"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 3 May, 17:42, "Dave" wrote:

David,
When you started the group on the idea that you are not allowed to add
the unit of time to both sides of the gaussian equation for statics it
stopped all true consideration of the concept.
Even when shown the relationship by mathematics to Maxwell the group
dug deeper into a hole. When the group rejected these concepts there
is no point in trying to defend the concept in the face of un informed
comments such as yours. You have had a long run of calling me an idiot
so I am going to let time be my judge. There is no way I can duplicate
the massive stand of Cecil with over 300 postings in the face of such
abusive comments by the pseudo experts that abound in this group.
Have a happy day
Art KB9MZ......XG


i have a long run of pointing out junk science. and yours is some of the
junkiest. you insist on using NEC to calculate 'equilibrium', not
understanding that NEC uses exactly the maxwell equations that you don't
believe in. and you throw about modified equations without any way of
proving they are correct. and you have this concept of a fictional surface
where a magic transformation takes place with no way to define or defend it.
So far the only thing you have proven is that allowing optimizers to run on
randomly placed elements can result in gain. And you have shown that if you
let it go far enough without logical constraints you get unrealizable
configurations. Unfortunately a patent doesn't prove anything in this
country besides the fact that no one else has described exactly the same
thing, at least as far as an examiner can tell.

Frank,
I can't help you anymore. I am assuming that your intentions are good
but as I said earlier I am not proficient or familiar enough with the
program you are using and heaven knows that I have taken a lot of
abuse over this concept. Tho this concept has brought forth the rath
of the pseudo experts that abound on this newsgroup I have never the
less applied for a utility
patent on the strength of my own convictions. So eventually it will
become printed matter
and time will tell if open minds outside this group will judge the
concept favorably.
Best regards and have a great day.
Art


I admire Frank and anyone trying to deal with this "Goosian" mumbo-jumbo
"presented" by somebody who mixes up polarity with polarization, reflector
with director and even has a patent for it. Perhaps Art would have more
understanding at the AntenneX group, there are bunch of miracle antennas
being celebrated.

We are too stupid to get the "equiliberated electrons, that the salient
curves with respect to bandwidth are in sync with each other because of the
absence of coupling and minimum reactance of individual parts which prevents
focusing as with a Yagi array. "

He is still keeping secret what the POLARITY is. How can one make any sense
of the rest of the crap? Try to model the gausian mumbo-jumbo? Of course you
can't, it is waaaay beyond stoopid earthly modeling programs. Only Art knows
the magnificent computored miracle antenna that you antenna morons can't
comprehend because you were confused by 100 years of misleading antenna
charlatans. Riiiiiiight!


bada BUm

On 4 May, 03:58, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...

On 3 May, 17:42, "Dave" wrote:
David,
When you started the group on the idea that you are not allowed to add
the unit of time to both sides of the gaussian equation for statics it
stopped all true consideration of the concept.
Even when shown the relationship by mathematics to Maxwell the group
dug deeper into a hole. When the group rejected these concepts there
is no point in trying to defend the concept in the face of un informed
comments such as yours. You have had a long run of calling me an idiot
so I am going to let time be my judge. There is no way I can duplicate
the massive stand of Cecil with over 300 postings in the face of such
abusive comments by the pseudo experts that abound in this group.
Have a happy day
Art KB9MZ......XG
snip
.. you insist on using NEC to calculate 'equilibrium', not
understanding that NEC uses exactly the maxwell equations that you don't
believe in.

Now you are making things up, I have not said that I don't believe in
Maxwells equations

and you throw about modified equations without any way of
proving they are correct.

And an independent person from M.I.T. a Doctor no less confirmed my
analysis as being consistent with Maxwells laws and went to great
lengths in supplying the mathematical route.

and you have this concept of a fictional surface

The arbitary border of a Gaussian field is generally stated as being
frictionless since it is a arbitary boundary that surrounds a mass in
equilibrium.Contrary to your statement equilibrium does not
necessarily mean coupling it means a balanced existence in a
gravitational field ( my words). Coupling means an mutual existence
inside a common field.
where the tranfer of energy occurres inside that common field. In
which case an equation cannot be made for a given space of time since
the exchange of energy continues to take place after the application
of energy has ceased.

where a magic transformation takes place with no way to define or defend it.

It is no magic transformation if one adds time to a conservative field
such that it becomes a non conservative field. If one wants reality
the unit of time must be present for a fantasy conservative field made
of static particles becomes a non conservative field with reality.

So far the only thing you have proven is that allowing optimizers to run on
randomly placed elements can result in gain.

The optimizer is based on proven Maxwellian laws not a figment of
imagination. It shows that
laws were in existence before Maxwell that were established by other
people whose thoughts
interlocked with other thoughts and data. Pointings vector is one of
these which shows all the same characteristics of my concepts that you
disdain in your last posting. Thus contrary to dismissing Maxwell I am
confirming the laws by an independent avenue.

And you have shown that if you
let it go far enough without logical constraints you get unrealizable
configurations.

I suppose that is posible to occur but it wasn't I that provided the
porported demonstration.

The whole basis of the concept is equilibrium and if a computor
program fails to conform with that position I would blame the human
content of the program and not nature.


Unfortunately a patent doesn't prove anything in this
country besides the fact that no one else has described exactly the same
thing, at least as far as an examiner can tell.

Very true, which in itself is not all that bad and Congress has not
abandoned that institution
for good reason. When a request is printed it invites experts in
radiation, such as you, to submit reasons as to why it should not be
granted. Why not give it a try, but use of the word "can't" alone will
not be seen as satisfactory. The institution is for those who use the
word of " can" which you seem to take delight in deriding which in
itself cannot prevent changes or prevent the advance of science.
Why not do something really constructive and help Frank with his
program? For the life of me
I do not understand why those familiar with NEC in this group aren't
helping the guy. Is he persona non grata or are all taking a delight
in seeing him struggle. If the NEC program determines something
different to what I supplied then the debate would be settled and the
truth will come out. Why would a group of antenna experts not give
assistance to a fellow ham in need? Is there something that you abhor
when a thread is stopped in its tracks without reaching the 400
postings mark? Is the exchange of insults the overiding factor in this
group?
( I know the answer to that!)

Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG
Bloomington IL

On 4 May 2007 08:25:20 -0700, art wrote:

Why not do something really constructive and help Frank with his
program? For the life of me
I do not understand why those familiar with NEC in this group aren't
helping the guy.

Hi Art,

He doesn't need help with NEC, obviously. After four or five rounds
of correspondence he eked out the necessary details to test a claim,
and found it was unconfirmable.

If he needs any help, it is getting a complete description (hence, why
it took him four or five rounds of filling in gaps in the first
place). If he now has the complete description (something you NEVER
acknowledge), then the analysis is complete.

Given both your software and his (and ours) all use the same
calculating engine, then it remains a challenge as to how you arrive
at your results. When you toss in statements like resonance achieved
with significant reactance, or elements that resonate at a third of
their wavelength dimension, one has to wonder even more about your
fundamental failures of first principles.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Code mirrored across the X - Z plane:

CM Gaussian Array
CE
GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65
GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65
GW 4 30 273.3 -164.1 820 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65
GW 5 41 171.1 -202.1 582 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 6 31 2.1 -206.5 701.2 153.5 -194.5 1038.1 0.65
GS 0 0 0.025400
GE 1 -1 0
GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050
EX 0 3 16 0 1 0
FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05
LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7
RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 140 1 1
EN

Results:

Gain 6.8 dBi
F/B ratio 13.8 dB
TOA 11 deg.
Zin 78.4 - j 27.1

Frank

PS to interpret the GW card:

GW TAG# #segs. X1 Y1 Z1 X2 Y2 Z2 wire radius

Frank,
I can't help you anymore. I am assuming that your intentions are good
but as I said earlier I am not proficient or familiar enough with the
program you are using and heaven knows that I have taken a lot of
abuse over this concept. Tho this concept has brought forth the rath
of the pseudo experts that abound on this newsgroup I have never the
less applied for a utility
patent on the strength of my own convictions. So eventually it will
become printed matter
and time will tell if open minds outside this group will judge the
concept favorably.
Best regards and have a great day.
Art

Possibly I did not understand your original coordinates as follows:

X Y Z
273.3 164.1 820
25.1 203.3 1079
171.1 202.1 582
321.6 178.4 1036.5
2.1 206.5 701.2
153.5 194.5 1038.1

I interpreted the above as:

Wire #1
X1 = 273.3, X2 = 25.1;
Y1 = 164.1, Y2 = 203.3; and
Z1 = 820, Z2 = 1079.

Wire #2
X1 = 171.1, X2 = 321.6;
Y1 = 202.1, Y2 = 178.4;and
Z1 = 582, Z2 = 1035.6.

Wire #3
X1 = 2.1, X2 = 153.5;
Y1 = 206.5, Y2 = 194.5;and
Z1 = 701.2, Z2 = 1038.1.

The lengths of the wires were determined by
SQRT((X2-X1)^2+(Y2-Y1)^2+(Z2-Z1)^2). The results
made some sense since the lengths were approximately
what would be expected in the region of 14 MHz. The driven element
was selected as Wire #3. I mirrored the above wires across the X - Z
plane (The only possible plane), by changing all Y coordinates to
negative values. The resultant array therefore consisted of six
elements. The mirrored Wire #3 was not driven. Note
that wrapping the elements in fiberglass tape will modify the
electrical lengths by a small amount.

Since you appear to have actually constructed a model I am
curious how you measured the parameters listed in your
original posting. What equipment did you use? How
did you determine the gain, and take-off angle?

Frank

On 4 May, 09:44, "Frank's"
wrote:
Code mirrored across the X - Z plane:

CM Gaussian Array
CE
GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65
GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65
GW 4 30 273.3 -164.1 820 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65
GW 5 41 171.1 -202.1 582 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 6 31 2.1 -206.5 701.2 153.5 -194.5 1038.1 0.65
GS 0 0 0.025400
GE 1 -1 0
GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050
EX 0 3 16 0 1 0
FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05
LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7
RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 140 1 1
EN

Results:

Gain 6.8 dBi
F/B ratio 13.8 dB
TOA 11 deg.
Zin 78.4 - j 27.1

Frank

PS to interpret the GW card:

GW TAG# #segs. X1 Y1 Z1 X2 Y2 Z2 wire radius

Frank,
I can't help you anymore. I am assuming that your intentions are good
but as I said earlier I am not proficient or familiar enough with the
program you are using and heaven knows that I have taken a lot of
abuse over this concept. Tho this concept has brought forth the rath
of the pseudo experts that abound on this newsgroup I have never the
less applied for a utility
patent on the strength of my own convictions. So eventually it will
become printed matter
and time will tell if open minds outside this group will judge the
concept favorably.
Best regards and have a great day.
Art

Possibly I did not understand your original coordinates as follows:

X Y Z X Y Z
273.3 164.1 820 273.3 -164.1 820
25.1 203.3 1079 25.1 -203.3 1079
171.1 202.1 582 171.1 -202.1 582
321.6 178.4 1036.5 321.6 -178.4 1036.5
2.1 206.5 701.2 2.1 -206.5 701.2
153.5 194.5 1038.1 153.5 -194.5 1038.1
1 source
wire 6, centre
I interpreted the above as:

Wire #1
X1 = 273.3, X2 = 25.1;
Y1 = 164.1, Y2 = 203.3; and
Z1 = 820, Z2 = 1079.

Wire #2
X1 = 171.1, X2 = 321.6;
Y1 = 202.1, Y2 = 178.4;and
Z1 = 582, Z2 = 1035.6.

Wire #3
X1 = 2.1, X2 = 153.5;
Y1 = 206.5, Y2 = 194.5;and
Z1 = 701.2, Z2 = 1038.1.

The lengths of the wires were determined by
SQRT((X2-X1)^2+(Y2-Y1)^2+(Z2-Z1)^2). The results
made some sense since the lengths were approximately
what would be expected in the region of 14 MHz. The driven element
was selected as Wire #3. I mirrored the above wires across the X - Z
plane (The only possible plane), by changing all Y coordinates to
negative values. The resultant array therefore consisted of six
elements. The mirrored Wire #3 was not driven. Note
that wrapping the elements in fiberglass tape will modify the
electrical lengths by a small amount.

Since you appear to have actually constructed a model I am
curious how you measured the parameters listed in your
original posting. What equipment did you use? How
did you determine the gain, and take-off angle?

Frank- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Note that I have added the mirror dimensions above.
Seems like mirror image is your stumbling block.
Where did you get your program from since it may have been
modified or corrected.? My program is over 20 years old so
I am assuming it has stood the test of time. I am sorry I can't help
you
with your particular program and since help is not forth coming from
this antenna group I would go back to the vendor and ask for
help since it appears to have stumped every body here
Good luck
Art

On 4 May 2007 10:15:12 -0700, art wrote:

Seems like mirror image is your stumbling block.

Hi Art,

As there are 3 planes at which a mirror could be set (if one simply
approaches it through the principle axis; if not, there is an infinte
number of mirror choices), the stumbling block is (and has always
been) with an incomplete description.

It has only taken you 8 postings to do what could have been done once
in the beginning - if in fact all the details have been offered.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 4 May, 03:58, "Dave" wrote:
Thus contrary to dismissing Maxwell I am
confirming the laws by an independent avenue.


ah, so your antenna can't be any different than any other parasitically
coupled antenna. you can wave your hands all you want about equilibrium and
adding time to gauss'es law where it doesn't need to be. but if your
antennas conform to the standard maxwell equations and can be modeled with
standard modeling software, then they are nothing new. So what is the big
deal about them? and why try to patent something that has nothing new to
it???

Possibly I did not understand your original coordinates as follows:

X Y Z X Y Z
273.3 164.1 820 273.3 -164.1 820
25.1 203.3 1079 25.1 -203.3 1079
171.1 202.1 582 171.1 -202.1 582
321.6 178.4 1036.5 321.6 -178.4 1036.5
2.1 206.5 701.2 2.1 -206.5 701.2
153.5 194.5 1038.1 153.5 -194.5 1038.1
1 source
wire 6, centre
I interpreted the above as:

Wire #1
X1 = 273.3, X2 = 25.1;
Y1 = 164.1, Y2 = 203.3; and
Z1 = 820, Z2 = 1079.

Wire #2
X1 = 171.1, X2 = 321.6;
Y1 = 202.1, Y2 = 178.4;and
Z1 = 582, Z2 = 1035.6.

Wire #3
X1 = 2.1, X2 = 153.5;
Y1 = 206.5, Y2 = 194.5;and
Z1 = 701.2, Z2 = 1038.1.

The lengths of the wires were determined by
SQRT((X2-X1)^2+(Y2-Y1)^2+(Z2-Z1)^2). The results
made some sense since the lengths were approximately
what would be expected in the region of 14 MHz. The driven element
was selected as Wire #3. I mirrored the above wires across the X - Z
plane (The only possible plane), by changing all Y coordinates to
negative values. The resultant array therefore consisted of six
elements. The mirrored Wire #3 was not driven. Note
that wrapping the elements in fiberglass tape will modify the
electrical lengths by a small amount.

Since you appear to have actually constructed a model I am
curious how you measured the parameters listed in your
original posting. What equipment did you use? How
did you determine the gain, and take-off angle?

Frank- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Note that I have added the mirror dimensions above.
Seems like mirror image is your stumbling block.
Where did you get your program from since it may have been
modified or corrected.? My program is over 20 years old so
I am assuming it has stood the test of time. I am sorry I can't help
you
with your particular program and since help is not forth coming from
this antenna group I would go back to the vendor and ask for
help since it appears to have stumped every body here
Good luck
Art

Ok, I had interpreted your dimensions correctly. The only change
required was that the feed is now applied to wire #6.

Results:

Gain + 6.9 dBi
F/B ratio 23.1 dB (offset 20 degrees from pattern rear)
TOA 11 deg.
Zin 78.4 - j 27.1

My program is GNEC (v1.62d) from Nittany Scientific
(www.nittany-scientific.com). The program includes the NEC2/NEC4
cores optimized for 32 bit Windows.

Frank

NEC code used:

CM Gaussian Array
CE
GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65
GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65
GW 4 30 273.3 -164.1 820 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65
GW 5 41 171.1 -202.1 582 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 6 31 2.1 -206.5 701.2 153.5 -194.5 1038.1 0.65
GS 0 0 0.025400
GE 1 -1 0
GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050
EX 0 6 16 0 1 0
FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05
LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7
RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 202 1 1
EN

On 4 May, 12:54, "Frank's"
wrote:
Possibly I did not understand your original coordinates as follows:

X Y Z X Y Z
273.3 164.1 820 273.3 -164.1 820
25.1 203.3 1079 25.1 -203.3 1079
171.1 202.1 582 171.1 -202.1 582
321.6 178.4 1036.5 321.6 -178.4 1036.5
2.1 206.5 701.2 2.1 -206.5 701.2
153.5 194.5 1038.1 153.5 -194.5 1038.1
1 source
wire 6, centre
I interpreted the above as:

Wire #1
X1 = 273.3, X2 = 25.1;
Y1 = 164.1, Y2 = 203.3; and
Z1 = 820, Z2 = 1079.

Wire #2
X1 = 171.1, X2 = 321.6;
Y1 = 202.1, Y2 = 178.4;and
Z1 = 582, Z2 = 1035.6.

Wire #3
X1 = 2.1, X2 = 153.5;
Y1 = 206.5, Y2 = 194.5;and
Z1 = 701.2, Z2 = 1038.1.

The lengths of the wires were determined by
SQRT((X2-X1)^2+(Y2-Y1)^2+(Z2-Z1)^2). The results
made some sense since the lengths were approximately
what would be expected in the region of 14 MHz. The driven element
was selected as Wire #3. I mirrored the above wires across the X - Z
plane (The only possible plane), by changing all Y coordinates to
negative values. The resultant array therefore consisted of six
elements. The mirrored Wire #3 was not driven. Note
that wrapping the elements in fiberglass tape will modify the
electrical lengths by a small amount.

Since you appear to have actually constructed a model I am
curious how you measured the parameters listed in your
original posting. What equipment did you use? How
did you determine the gain, and take-off angle?

Frank- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Note that I have added the mirror dimensions above.
Seems like mirror image is your stumbling block.
Where did you get your program from since it may have been
modified or corrected.? My program is over 20 years old so
I am assuming it has stood the test of time. I am sorry I can't help
you
with your particular program and since help is not forth coming from
this antenna group I would go back to the vendor and ask for
help since it appears to have stumped every body here
Good luck
Art

Ok, I had interpreted your dimensions correctly. The only change
required was that the feed is now applied to wire #6.

Results:

Gain + 6.9 dBi
F/B ratio 23.1 dB (offset 20 degrees from pattern rear)
TOA 11 deg.
Zin 78.4 - j 27.1

My program is GNEC (v1.62d) from Nittany Scientific
(www.nittany-scientific.com). The program includes the NEC2/NEC4
cores optimized for 32 bit Windows.

Frank

NEC code used:

CM Gaussian Array
CE
GW 1 30 273.3 164.1 820 25.1 203.3 1079 0.65
GW 2 41 171.1 202.1 582 321.6 178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 3 31 2.1 206.5 701.2 153.5 194.5 1038.1 0.65
GW 4 30 273.3 -164.1 820 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65
GW 5 41 171.1 -202.1 582 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 6 31 2.1 -206.5 701.2 153.5 -194.5 1038.1 0.65
GS 0 0 0.025400
GE 1 -1 0
GN 2 0 0 0 13.0000 0.0050
EX 0 6 16 0 1 0
FR 0 5 0 0 14.15 0.05
LD 5 0 0 0 3.08E7
RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 202 1 1
EN- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank, thanks for sticking with the pursuit despite the lack of help
from the hams on the antenna group. There obviously is a big
difference in the concluding results so the onus is certainly upon me
to recheck my typing from the program to my posting. I am quite sure
if the error was on your side the vultures would have arrived at your
door. Possibly you have annoyed them in the past which is why they are
not helping you. After I have checked things out I certainly will get
back to you and share my findings since you have applied so much
effort on this subject.
My very best regards and thankyou for your efforts, it certainly was
appreceated regardless of the outcome.
My wife's birthday today so it is always possible that something will
come up so please be patient with me. In the mean time it would be
instructive if you applied feed to each of the other elements in turn
as it may supply a clue in the future. In the mean time we will watch
the vultures come after me with the conviction that all is really
known about antennas and I am an idiot to think otherwise while in the
company of so many experts.
Art Unwin KB9MZ........XG