Art Unwin wrote:
'elements are in cluster form where each element is aimed at resonance
as is the array in its entirety."

Art may have spilled the beans above.

A feature in Ham pages is "Fact of the Day" from Tigertek Inc. Their
December 21, 2006 was "Virtually-Pure Horizontal Polarization". It is
copyrighted, but appeared immediately when I searched on "ham radio fact
of the day by Tigertek". The item rang a bell when it said that magnetic
dipoles that meet the requirements are sometimes inefficient so several
are clustered together and fed in-phase.

That does not mean that Art has no novelty, but it may or may not make a
good patent.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 4 May, 13:21, art wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank, I could not find anything that would have caused a problem.
I intend now to up the segment a lot and then reload the program and
start again
which will take some time.
Art

Frank, I could not find anything that would have caused a problem.
I intend now to up the segment a lot and then reload the program and
start again
which will take some time.
Art

Hold everything Art. It seems I did not understand how your
coordinates were set up. Thanks to somebody who pointed
out my error -- now back to the drawing board!!

Frank

On 4 May, 17:06, "Frank's"
wrote:
Frank, I could not find anything that would have caused a problem.
I intend now to up the segment a lot and then reload the program and
start again
which will take some time.
Art

Hold everything Art. It seems I did not understand how your
coordinates were set up. Thanks to somebody who pointed
out my error -- now back to the drawing board!!

Frank

O.K. But don't forget to thank the person who pointed it out, and do
it PRIVATELY
Help is hard to get these days and you should protect his identity.
For myself
I want to thank that person very much for taking such a risk. I really
did not want to take out my program and then reload it for fear of
losing everything, now I don't have to take the risk.
I was looking at MMANA as a possible down load for checking purposes
even tho similar programs have been checked successfully using NEC 4
but this is not the time to put my laptop in danger
Thanks a bunch
Art

"Frank's" wrote in message
news:ZTP_h.4028$Vi6.2131@edtnps82...
Frank, I could not find anything that would have caused a problem.
I intend now to up the segment a lot and then reload the program and
start again
which will take some time.
Art

Hold everything Art. It seems I did not understand how your
coordinates were set up. Thanks to somebody who pointed
out my error -- now back to the drawing board!!

Frank

Code modified as shown below:

CM Gaussian Array
CE
GW 1 31 273.3 164.1 820 273.3 -164.1 820 0.65
GW 2 41 25.1 203.3 1079 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65
GW 3 31 171.1 202.1 582 171.1 -202.1 582 0.65
GW 4 30 321.6 178.4 1036.5 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 5 41 2.1 206.5 701.2 2.1 -206.5 701.2 0.65
GW 6 31 153.5 194.5 1038.1 153.5 -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 1 361 1000 79 0 1 1
EN

Results at 14.25 MHz:

Gain = +14.6 dB
F/B ration = 31.5 dB
TOA = 11 degrees
Zin = 27.0 + j 0.25

These results appear to agree with your findings.
The structure could be fine tuned by including the insulation
and element tapering. Also I have not fully balanced the
segmentation. The only question I have is
how does this compare with a conventional 6 element
yagi at the same nominal height of 85 ft.

Frank

On 4 May, 18:08, "Frank's"
wrote:
"Frank's" wrote in message

news:ZTP_h.4028$Vi6.2131@edtnps82...

Frank, I could not find anything that would have caused a problem.
I intend now to up the segment a lot and then reload the program and
start again
which will take some time.
Art

Hold everything Art. It seems I did not understand how your
coordinates were set up. Thanks to somebody who pointed
out my error -- now back to the drawing board!!

Frank

Code modified as shown below:

CM Gaussian Array
CE
GW 1 31 273.3 164.1 820 273.3 -164.1 820 0.65
GW 2 41 25.1 203.3 1079 25.1 -203.3 1079 0.65
GW 3 31 171.1 202.1 582 171.1 -202.1 582 0.65
GW 4 30 321.6 178.4 1036.5 321.6 -178.4 1036.5 0.65
GW 5 41 2.1 206.5 701.2 2.1 -206.5 701.2 0.65
GW 6 31 153.5 194.5 1038.1 153.5 -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 1 361 1000 79 0 1 1
EN

Results at 14.25 MHz:

Gain = +14.6 dB
F/B ration = 31.5 dB
TOA = 11 degrees
Zin = 27.0 + j 0.25

These results appear to agree with your findings.
The structure could be fine tuned by including the insulation
and element tapering. Also I have not fully balanced the
segmentation. The only question I have is
how does this compare with a conventional 6 element
yagi at the same nominal height of 85 ft.

Frank

Frank,
I am very gratefull to both you and the other person who helped you
out.
To compare this particular model with say a yagi would be difficult. I
provided it as a sample only and in a simplistic form for review of
those you may be interested. What it does show is beam width that has
not been compressed by focussing as with the yagi as well as a
naturally high f/b even tho conventional reflectors are not used. What
is important to me is that it is back up proof of my concept in
addition to the mathematical aproach which has been rejected by all.
I see this as a major step forward in the design of antennas
especially for WiFi where even coverage
is desired Even with this bare model the beamwidth can be increased
enormously with just a slight modification, and the bandwidth can be
increased also over the Yagi.
There is no doubt that a fully developed gaussian array will provide
better results in many ways for real estate used, not that ships have
a requirement for an extra long yagi at HF. So again Frank thank you
so much for putting this thing to rest. It has been nearly 100 years
since the Yagi and a hard battle against those who followed the view
that all is known about antennas. Naturally I have not explored all
the variations of this new concept and I expect when industry gets a
hold of it more surprises will come to the fore since there are so
many universities joining the hunt for a better antennas for cell
phones because of the dropped call problems since this antenna allows
for more Gaussian channels because of its polarity purity. If you want
to write it up for any reason or show it to your club e.t.c
then be my guest tho I must tell you that a patent request has been in
the channels for quite a while. For myself I have no interest in
pursing it anymore since change is considered so unacceptable by many
that they resort to abuse. If you need any more info you can E mail me
any time at the address shown above and I will supply all I can. If
you look back a few weeks and months and even over a year you will see
many postings on the subject with a special reference to a gentleman
from M.I.T. a Doctor in fact who went to extraordinary lengths to
supply the mathematical proofs to this concept just a couple of weeks
ago and to whom I owe a lot of thanks since his apearance on the scene
was not exactly welcome by some of the couch masters..
So now thanks to you this subject can be seen as closed and insults
should now come to an end especially when written in a book which in
this group gives it overiding power. Now it will be interesting to see
what the amateur community can do with this new finding tho naturally
there will be a period where the average ham will enlarge on all the
negative things over any good things.
Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ ............XG
Bloomington IL

Frank's wrote:
. . .
These results appear to agree with your findings.
The structure could be fine tuned by including the insulation
and element tapering. Also I have not fully balanced the
segmentation. The only question I have is
how does this compare with a conventional 6 element
yagi at the same nominal height of 85 ft.

Out of curiosity, I brought up an EZNEC model of two stacked 5 element
beams from the ARRL Antenna Book, 20th Ed., model ARRL_5L15 95'.EZ. I
deleted half the elements to leave a single 5 element array, and lowered
it to 65 feet. I also changed the current source to a voltage source for
simplicity, and removed the wire loss (which EZNEC translates to NEC as
a bunch of loads) -- the wire loss makes a difference of only 0.05 dB.
Here's an NEC model of the 5 element array up 65':

CM 5L15 95'
CE
GW 1,11,-3.464585,-3.528538,19.812,-3.464585,3.528612,19.812,.008906
GW 2,11,-1.766258,-3.345701,19.812,-1.766258,3.3457,19.812,.0088644
GW 3,11,-.4925144,-3.283913,19.812,-.4925144,3.283913,19.812,.0089841
GW 4,11,1.120895,-2.98782,19.812,1.120895,2.98782,19.812,.0087506
GW 5,11,3.464584,-2.793987,19.812,3.464584,2.793987,19.812,.009137
GE 1
FR 0,1,0,0,21.2
GN 2,0,0,0,13.,.005
EX 0,2,6,0,1.414214,0.
RP 0,1,361,1000,80.,0.,0.,1.,0.
EN

Gain as-is is 14.11 dBi; with loss, 14.07 dBi. Zin = 21.51 - j22.26
ohms. Takeoff angle is 10 degrees.

Seems to me this would be a lot easier to build and support than the
"Gaussian" model. And I'll bet you could make up the half dB gain
difference quite easily by adding a sixth element.

People with the 20th Edition of the Antenna Book can open the model,
make the same modifications I did, and run it with the EZNEC ARRL
program furnished with the Antenna Book, or any EZNEC program type
except the demo.

Anyone who's impressed with the gain figure of either antenna should
model a dipole at the same height for comparison.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 4 May, 18:08, "Frank's"
wrote:
What it does show is beam width that has
not been compressed by focussing as with the yagi as well as a

wider beam equals lower gain, this is and advantage??

naturally high f/b even tho conventional reflectors are not used.

this is easy to do without reflectors, 2 element vertical arrays can have
extremely high f/b ratios with no 'conventional reflector'.

phones because of the dropped call problems since this antenna allows
for more Gaussian channels because of its polarity purity. If you want

define: 'Gaussian channel' and 'polarity purity' and how they prevent
dropped calls.

On Sat, 05 May 2007 00:20:08 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Anyone who's impressed with the gain figure of either antenna should
model a dipole at the same height for comparison.


Hi Roy,

A useful suggestion. Having a reference is always the point to start
from.

Another option, as for all of Art's designs, throw away half the
elements to improve performance.

Easier yet, simply pull up a design that has been around 80 years
(found in most books on the subject of Antennas), the Yagi. Case in
point (and illustrating my comment about throwing away three of those
six wires) is available without thinking, designing, or going to the
library: simply use the free version of EZNEC and open NBSYAGI.EZ.

To make it comparable to the description that has taken a dozen
postings to sort out:
1. shift the units to inches (makes absolutely no difference on the
original design);
2. shift the frequency, along with a rescale, to 14.25 Mhz (makes
absolutely no difference on the original design);
3. raise the antenna by 1400 inches (makes absolutely no difference
on the original design);
4. change the ground type to perfect (makes absolutely no difference
on the original design);
5. change the plot type to 3D (makes absolutely no difference on the
original design);
6. change the Step Size to 1 degree (makes absolutely no difference
on the original design).

Now, to enjoy the rewards of the triumph of truth:
1. press the FF Plot
2. press the show 2D plot

Results:
Gain: 15.58 dBi
toa: 8 degrees

Differences?
MORE GAIN THAN THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE
LOWER LAUNCH ANGLE THAN THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE
HALF THE ELEMENTS OF THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE
SIMPLER TO CONSTRUCT THAN THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE
THEORY AVAILABLE, NOT SO WITH THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE
DESIGN IS FREE, NOT SO WITH THE INEFFICIENT GAUSSIAN BUNDLE

[no Gauss were harmed during the analysis of these antennas]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:
"Having a reference is always the point to start from."

Kraus compares his W8JK array with its two dipoles spaced only
1/8-wavelength apart, against an array with its two dipoles spaced
1/2-wavelength, one dipole above the other. These two arrays are both
pictured on page 184 of the 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas". Though the
gain of either array is about 6 dB, the inherent impedance of the W8JK
array is low due to its close spacing and coupling. Impedance of the
1/2-wave-spaced array is 333 ohms at its drivepoint. Impedance of the
W8JK is adjusted with a stub to match the feedline. Its inherent low
impedance may cost the W8JK about a fraction of a dB in efficiency (see
page 187) but as both dipoles are high (sharing the same horizontal
plane) a lowered angle of maximum radiation has proved advantageous for
the W8JK.

Kraus` comparison seems fair and his disclosure seems complete. Maybe
that`s why the the antenna array known by his amateur radio call sign is
famous.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI