the most efficient phase coupling. Arthur's paradigm explicitly
decouples all efficient alignments (which is unpatentable as being
long-standing usage of the common practitioner) to focus on
deliberately enforced poor efficiency (which is patentable as this is
no one's marketable goal).

This poor focus is found both in terms of antenna development, and the
expression of its particulars. In essence, the less Arthur says
explicitly about his paradigm (choosing, instead to mock any
questioner - or ignoring others like Herbert), then the less chance of
his failure being evident.

However, we do get glimpses of the chief characteristics:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:13:21 -0700, art wrote:
Note the radiator can be any length as long as it is resonant.

We all note there is nothing here that sets gausssian arrays apart
from standard ones - even to the point of noting there is nothing of
an array in:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:15:10 -0700, art wrote:
i want to know the minimum number necessary.
One

Hence we find ourselves in an old arena with an historical match
between gausssian arrays and fractal antennas, both claiming that the
dipole is their legitimate claim drawn under their umbrella of
uniqueness.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

After poring myself mango margarita and energizing my dead brain cells, I am
cocluding that:

We see all kinds of dormant "geniouses" coming up with antenna designs that
defy the laws of physics and 100 some years of antenna developments. Claims
to various miraculous new principles and patent applications aimed at those
who have no clues about antennas, but are a potential suckers for
commercialization.

We know how the dipole or vertical work, their designs and factors affecting
reduced size were beaten to death over 100 years and basic principles are
known regardles if someone claims to have purple electrons skirting the laws
of physics. Freaken fractals outdoing the full size radiators, EH splitting
the atom and E - H fields, UofRI storing the energy in a coil, yadayadayada
etc.

Art's mumbo-jumbo troll and superiority of XG mechanical engineer over dumb
amateurs is another pathetic example of trying to mirror his "patent"
immortalizing his "invention" that director is a reflector and vice versa.
Poor reflection on patent office and the "inventor". Yet another try with
"Goosian soup", equilibrium and who knws what.

I have been foolling around with radio and searching and designing killer
antennas for some 50 years. In the category of horizontal beam antennas I
designed my Razor Beams, which I believe produce the highest gain per booml
ength (or number of elements) and decent pattern and bandwidth. They were
tested in the numerous contest and nailed bunch of world records
demonstrating their performance over other designs. If Art's Goose can beat
that, I will write a check for $1000 to him and apologize for doubting his
superiority. Judging by his posts on other subjects, I doubt that I would
ever need to do that.
So far it appears that it is just another Artroll and craving for arguments
and attention. It is getting tiring and pathetic.

Feeding the dipole and telling it that the electrons or photons are purple
Gausians, is not going to change it to far-out performance, unless really,
for 100 years of antenna engineering we were dumbasses amateurs, including
W8JK.

The glass is empty, time to ingore the drivell and gat back to real life and
antennas.
Time for the fine cigaaaar!

73, Yuri da bada k3BU/m

"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...
After poring myself mango margarita and energizing my dead brain cells, I
am cocluding that:

We see all kinds of dormant "geniouses" coming up with antenna designs
that defy the laws of physics and 100 some years of antenna developments.
Claims to various miraculous new principles and patent applications aimed
at those who have no clues about antennas, but are a potential suckers for
commercialization.

We know how the dipole or vertical work, their designs and factors
affecting reduced size were beaten to death over 100 years and basic
principles are known regardles if someone claims to have purple electrons
skirting the laws of physics. Freaken fractals outdoing the full size
radiators, EH splitting the atom and E - H fields, UofRI storing the
energy in a coil, yadayadayada etc.

Art's mumbo-jumbo troll and superiority of XG mechanical engineer over
dumb amateurs is another pathetic example of trying to mirror his "patent"
immortalizing his "invention" that director is a reflector and vice versa.
Poor reflection on patent office and the "inventor". Yet another try with
"Goosian soup", equilibrium and who knws what.

I have been foolling around with radio and searching and designing killer
antennas for some 50 years. In the category of horizontal beam antennas I
designed my Razor Beams, which I believe produce the highest gain per
booml ength (or number of elements) and decent pattern and bandwidth. They
were tested in the numerous contest and nailed bunch of world records
demonstrating their performance over other designs. If Art's Goose can
beat that, I will write a check for $1000 to him and apologize for
doubting his superiority. Judging by his posts on other subjects, I doubt
that I would ever need to do that.
So far it appears that it is just another Artroll and craving for
arguments and attention. It is getting tiring and pathetic.

Feeding the dipole and telling it that the electrons or photons are purple
Gausians, is not going to change it to far-out performance, unless really,
for 100 years of antenna engineering we were dumbasses amateurs, including
W8JK.

The glass is empty, time to ingore the drivell and gat back to real life
and antennas.
Time for the fine cigaaaar!

73, Yuri da bada k3BU/m


He may not know crap about antennas but I think he may be the greatest troll
artist of all times.

Jimmie

Jimmie D wrote:

...
He may not know crap about antennas but I think he may be the greatest troll
artist of all times.
Jimmie

Without doubt, the first antenna "was" before the theory/math was
invented to define it ...

Without a doubt, this WILL occur again, and if it already has, only if
you do the construction will you know. The math/models have been
defined within too narrow of parameters, indeed, it is easy to prove
some of this math is based on sheer fallacy. The
permeability/permittivity of "nothing" being involved demonstrates, at
the very least, some things need redefining!

nothing = 0 permeability = 0 permittivity; end of story.

Now, let's find the real math ...

JS

On 28 Jun, 16:04, John Smith I wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...

He may not know crap about antennas but I think he may be the greatest troll
artist of all times.
Jimmie

Without doubt, the first antenna "was" before the theory/math was
invented to define it ...

Without a doubt, this WILL occur again, and if it already has, only if
you do the construction will you know. The math/models have been
defined within too narrow of parameters, indeed, it is easy to prove
some of this math is based on sheer fallacy. The
permeability/permittivity of "nothing" being involved demonstrates, at
the very least, some things need redefining!

nothing = 0 permeability = 0 permittivity; end of story.

Now, let's find the real math ...

JS

John, What is so interesting about all this is
the arrival of that paper from the Russian scientist who is now head
of the Russian nuclear industry where his delving into the history
of Gauss showed that Gauss's assistant was responsible for taking some
of Gauss's work and thus hiding(we will never know) any
information that may have passed on to him before Gauss died.
There is a gap of knoweledge here because Gauss gave up mathematics
and took up with the Italian Observatory thinking a living
could not be made via mathematics! The progression that I am
describing
may well be a casualty of that descision but now the information
is to be revealed . If the information was known and made available
to science at that time one could easily see Gaussian law providing
the underpinnings of Maxwellian laws instead of being held to laws
of others where the connection to statics was tenuous at best.
Readers can find the Russian paper listed in the "Gaussian antenna
planar form" thread of a few days ago on this newsgroup to get hold
of the history of this mystery of a few hundred years ago to
form their own detective story of yesteryear.
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG