wrote in message
oups.com...

art wrote:
Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
David
we totally disagree, you have a hang up on applying a time varying
field to a electric charge. There is absolute no reason that you can
take
a stand on that.

of course i can, rf is a time varying phenomenon by definition. you
can't
communicate via static fields, by definition, so they are of no use in
this
discussion.

David, it stops being a static field alone if a time varying fiels is
applied


You say that you worked in space communication well
ask for a second opinion from one of your former associates or even
ckeck with your Alma Mata before you dig a hole that is to deep to
get
out of.Remember that as we get older we all have senior moments and I
may well be having more than you so hang in there!

no, i don't work in space communications other than occasionally
listening
to ariss.


Regarding the need for a new program that just can't be true, NEC is
based on known mathematical laws period. When programs first came out
I
struggled with that but I then realised that NEC is NOT based on
empirical data so what you are saying is just not correct.
I urge you to rethink that one out again.



of course it's true. nec and other existing antenna modelling software
is
all based on maxwell's equations so by definition it assumes time
varying
fields and coupling between all the elements of the antenna. if you
are
trying to do something and ignore that coupling then none of the
existing
programs will work for you.

David,
I never said there is no coupling, in mathematics there are ways of
removing avariable by the use of simultaneous equations. If you can't
get around it then ofcourse you have to go the labourious route for
full determination and that is compicated Going the Gaussian rout
removes all that laborious mathematical work. Look at any mathematical
sample of such an array and it all comes down to ZI of the elements
involved, nothing more is needed
and coupling is part of the journey but not of the solution and the
solution by my method goes straight to the the solution by using the
same laws that have been in existant for years.






As far as a patent goes I am struggling with that because it must be
a
physical description
so basically it would seem that I would have to run the gamut of
different arrangements until one is found that has significant value
and that will take an awefull long time. I may have to look at buying

patents don't have to have significant value, only a new idea, a
description
of how it may be implemented, and claims. exactly what are you
claiming
your new idea will do that is unique? you have given a couple examples
now
of stacking elements, but to what end? is that arrangement supposed to
have
gain in some direction? is it supposed to be more efficient than
existing
antennas somehow? just what is it supposed to do that is worthy of a
patent?

Metlab for comparison purposes or get somebody to do it. I think the
main factor in all this is vector pre direction can be deturmined and
that we can have two vectors in the forward direction which the Yagi
does not do. But then you point to what is apparent to me is a real
problem. If I could have the sample given solved by Metlab I am
absolutely positive it will match up to the results that I gave
earlier
on this thread,, if it doesn't then I will have to think things out
again. As far as your comments are concerned I am completely blown
away
by you declaring that a time varying field cannot be applied to an
static electrical charge, blown away especially when you have stated
that you have worked in space communications for years.
But then again you are the only one who has the required
qualifications
to make comment.
For some reason I thought that many of the group taught at coillege
from their demenior
but now I am not sure who is an engineer and who is none other than a
Richard The idea that no one other than yourself was willing to walk
the walk on an antenna subject on this RRAA is so surprising since it
would appear they are not comfortable in the subject to stand up.

unfortunately for you, i am an engineer... and as such an interested in
practical applications. so far you have only done some handwaving and
not
produced even a claim of what your method will do that is different
than
randomly positioning pieces of wire.

Big deal, a lot of us were professioinal engineers before we retired.
I have not waved my arms I gave samples that apply plus the method of
solving.
Anybody can use what ever they want to disprove it and I would welcome
it but so far
no body has been able to accomplishthis.
Now what does this sort of arrangement do for you?
If you have a copy of any antenna handbook look at chaptor 2 where the
discussion of compromise comes to the fore. The yagi can be very
efficient compared to other arrays when seeking one desirable but when
seeking more than one desirable you have to make compromises and that
is part of the joy in making antennas. Why the need to compromise?
Well the yagi uses detuned elements which are reactive which is not
helpfull with respect to SWR which controls bandwidth plus one would
like all desirables to be in sync witheach other as one moves away from
the frequency of use. By formulating an array around elements that are
resonant and of the same "Q" you remove this problem. In addition by
the use of "Q": one can determine indivudual impedances of any element
in the cluster purely by the use of other laws of the masters. I don't
expect you to understand all this but that is how it is. There is
nothing wrong with using a piece of wire to communicate but if you are
seeking knoweledge of the where's and why's of radiation then this is
another link in the chain. You can deny it all youi wish but facts are
facts and sooner or later it will be printed in technical books used
for teaching engineers.and then by rote it becomes accepted
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ..........XG




So David you get the honours as the only one willing to walk the walk
when the chips were down which suggests others are lemmings, for that
I
really thank you.
Another thought is I could consult Tom a proven expert on antennas
and
knowelegable with Metlab. He is curious about this sort of thing so
it
may well interest him. At the moment I am trying to sort out the
element coordinates of a similar array that I sent you so I can then
calculate using my concept to compare results since that author
obviously knows his mathematics so If mine matches his then it is QED
but I havent been able to resolve that
yet.
Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG





Dave wrote:
sorry, it just doesn't work that way. gauss' law for electrostatics
just
can't be extended to handle time varying fields, as soon as you do
that
its
not statics any more and you have to take into account currents and
magnetic
fields which then give you the coupling to the other elements. that
is
what
eznec and the other antenna modellers make use of... so don't try to
model
your antenna with any existing program, you have to come up with
your own
model and calculation method to show what it does.

oh, and one important part of a patent is the claims section... what
are
your claims for this new type of antenna??

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dave wrote:
electrostatics is a small subset of electromagnetics, and with
good
cause.
its application is limited to static electric fields only. no
current,
no
radiation, just static electric fields. so don't try to sell an
antenna
based on electrostatics or you will be lumped in with the e/h
guys.
David it is not just limited to electrostatics. What Gauss wrote
is
accepted for what it is a mathematical deduction or law. That
mathematical statement has universal use as with George Greens
work who
did not have one iota of engineering tuition. All I have added to
gausses law is the dimension of time which I suspect that a
mathematician can connect it to Amperes law or even Kirchoff As
far as
current is concerned a brief moment of time where a time varying
field
is applied to an element immediately the electric particles posses
directive abilities where the vector value is zero. I may be wrong
here
but that is called a conservative field with a big but... the
inside of
the arbitary curve must be in a state of equilibrium where the
sign on
the particals must be alike and change in unison.
This can be done by making the elerments resonant which mine are
tho
not of the same length. When the time varying field is applied to
the
cluster we break the equilibrium with an element that does not
change
in unison with the other elements thus weakening the arbitary
border at
that point./ When the energy of the internal field breaches the
arbitary border it will do it in the vicinity of the added detuned
element. It is only when the border is breached does one start
generating the near field which is contrary to the yagi.

Now with respect to coupling. in mathematics you try to remove
some of
the variables to make a solution easier, in this cas we removed
the
variable of coupling by using elements with the same "Q' I am not
saying that I get radiation without current or coupling I am
saying
that I have reduced the design to just ohms law via mathematical
aproaches, nothing more.

coupling between elements of an antenna is a given, you can't
have a
conductor in an electromagnetic field without it coupling somehow
to
the
field and re-radiating. to try to convince anyone otherwise is
to
ignore
100+ years of electromagnetic research.
I accept coupling but not generation of a radiating field at the
same
time. Gausses law revolves around a closed arbitary border where
the
radiating field does not generate until the border is breached.
This is
why a detuned element is added to the cluster to weaken the
border.

also, if you are basing this on new principles you can't expect
eznec
or
ao
or any of the existing finite element programs to do anything
reasonable
for
it, they will all fall apart like the example you posted and give
unobtainable models because they use classical electromagnetics
to do
all
their calculations. No they are not new principles they have
existed
for
a long time

Over the years mathematicians have connected many laws of
different
disciplines purly by mathematical terms, supposition or just going
the
extra mile with somebody elses work and George Green is a prime
example
of mathematical genious where his work was connected more than 100
years later to complexc circuitry and other things.

as far as patents... i don't trust them any further than i can
throw
them,
you can patent anything unless it says 'free energy' or
'perpetual
motion'
in it. heck there are even patents for faster than light
antennas.
if
you
can't explain the principles well enough to pass a peer review
for
something
like the ieee a&p proceedings the science isn't right.

Exactly. So I am asking for input from those experienced in the
state
of the art or a different perspectivebut there doesn't appear to
be any
out there to add their penny worth. I really believe Dave that the
idea
of adding curl to a electriostatic charge is what you are
resisting and
some day you will have to look at that afresh or at least poke
academic
holes in the aproach I am taking or a different perspective for me
to
mull over, a mathematical aproach requires not amateurs but those
experienced in the art such as yourself.

At least you gave it a shot Dave for which I thank you.

I can give you another arbitary array where the elements are not
as
close to each other if you wish or the same array where the
elements
are rotated into a star fashion for vertical
radiation to remove this close coupling which seems to be alarming
you.
I only supplied such an arbitary placed array to catch the
imagination
of those who are really inquisitive, nothing more
Will another person knoweledgable in the field join in with us
other
than an amateur who knoweledge only extends to the ARRL
examinations,
anyone ? Surely since this is an antenna group somebody must have
studied these things in college even tho it may have been a long
time
ago.

Regards
Art


"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
David listen to me. Please. Gaussian law with respect to
electrostatics
is very well known
And you surely are aware that electrostatics is a subset of
electromagnetics.
Now you, because of your education and professional experience
know
that the energy radiated can be calculated tho it is laborious
to
do. I
have given you a Gaussian version where only V=IZ needs to be
known
where as other means require coupling factors plus other
things.
Gausses law is very simple, the energy provided by the addition
of
curl
to the contained static electrical particles is equal to the
radiation
outside the arbitary border when you add " in a space of time"
or
something similar to Gausses law.
Yes it is not in the books because it is new, thats right, new
in my
eyes because it provides an array without the addition of
elements
that
are detuned as with the Yagi. With the Gaussian array you do
not
have
to make compromises with respect to desirables as shown in
Chaptor 2
in
the Antenna handbook. The Gaussian array provides sync between
all
the
curves over a bandwidth. Over time I have written this patent
application many times because of derision from amateures.
But, now
I
am appealing to the academics or qualified
engineers. (I once was an engineer but time has messed the mind
in
some
areas}to help me out so I can finalise things but above all I
want
academic facts and not drivel that I get from those who follow
Richard.
Is there any other academics out there that can help me out as
well
as
clarifying what I say for better understanding. Anybody to join
David ?
Regards
Art





Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
I recently gave a write up on Gaussian arrays
As a sample which was not directed for any
desirable I laid out the following

All of the elements were placed above each other purely
to make things easier to do plus it being an unusual
arrangement probably never seen before.

Coordinates ( perfect ground) Inches
X Y Z

0 209.46 927.1
0 198.25 973.97
0 172.78 822.86
0 219.83 964.4
0 185.53 922.4

With 1" dia elements
my results were
Impedance 48.5 + j 0.1
Horiz gain 8.12 dbi @ 12 deg
Rc gain 5.11 dbic

Since I am not sure of the capabilities of EZNEC
or other programs
I also supply the following

All elements driven impedances are
6.58 + j56.9
-5.28 - j 37.6
-5.00 -125
9.35 + 58.5
-16.2 - j205

as i pointed out before, and this verifies, you have found
one
of
the
limitations of finite element methods for modeling
antennas.
very
close
spacings between long elements causes un-realizable
results.
the
extremely
low real components of the impedance and high reactive
values
are
symptoms
of this.



David this is just conjecture on your part. I respect your
knoweledge
but I am looking for academic proof. Your comments may well
be
valid
in
general terms but I have given
a specific case plus some of my findings. Prove to me the
error
of
my
ways please


Now I need the help from anybody with a engineering
degree
which wipes out Richard since his only intent is to
ridicule,
or deceive anyway, to confirm the following

For a Gaussian field the energy radiated
by the array as a whole ( feed element 1 )
must equal the sum of the energy
supplied from each individual element.

this is true for any array. O.K. and I gave you all the
impedances
that
you would need to prove or disprove what I have said. I
would be
interested in what a academic would say
regarding a proof measure based on the figures I've given
which I
believe is all that is needed


Questions.
1. Am I correct in saying this?
2. Does the above array rank in any way
as a Gaussian array.?

define 'gaussian array' as it applies to antennas that you
are
describing.

that type of array is not defined in my copies of Jackson's
or
Ramo-Whinner-VanDuzer's books, nor does my IEEE antenna
design
handbook
mention that term. there are references to 'gaussian
beams'
with
respect
to
the shape of the fields from feed horns for microwave
dishes and
other
quasi-optical systems. Some searching of the web also
seems to
refer
to
gaussian arrays, but those all seem to be related to
current or
power
distribution on elements of an adaptive array.

Yes, these deal with other works of Gauss as he was
primarily a
mathematicial and his work is all the vogue now in the
communications
world with respect to channels.

No you will not find it in books possibly because of the
popularity
of
the Yagi were all
that is known about antennas was known. I am absolutely
positive
that
in time this will be picked up and put in the books because
I am
making
it known and I gave several paragraphs
that showed the trail of deductions using the word of the
masters
and
nobody found fault that they could justify academically.
Richard
is
known to lead people astray and he is doing it again. He,
Richard
has
no engineering degree, he may have one on geography since he
was
in
the
navy and if you know what hemesphere the Panama canal is,
and you
get
two shots at it you can get a degree in the mail. When I
gave you
the
impedances it is the root
of determining the energy supplied by a radiating element
where
Z1
Z2
etc is all you need
Again I agree that this is not stated in the books but
surely you
don't
believe all is in the books at the present time ?
Electricity is
not
immune to new discovery.
I welcome your comments but really I am looking for academic
proof
where Richard has muddled things up so much I am beginning
to
question
myself even tho no facts only words have been offered

unfortunately it is not possible to prove a negative. and you
have
not
proved your case. I have pointed out the well known failure
of
finite
element modeling that most of us with engineering degrees do
understand
and
avoid. you have simply been misled by software that you don't
understand
completely. And no, I don't think everything is in books
already,
but
I
don't believe that someone playing around with software they
don't
understand is going to discover a new principle that hasn't
been
studied
elsewhere. So, again I ask, please define 'Gaussian array',
give
web
references that explain it if you can't, surely something that
is
on
the
cutting edge of technology will have many web sites trying to
promote
it,
or
sell antennas based on this design.

Jimmie D wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

That was a quiver in the force.. I had hit the wrong button and sent
the post by mistake. I deleted it at once, but I guess your server
got it anyway. I didn't actually have any comment on the subject
matter. My cat has mittens when it comes to this "new fangled" miracle
whip antenna theory.
MK