On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:14:22 GMT, " Art Unwin KB9MZ"
wrote:

Nothing on that post

I dunno. When I read it, it looked like a reference to graphical
analysis or the projection of a point that represents a mean within a
surface area (which, again, harkens back to the "sinusoidal" current
distribution curve).

Art,

Write again when you do have something then.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, then please,please provide us all with
the facts that you are holding back and enlighten
Cecil and others how Eznec can be manipulated
into tackling the problem of replacing a non dimensional
inductance to one that has physical dimensions
so that all pertinent questions can be answered
If Roy has published a later version of Eznec
that can handle variables which is now the norm
for modern programs more power to him but I am
sure he would let us know So Richard you have
posted many times on this thread with your
normal aloofnes but now is the time surely that
you supply the facts. I and many others say
Eznec cannot handle it,you say baloney yet
your last stab at it proved fruitless
This time give us the real skinny on how Eznec
can handle it. Since you knocked Roy's socalled
poor attitude on one of your latest posts he
obviously is not going to return purely to save you.
So to prove that it is baloney step forward
with the facts which up to now you have not divulged.
Yup it is crunch time, we are all waiting for this
gottcha that you are poised to declare.
We are listening ,show us and especialy Cecil
what you are made of,
that with one single posting you can put us all to shame

Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG






Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:14:22 GMT, " Art Unwin KB9MZ"
wrote:

Nothing on that post

I dunno. When I read it, it looked like a reference to graphical
analysis or the projection of a point that represents a mean within a
surface area (which, again, harkens back to the "sinusoidal" current
distribution curve).

Art,

Write again when you do have something then.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Richard, then please,please provide us all with
the facts that you are holding back and enlighten

Richard speak up.... You are on center stage what you have always wanted. We
can all see you standing their with your tights on and the ochestra has
given you more than one cue but still nothing.
We don't mind if you stutter or if your voice is high pitched we are all
interested in the facts that you are about to share with respect to Eznec
and lumped circuitry.
Cum on now, don't be shy, it is your moment on center stage... sieze the
opportunity. Let me get you started
Eznec can do it by....by... cum on
say it Sargent Friday surely told you what your audience is waiting for. No
we are not looking at that evr growing
pool at your feet we just want what Joe Friday wants
the facts,nothing but the facts.
I am not going to ignore you anymore, I have succumbed
to your need to show everybody your special skills so have at it I am
listening to the one who not only threw the first stone but also the second
and third stone so now you have my full attention. This thread has obviously
come to an end and you have the last word, the facts and only the facts
No don't say not enough facts have been given to you like you said on the
lightening thread, we will wait while you refresh your memory or put on a
clean pair of tights.n fact put on a cumber band at the same time incase you
go belly up when you come back. We will wait for you,
remember now Eznec can be used to solve the problem
to say otherwise is baloney because I...I
....I am now going to share with all the true facts that I have been holding
back which is, which is....er...er
which is...is....I know , you are trying to expose me
for what I am !!!!


Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

On 1 Feb 2004 20:21:26 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

how Eznec can be manipulated
into tackling the problem of replacing a non dimensional
inductance to one that has physical dimensions
so that all pertinent questions can be answered

Art,

It is clear that you write far more than you read. I did this already
in a posting, in this thread:
This may be found at:
http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm
to which you responded:
Obscure posting
So clearly, even with the information offered, you lack the capacity
to follow the rather simple instructions offered by
1.) Yuri,
2.) Roy,
3.) Myself
that must've occupied all of two sentences.

So to prove that it is baloney step forward
with the facts which up to now you have not divulged.

Art seeing it was YOUR claim, it is clearly baloney barring any
demonstration from you (we should live so long) of its accuracy,
irregardless of how
1.) Yuri,
2.) Roy,
3.) Myself
offer solutions.

What is more to the issue, is that it doesn't amount to 1dB
difference, a fact that is clearly upheld by work outside of EZNEC by
Wes.
www.qsl.net/n7ws
to which you responded:
Nothing on that post

So there you have it. Two sources, 4 individuals' work, and you have
nothing to offer - still.

You can at least let us know if you saw your shadow. If you cannot
muster the facts to answer this, I see no reason to respond to your
whining.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
What is more to the issue, is that it doesn't amount to 1dB
difference, a fact that is clearly upheld by work outside of EZNEC by
Wes. www.qsl.net/n7ws

Ahhhh, but the argument was *never* over the dB's of difference. The
argument was over whether a current taper exists in a mobile 75m
Bugcatcher coil. Wes's modeled distributed coils even possess a current
taper as does all but one of the coils measured by W7EL and W8JI.
Introducing dB's of difference is just a diversion. "What difference
does it make how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is one
more question that doesn't even come close to answering the original
question.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:12:54 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

doesn't even come close to answering the original
question.

It was a ****-ant question in the first place.

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
doesn't even come close to answering the original
question.

It was a ****-ant question in the first place.

Let's see - that's either sour grapes or sweet lemons -
I can't remember which.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:40:40 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
doesn't even come close to answering the original
question.

It was a ****-ant question in the first place.

Let's see - that's either sour grapes or sweet lemons -
I can't remember which.

See? Even you can't tell the difference.

I can not believe what you are saying!

This thread is initiated by Wes not Yuri
I have not read anywhere that Wes, and Roy and Yuri supports your position
that Eznec can handle lumped loads in a real world situation. In fact I
seem to remember that Yuri in the past stated that computor programs
proffered by Tom who was using Eznec, did not reflect reality and was going
to prove same with a series of experiments in the near future. Not only that
Yuri has been off shore for most of this thread and has participated very
little, prior to that he was under the weather.
Now we come to the other person who you say supports you., Roy Roy has not
participated in this thread started by Wes so where is that statement that
his program Eznec
can handle all the requirements placed on it by lumped loads. After you
dissed him last week on another thread I can hardly believe he communicated
privately with you regarding his program?
Now we come to Wes...Wes is the originator of this thread which was a
debate based on his modelling submission
I do not recall him saying anything that supports your assertion. In fact
when I looked at what he proffered on this thread I seem to remember that it
reflected a radiating member of diameter equal to a real world coil into
which was inserted a point, lumped load that was dimensionaless.
I am sure he had good reason to do it that way but it certainly does not
reflect a real world situation that Yuri,
Cecil and I was looking for. Tho I must state firmly that
only Wes 'walked the walk' in an effort to resolve a problem and deserves
the thanks of all in trying to resolve it in one of many ways

So I do not believe what you are saying and you are playing around with the
word "truth"

So now you have exposed yourself again for what you are, unless you can
find in this thread or show that the associations with your statement
regarding Eznec is true per private conversation or otherwise.
I would be very curious if Roy supported your statement regarding Eznec and
lumped loads, as would many of those who purchased his program which
provided so many insights to antenna design. In fact I seem to remember a
very clear statement by Roy saying his programs had no variable abilities
which would be a requirement for real world analysis, however, I will leave
him to speak for himself as his knoweledge regarding antennas and modeling
is renown world wide.
I have also showed all the posts that you made on this thread
None of these provided facts , only opinions of yours that you have on other
people, sarcastic in the main.
Now I see that Cecil has brought up the subject directly with you and I urge
every body to read them to ascertain what facts you are offering in
return.or show how you avoid the issue as you have done many times in the
past.
My guess it will be the smear and run tactic that you off times use.
So Richard ,gather the supporters you have specifically quoted so they can
vouch for your assertions made with regard to Eznec and lumped loads to
prove you are not the liar that your posting appear to suggest.
Infact, if either Wes or Roy confirmes your "baloney" position statement I
will supply a public apology to you since both of them hold my respect with
regard to computor modeling. I still have vivid memories of where you argued
for ages regarding contact fidelity
where you pretty much said that contact pressure was everything and 'wipe'
was nothing which is just laughable in industry but not apparently in the
expert teaching of meterology in which you claim high education ..
Well this time all posters will see what you are unless you can show
otherwise.. You should never put people in a situation that they must accept
what you say without prior permission. You have forced a burden upon them.by
speaking for them knowing that they made no such statement.and have thus
caused embarasment to them.

Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG



"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On 1 Feb 2004 20:21:26 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

how Eznec can be manipulated
into tackling the problem of replacing a non dimensional
inductance to one that has physical dimensions
so that all pertinent questions can be answered

Art,

It is clear that you write far more than you read. I did this already
in a posting, in this thread:
This may be found at:
http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm
to which you responded:
Obscure posting
So clearly, even with the information offered, you lack the capacity
to follow the rather simple instructions offered by
1.) Yuri,
2.) Roy,
3.) Myself
that must've occupied all of two sentences.

So to prove that it is baloney step forward
with the facts which up to now you have not divulged.

Art seeing it was YOUR claim, it is clearly baloney barring any
demonstration from you (we should live so long) of its accuracy,
irregardless of how
1.) Yuri,
2.) Roy,
3.) Myself
offer solutions.

What is more to the issue, is that it doesn't amount to 1dB
difference, a fact that is clearly upheld by work outside of EZNEC by
Wes.
www.qsl.net/n7ws
to which you responded:
Nothing on that post

So there you have it. Two sources, 4 individuals' work, and you have
nothing to offer - still.

You can at least let us know if you saw your shadow. If you cannot
muster the facts to answer this, I see no reason to respond to your
whining.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:31:05 GMT, " Art Unwin KB9MZ"
wrote:
I have not read anywhere that Wes, and Roy and Yuri

That has been for your lack of reading. Thus I keep this to one line.