On 30 Jun, 03:04, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ps.com...



On 29 Jun, 17:12, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

groups.com...

On 29 Jun, 14:18, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 29 Jun, 12:11, art wrote:
On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we
may
yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian
antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and
the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where
each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state
where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other.
This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us.
This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium.
If
an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange
itself
to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by
equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles
shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its
surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of
particles
are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its
constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification
with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight,
reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to
give
an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way
can
be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three
dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces
involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to
be
radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in
equilibrium.
it
also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even
along
the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up
tighter
in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually.
even
a
wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and
voltages
based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's
orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire
summed
up
to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child
without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing
a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of
metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece
of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that
because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, let me talk about equilibrium a little bit more as the
lessons
learned
from many years on this newsgroup shows this to be a real stumbling
block.
For someone with a learned background there is a great emphasis on
the
mathematical side of proving concepts that were origional derived by
observation
of the universe where the student of the day concentrates more on
the
mathematical
aspect which is required for a non oral examination. Thus it is
natural for
such a student to equate the "equal" term in mathematics to the word
"equilibrium"
Equilibrium can be used as an "equal" sign but certainly not always
and again the
"equilibrium" term cannot be interchanged easily with the term
"equilibrium"
As the Russian has pointed out that we have altered the path of
science by being
led by mechanical machines in number crunching style where numbers
are
placed
into a grinder and where we examine the mix to see if anything
usefull
comes out
and where the computor is used to magnify possible paths where the
resulting
mix in general goes no where. You now have to put another hat on and
rely on
that bit by bit observations becomes a story and where bits are
missing you use
intuition to bridge the gap that is consistent with the theme. It is
later
that mathematics comes into the picture where we check to see if
there
is a
common realistic theme. Maxwell did this by collecting different
stories
and connected them by trails of a story into numbers and though he
saw
a
connection between a static sbject and a dynamic subject he never
accumulated
enough clues to develop a story to match the mathematics. What we
are
doing now
is going back in time using observations of the universe to form a
story even
tho the mathematical links are some what preknown as individual
parts
as those
observers of the past would do by deduction and without the use of a
computor
Hope that helps rather than confused you but we are retracing the
step
in the
past taken by Gauss.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Back to mowing the grass or.....coooo dee graaaar

but what is in equilibrium when this single resonant gaussian element
is
fed
with rf and is radiating?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, Now it is you that is jumping to fast.
Let us go back to the last place where you said not to fast.
We were looking at what is termed a Gaussian field with the standard
"pillbox"
where inside are located some statitic particles. Pick up a book
and bone up just in this area since this drawing is commonplace but
add to the drawing
an outline of two elements where the surface of which have the static
particle resting.
Gauss talks about this picture a lot but he was not aware of such
things as antennas
only static particles where we know better than that because elements
have static particles
that rest on the surface of conductive items on this earth and we will
want to deduce how these particles react when given an electrical
shock
since we know that most people jump when they come into contact with
it.
Bone up on Gausses law of staics and the pill box picture that one
associated with that law.
Don't forget that the elements that we are adding to this drawing is
in effect a bunch of- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

read more »

O.K. Let us back up for simplicities sake and place only one element
inside the Gaussian field with the static particle resting on it's
surface.
Here we can see a similarity to Pointings Theorm which also has an
element inside a circle and where Poynting introduced the energy
in vs energy out equation to produce a mathematical equation of the
concept
of energy applied to an element and equated it to energy out in the
form of Radiation. Thus even tho we are pursuing the same thing using
Gaussian
law of statics bothmethods ar pursueing the same final results. Thus
Poyntings
vector gives us a mathematical standard which cannot be abused even
though we are
proceding from a statics point of view. And we will point to this
mathematical standard as we move along.
Back to the Gaussian field where we decided to apply a jolt of
electricity
to the enclosed dipole. When this is done we know that two fields are
produced
around the element, one in the direction parallel to the applied
electrical
current and one at right angles to the flow of the electrical current.
We thus can add two vectors to the dipole as we know the directions
that they take.
With respect to the length of the vector the length must be zero on
all accounts
because what we are comparing to i.e. Poyntings theorem does not have
the metric of time.
However we do now have a conservative field with its vectors tho of
zero
length and if we take a step further we can use just one vector in
the
region of 45 degrees as a summation of the original two vectors.
This provides a surprise.This is stating that the direction of
radiation
is not at right angles to the radiating element in it's natural form!
From this we can make our first deduction. When pursuing a given pure
polarisation of a radiation field the radiator must be at an angle
somewhere
between parallel and the right angle position to the radiator.
This is a very important observation .....It tells us that the idea of
parallel elements for radiation as per a Yagi is really a distortion
of natural radiation from a energised radiator . One needs to take
time
and think about this implication.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG