John Smith wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...
Hi Gene, From the data posted by Vincent I dont think he is trying to be a
fraud. Maybe he is just unaware that the data he is discovering about short
antennas is about 70 or 80 years old. That would be giving him the benifit
of the doubt.

Jimmie



Post that 70-80 year old EZNEC mockup you are familiar with and we'll
check it out ...

JS

I dont have EZNEC, But I will trust you if you care to model a 1/4wl
monopole and compare it to an 1/8wl monople operating against a
perfect counterpoise. Fine enginneer that Art is he should have no
trouble in calculating field intensity at a receiving antenna 1 mile
away. I have total respect for the integrity of your work as long as
you show your math.


Jimmie

JIMMIE wrote:

...
I dont have EZNEC, But I will trust you if you care to model a 1/4wl
monopole and compare it to an 1/8wl monople operating against a
perfect counterpoise. Fine enginneer that Art is he should have no
trouble in calculating field intensity at a receiving antenna 1 mile
away. I have total respect for the integrity of your work as long as
you show your math.


Jimmie


No.

We are talking about a small antenna ~25% of full 1/4 wave length which
performs as well or outperforms its full length 1/4 wave version.

We are talking about a 1/2 wave antenna which is only 20-30% the length
of its full length 1/2 wave version which performs as well or even out
performs its' full 1/2 wave length ...

Show me an EZNEC model of what the Navy tested for Mr. Vincent--indeed,
show me where anyone before Mr. Vincent was able to demonstrate a
working model capable of the above characteristics?

JS

On 11 Oct, 15:45, John Smith wrote:
JIMMIE wrote:

...

I dont have EZNEC, But I will trust you if you care to model a 1/4wl
monopole and compare it to an 1/8wl monople operating against a
perfect counterpoise. Fine enginneer that Art is he should have no
trouble in calculating field intensity at a receiving antenna 1 mile
away. I have total respect for the integrity of your work as long as
you show your math.

Jimmie

No.

We are talking about a small antenna ~25% of full 1/4 wave length which
performs as well or outperforms its full length 1/4 wave version.

We are talking about a 1/2 wave antenna which is only 20-30% the length
of its full length 1/2 wave version which performs as well or even out
performs its' full 1/2 wave length ...

Show me an EZNEC model of what the Navy tested for Mr. Vincent--indeed,
show me where anyone before Mr. Vincent was able to demonstrate a
working model capable of the above characteristics?

JS

Gentlemen,
Vincent did produce a shorter antenna than was known before
with a 50 ohm impedance feed which is a huge advantage for designers
that want to hide, encapsulate or what have you for a small antenna
in this wifi age and nobody can take that away from him even tho his
knoweledge of antennas is limited.
If he understood Gaussian law then he could have made the Gaussian
antenna
which requires an element in equilibrium which means a FULL
WAVELENGTH.
I know you dislike the meaning of the term equilibrium b ut here it
is
indispesable.
Even without the knoweledge of Gauss he came very close to Gauss
or the biggest discovery of the century
If one winds a half wave length in a clockwise direction starting
at the top going down and then repeating with another halfwave length
but winding it in a counterclockwise direction( preferably winding
both
wires at the same time) and then joining together the two wires at the
top
he would then have a copy of my Gaussian antenna.
Note that the errant current flow that Vincent has on the feed line
now has
a path to travel where it can radiate and still have a resistive match
at
the feed points. This by the way is bidirectional
Now one can again expand the Gaussian principle by making the antenna
height
less than the wound diameter to make a circular polarity radiating
antenna.
Also note that Gauss's work then leads to a maximum gain when the
antenna
is at right angles to the earth but knowing that a full summation of
all vectors
on the radiator is around 10 to 12 degrees from the radiator axis the
radiator
when tilted will maximise a particular polarity alone.
You can deride Vincents achievement as something useless but the
Gaussian antenna
is here,it is real and the mathematics regarding the extension of the
Gaussian
aproach gives an insight as to how radiation is really created which
has been
the goal of scientists for more than a hundred years.
And the experts on this newsgroup who were told of this first derided
it also.
Make a sample of a single wound antenna and then make a mirror immage
of same
and joining at the top. Then study it to determine if the windings of
an
inductor represents a portionof the resonant length...........
remember that augument, maybe you should revisit it! Yuri you can
provide
your normal account as to how antennas work in a contrary fashion.
And yes Roy you can repeat your phrase of "I don't understand it{"
As for others with computor programs you can alsomodel it for
yourselves
and then curse your computor.
Regards
Art KB9MZ......XG

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
If he understood Gaussian law then he could have made the Gaussian
antenna
which requires an element in equilibrium which means a FULL
WAVELENGTH.
I know you dislike the meaning of the term equilibrium b ut here it
is
indispesable.

you contradict yourself now... you told us before that you used half
wavelength elements for you 'gaussian' antenna????

Even without the knoweledge of Gauss he came very close to Gauss
or the biggest discovery of the century
If one winds a half wave length in a clockwise direction starting
at the top going down and then repeating with another halfwave length
but winding it in a counterclockwise direction( preferably winding
both
wires at the same time) and then joining together the two wires at the
top
he would then have a copy of my Gaussian antenna.

Another contradiction. earlier you have said that the 'gaussian' elements
were simple straight halfwave elements????

and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the equations. just what
is in 'equilibrium' with what??

On 13 Oct, 03:55, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

If he understood Gaussian law then he could have made the Gaussian
antenna
which requires an element in equilibrium which means a FULL
WAVELENGTH.
I know you dislike the meaning of the term equilibrium b ut here it
is
indispesable.

you contradict yourself now... you told us before that you used half
wavelength elements for you 'gaussian' antenna????

Hi David, back to your old tricks again eh?
If you go up a halfwave length and then come down a halfwaveleng you
then
have 2 x 1/2 so you don't have a half wave length anymore.
Watch the childrens hour on TV for the answer



Even without the knoweledge of Gauss he came very close to Gauss
or the biggest discovery of the century
If one winds a half wave length in a clockwise direction starting
at the top going down and then repeating with another halfwave length
but winding it in a counterclockwise direction( preferably winding
both
wires at the same time) and then joining together the two wires at the
top
he would then have a copy of my Gaussian antenna.




Another contradiction. earlier you have said that the 'gaussian' elements
were simple straight halfwave elements????


You have just got to watch childrens hour to get up to speed for your
mathematics, new math that is.

A gaussian antenna can be any shape, size or configuration as long as
it is in a state of equilibrium



and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the equations. just what
is in 'equilibrium' with what??

No David I am not going to go thru all that again,get yourself a
physics book or Google around
Art

"Dave" wrote
and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the equations.
just what is in 'equilibrium' with what??
__________

Art posted his definition in this thread on Oct 11. But no math
to support it.

\\ If he understood Gaussian law then he could have made the Gaussian
antenna which requires an element in equilibrium which means a
FULLWAVELENGTH. I know you dislike the meaning of the term equilibrium but
here it is indispesable. //

What I get from his comments is that Art believes fractional wavelength
radiators are inefficient because they are not in equilibrium, ie, they are
not a full wave length and therefore don't act like a tank circuit (he
says) -- which he believes is necessary for efficient radiation.

I've sent Art several emails with NEC results and math-based discussion
showing that a 1/4-wave monopole working against a 2-ohm r-f ground plane
radiates about 95% of the power applied by a matched source between it base
feedpoint and r-f ground. This is the configuration used by virtually all
commercial AM broadcast stations, and its very high system radiation
efficiency has been proven thousands of times since the earliest days of
broadcasting. Of course that is at odds with the beliefs Art continues to
post here and elsewhere.

In a response to my emails Art seemed to understand, and even thanked me for
"sticking with it." But I guess he was not convinced, because he started
this thread _after_ our email exchange.

Since my discussions with Art I put together a chart showing the groundwave
field generated at 1 km by several, fractional wavelength monopoles at
applied powers from 1-10 kW (see link below). I used a perfect ground plane
in preparing the chart, but the values would be only slightly less with a
2-ohm r-f ground.

ART: Note that the 1 kW field for the 1/4-wave monopole is exactly the peak
field of a 1/2-wave dipole in free space (about 313 mV/m). Taller
monopoles generate more groundwave field, given the same applied power and
r-f ground, because their radiation patterns have more gain in the
horizontal plane and less gain in other directions -- not because they are
more "efficient." All of the monopoles in this chart radiate all of the
power applied to them (100% efficient).

Also note, Art, that a 1/2-wave monopole and its ground image comprise a
full-wave antenna (eg, having your "equilibrium"), yet the 195-degree and
225-degree monopoles produce higher groundwave fields, even though they are
NOT by your definition "in equilibrium."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...Radiator10.gif

RF

On 13 Oct, 06:28, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Dave" wrote and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the equations.
just what is in 'equilibrium' with what??

__________

Art posted his definition in this thread on Oct 11. But no math
to support it.

\\ If he understood Gaussian law then he could have made the Gaussian
antenna which requires an element in equilibrium which means a
FULLWAVELENGTH. I know you dislike the meaning of the term equilibrium but
here it is indispesable. //

What I get from his comments is that Art believes fractional wavelength
radiators are inefficient because they are not in equilibrium, ie, they are
not a full wave length and therefore don't act like a tank circuit (he
says) -- which he believes is necessary for efficient radiation.

I've sent Art several emails with NEC results and math-based discussion
showing that a 1/4-wave monopole working against a 2-ohm r-f ground plane
radiates about 95% of the power applied by a matched source between it base
feedpoint and r-f ground. This is the configuration used by virtually all
commercial AM broadcast stations, and its very high system radiation
efficiency has been proven thousands of times since the earliest days of
broadcasting. Of course that is at odds with the beliefs Art continues to
post here and elsewhere.

In a response to my emails Art seemed to understand, and even thanked me for
"sticking with it." But I guess he was not convinced, because he started
this thread _after_ our email exchange.

Since my discussions with Art I put together a chart showing the groundwave
field generated at 1 km by several, fractional wavelength monopoles at
applied powers from 1-10 kW (see link below). I used a perfect ground plane
in preparing the chart, but the values would be only slightly less with a
2-ohm r-f ground.

ART: Note that the 1 kW field for the 1/4-wave monopole is exactly the peak
field of a 1/2-wave dipole in free space (about 313 mV/m). Taller
monopoles generate more groundwave field, given the same applied power and
r-f ground, because their radiation patterns have more gain in the
horizontal plane and less gain in other directions -- not because they are
more "efficient." All of the monopoles in this chart radiate all of the
power applied to them (100% efficient).

Also note, Art, that a 1/2-wave monopole and its ground image comprise a
full-wave antenna (eg, having your "equilibrium"), yet the 195-degree and
225-degree monopoles produce higher groundwave fields, even though they are
NOT by your definition "in equilibrium."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...veFieldvsPower...

RF

When you said if the Gaussian antenna was real it would have been
invented long ago
or something like that and yet they are still giving out patents and
Nobel
prizes out for things that are newly discovered I lost interest in
your musings.
When you added things like an image is real I have to walk away
because you are
just not on my wavelength. I fed the half wave image and also hooked
it
up to a receiver and I heard nothing, let me know when you make a
contact
or maybe I should dig a little bit deeper!
Art
Art

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 13 Oct, 06:28, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Dave" wrote and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the
equations.
just what is in 'equilibrium' with what??

__________

Art posted his definition in this thread on Oct 11. But no math
to support it.

\\ If he understood Gaussian law then he could have made the Gaussian
antenna which requires an element in equilibrium which means a
FULLWAVELENGTH. I know you dislike the meaning of the term equilibrium
but
here it is indispesable. //

What I get from his comments is that Art believes fractional wavelength
radiators are inefficient because they are not in equilibrium, ie, they
are
not a full wave length and therefore don't act like a tank circuit (he
says) -- which he believes is necessary for efficient radiation.

I've sent Art several emails with NEC results and math-based discussion
showing that a 1/4-wave monopole working against a 2-ohm r-f ground plane
radiates about 95% of the power applied by a matched source between it
base
feedpoint and r-f ground. This is the configuration used by virtually
all
commercial AM broadcast stations, and its very high system radiation
efficiency has been proven thousands of times since the earliest days of
broadcasting. Of course that is at odds with the beliefs Art continues
to
post here and elsewhere.

In a response to my emails Art seemed to understand, and even thanked me
for
"sticking with it." But I guess he was not convinced, because he started
this thread _after_ our email exchange.

Since my discussions with Art I put together a chart showing the
groundwave
field generated at 1 km by several, fractional wavelength monopoles at
applied powers from 1-10 kW (see link below). I used a perfect ground
plane
in preparing the chart, but the values would be only slightly less with a
2-ohm r-f ground.

ART: Note that the 1 kW field for the 1/4-wave monopole is exactly the
peak
field of a 1/2-wave dipole in free space (about 313 mV/m). Taller
monopoles generate more groundwave field, given the same applied power
and
r-f ground, because their radiation patterns have more gain in the
horizontal plane and less gain in other directions -- not because they
are
more "efficient." All of the monopoles in this chart radiate all of the
power applied to them (100% efficient).

Also note, Art, that a 1/2-wave monopole and its ground image comprise a
full-wave antenna (eg, having your "equilibrium"), yet the 195-degree and
225-degree monopoles produce higher groundwave fields, even though they
are
NOT by your definition "in equilibrium."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...veFieldvsPower...

RF

When you said if the Gaussian antenna was real it would have been
invented long ago
or something like that and yet they are still giving out patents and
Nobel
prizes out for things that are newly discovered I lost interest in
your musings.
When you added things like an image is real I have to walk away
because you are
just not on my wavelength. I fed the half wave image and also hooked
it
up to a receiver and I heard nothing, let me know when you make a
contact
or maybe I should dig a little bit deeper!
Art
Art


the basic problem is art that you forget we had a long conversation about
what a 'gaussian' antenna in your dream was. and you specifically said a
single halfwave dipole was a 'gaussian' antenna. you can go back and search
if you like, but i doubt that you will since you have now changed your
imaginary antenna. please art, go take a long walk... a very long walk, the
fresh air may do you good.

On 13 Oct, 06:28, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Dave" wrote and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the equations.
just what is in 'equilibrium' with what??

__________

snip commercial AM broadcast stations, and its very high system
radiation
efficiency has been proven thousands of times since the earliest days of
broadcasting. Of course that is at odds with the beliefs Art continues to
post here and elsewhere.

In a response to my emails Art seemed to understand, and even thanked me for
"sticking with it." But I guess he was not convinced, because he started
this thread _after_ our email exchange.

RF
When a person E mails me in private he is suggesting an element of
trust
ie that it is private. When you betray that trust you can forget
about
any future discussion, private by E mail or public via the group
Art

Since my discussions with Art I put together a chart showing the groundwave
field generated at 1 km by several, fractional wavelength monopoles at
applied powers from 1-10 kW (see link below). I used a perfect ground plane
in preparing the chart, but the values would be only slightly less with a
2-ohm r-f ground.

ART: Note that the 1 kW field for the 1/4-wave monopole is exactly the peak
field of a 1/2-wave dipole in free space (about 313 mV/m). Taller
monopoles generate more groundwave field, given the same applied power and
r-f ground, because their radiation patterns have more gain in the
horizontal plane and less gain in other directions -- not because they are
more "efficient." All of the monopoles in this chart radiate all of the
power applied to them (100% efficient).

Also note, Art, that a 1/2-wave monopole and its ground image comprise a
full-wave antenna (eg, having your "equilibrium"), yet the 195-degree and
225-degree monopoles produce higher groundwave fields, even though they are
NOT by your definition "in equilibrium."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...veFieldvsPower...

RF

On Oct 13, 9:28 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:


I must agree with Art, I think you have displayed a complete lack of
good manners, what is written in private should stay as such unless
agreed otherwise by both parties.

Derek