NEC computor programs
 

art wrote:


Gene,
last time you wrote to me you said you were dumber than a rock and I
took you at your word. I just read your last paragraph and I do not
understand a bit of it other than a collection of words. I have not
"invented" anything I have discovered something! "Nothing to validate
or invalidate?" Sorry but I now echo Roys normal statement Is it
refering to invention, discovery or the companionship of a rock?. Odd
thing is you are adressing it to me., What do you want from me or are
you reading from the bible or something such that you are soothed by
the echo of your speech? Shall we just say it is not all clear as you
surmised. I do admit to the idea that all is not known about antennas,
is that what this is all about? On top of all that no
one has faulted my analysis with authority so whats the beef? Why are
you throwing rocks?
Art


Art,

Let me put it in even simpler terms.

What you have "discovered" has been well known for over 100 years. Your
"discovery" was validated before any of us was born.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

NEC computor programs
 

On 5 Mar, 14:50, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

Gene,
last time you wrote to me you said you were dumber than a rock and I
took you at your word. I just read your last paragraph and I do not
understand a bit of it other than a collection of words. I have not
"invented" anything I have discovered something! "Nothing to validate
or invalidate?" Sorry but I now echo Roys normal statement Is it
refering to invention, discovery or the companionship of a rock?. Odd
thing is you are adressing it to me., What do you want from me or are
you reading from the bible or something such that you are soothed by
the echo of your speech? Shall we just say it is not all clear as you
surmised. I do admit to the idea that all is not known about antennas,
is that what this is all about? On top of all that no
one has faulted my analysis with authority so whats the beef? Why are
you throwing rocks?
Art

Art,

Let me put it in even simpler terms.

What you have "discovered" has been well known for over 100 years. Your
"discovery" was validated before any of us was born.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pray tell what I have discovered and what antenna program experience
are you drawing upon with respect to your statements. Now to the term
"validated". What does validated mean, is it a collective term? If so
what comprised as a group the term collective? And what in factwere
they validating and how. When and where would help to.
And you seem to be a group of one who recognises what discovery I have
found that it was known about years ago. So why not spit it out and
help out the readers so all know what you are disputing. What I have
uttered has not previously known/understood,even by the maestro Roy
because it is not in any book, and has not been utelised by anybody to
the best of my knoweledge. But you seem to have a handle on the whole
things so with steps of knowelege and logic give all of us the benefit
of your insight so I may advance my case. Again what's your beaf?
Art

NEC computor programs
 

On 5 Mar, 14:50, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

Gene,
last time you wrote to me you said you were dumber than a rock and I
took you at your word. I just read your last paragraph and I do not
understand a bit of it other than a collection of words. I have not
"invented" anything I have discovered something! "Nothing to validate
or invalidate?" Sorry but I now echo Roys normal statement Is it
refering to invention, discovery or the companionship of a rock?. Odd
thing is you are adressing it to me., What do you want from me or are
you reading from the bible or something such that you are soothed by
the echo of your speech? Shall we just say it is not all clear as you
surmised. I do admit to the idea that all is not known about antennas,
is that what this is all about? On top of all that no
one has faulted my analysis with authority so whats the beef? Why are
you throwing rocks?
Art

Art,

Let me put it in even simpler terms.

What you have "discovered" has been well known for over 100 years. Your
"discovery" was validated before any of us was born.

What, where, when and where is it written?
What, where, when and where is it written?
Explain yourself





73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NEC computor programs
 

art wrote:
On 5 Mar, 14:50, Gene Fuller wrote:

Art,

Let me put it in even simpler terms.

What you have "discovered" has been well known for over 100 years. Your
"discovery" was validated before any of us was born.

What, where, when and where is it written?
What, where, when and where is it written?
Explain yourself




73,
Gene
W4SZ

Art,

Pick up any book that includes a discussion of Maxwell's Equations. One
of the equations will be something like:

div D = rho

The common expression of Gauss' Law is something like:

div E = rho / epsilon

By definition:

D = E * epsilon

Therefore Gauss' Law is already included in all radiation and all
antennas. You can perform any amount of mathematical manipulation you
wish, including expressing these equations in integral rather than
differential form. The integral form is commonly used when discussing
the Gaussian "pillbox" in electrostatics. However, the physical
conditions remain the same.

You have stated on many occasions that you understand this sort of
vector manipulation, e.g., you throw curls around freely, so no further
explanation should be necessary.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

NEC computor programs
 

On 5 Mar, 16:35, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
On 5 Mar, 14:50, Gene Fuller wrote:
Art,

Let me put it in even simpler terms.

What you have "discovered" has been well known for over 100 years. Your
"discovery" was validated before any of us was born.

What, where, when and where is it written?
What, where, when and where is it written?
Explain yourself

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Art,

Pick up any book that includes a discussion of Maxwell's Equations. One
of the equations will be something like:

div D = rho

The common expression of Gauss' Law is something like:

div E = rho / epsilon

By definition:

D = E * epsilon

Therefore Gauss' Law is already included in all radiation and all
antennas.

Yes the law is every where. What am I suppose to be claiming so that
we can get on subject. I don't want to be bombarded with irrelavent
facts.



You can perform any amount of mathematical manipulation you
wish, including expressing these equations in integral rather than
differential form. The integral form is commonly used when discussing
the Gaussian "pillbox" in electrostatics.

I agree and they are correct as far as they have ventured


However, the physical
conditions remain the same.
yes when talking about electrostatics


You have stated on many occasions that you understand this sort of
vector manipulation, This sort?

So am I to assume that you have found a reference to curl by Gauss
specifying its use with respect to electro magnetic fields? Where is
it

So am I to assume that Gauss extended his law on statics to include
electro magnetic fields? Where is that written?

Did he also supply the rational used to arrive at that equation? where
is it written?

e.g., you throw curls around freely, so no further
explanation should be necessary.

You explain what you mean by freely


I don't throw curl around freely but I don't ignor its presence either

where did I throw curl around freely where it wasn't warrented and why
was it not warranted?

Gene you are showing that you are out of your depth, all hand waving
but no facts. The above could prove me wrong if you have the facts.I
have specifically asked for your facts at each point. If you have them
by all means supply them so we can all applaud your hand at
knoweledge.

Art


73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NEC computor programs
 

On 5 Mar, 09:59, Roy Lewallen wrote:
NEC-2 has been in constant use for about 30 years, and it's used daily
to design antennas for a vast multitude of purposes -- antennas which
are used by millions worldwide. It has been shown, over and over, to to
agree closely with measured results. This shouldn't be any big surprise,
since it uses fundamental equations which have been known and verified
for over a century. There are, of course, some limitations to its
abilities, and situations where it gives erroneous results. The vast
majority of these have been found and well documented. And like any
modeling system, computerized or otherwise, a good deal of skill can be
required to match the model with the real object.

Anyone who claims to have discovered principles which are beyond those
incorporated in current programs has a heavy burden of proof to bear.
The very first hurdle to overcome in order to gain any semblance of
credibility is comparison of carefully and professionally measured data
with results from a carefully and professionally created model. If the
differences truly are unexplainable by known deficiencies, then further
investigation is surely warranted. Vague claims, speculations, and
arm-waving with a total lack of any quantitative data are far short of
what is needed to gain the attention of anyone who has seen, over and
over, the successful results these programs routinely provide.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

No, I don't have the burden programmers do. Gaussian arrays are part
of antennas and programmers continue to ignore it. Hopefully so called
"errors" in other programs have escaped yours
I am not familiar with your particular programs since they are just
number crunchers that get you close to the mark but you do have
customers and are very much aware of the Gaussian subject so shouldn't
you recheck your own for accurracy?
Art

NEC computor programs
 

art wrote:

No, I don't have the burden programmers do. Gaussian arrays are part
of antennas and programmers continue to ignore it. Hopefully so called
"errors" in other programs have escaped yours
I am not familiar with your particular programs since they are just
number crunchers that get you close to the mark but you do have
customers and are very much aware of the Gaussian subject so shouldn't
you recheck your own for accurracy?
Art

Well, let's see. I have professional customers who use EZNEC daily to
design complex antennas for commercial, military, and government use. On
many occasions, they test the designs on a test range and find good
correlation between EZNEC and measured results. This has been done over
and over for a wide variety of antennas for years. Countless others have
done the same with NEC and other NEC based programs. I have a standing
request for anyone to report any difference in results between EZNEC and
NEC, and so far have had zero responses except when the user
accidentally made the models different.

On the other hand, I have you weaving your theories but without a single
shred of evidence as far as I can see that the antennas you create have
any advantage over any others, or even that they work as you claim. And
for that matter, I find it nearly impossible to divine exactly what
performance you *are* claiming for your creations.

So, should I check my program for accuracy because of your rambling
conjectures? Certainly not!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

NEC computor programs
 

On 8 Mar, 12:29, Roy Lewallen wrote:
art wrote:

No, I don't have the burden programmers do. Gaussian arrays are part
of antennas and programmers continue to ignore it. Hopefully so called
"errors" in other programs have escaped yours
I am not familiar with your particular programs since they are just
number crunchers that get you close to the mark but you do have
customers and are very much aware of the Gaussian subject so shouldn't
you recheck your own for accurracy?
Art

Well, let's see. I have professional customers who use EZNEC daily to
design complex antennas for commercial, military, and government use. On
many occasions, they test the designs on a test range and find good
correlation between EZNEC and measured results. This has been done over
and over for a wide variety of antennas for years. Countless others have
done the same with NEC and other NEC based programs. I have a standing
request for anyone to report any difference in results between EZNEC and
NEC, and so far have had zero responses except when the user
accidentally made the models different.

On the other hand, I have you weaving your theories but without a single
shred of evidence as far as I can see that the antennas you create have
any advantage over any others, or even that they work as you claim. And
for that matter, I find it nearly impossible to divine exactly what
performance you *are* claiming for your creations.

So, should I check my program for accuracy because of your rambling
conjectures? Certainly not!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Your choice Roy Since you have never had reason to place revisions on
your programs! ( you consider your self as always being right) I see
your point. It has been correct from the get go.
I informed you about the problem in case minninec had some
intertwining with your programs. I am pointing this out because for a
very long time I have been communicating about Gaussian antennas and
from you and others I got howls and ridicule about the whole idea and
the scientific rational behind it.
SO FOR THE MOMENT I bend under pressure from you and your associate
experts to inform you that minninec programs provide evidence of
gaussian arrays.
I have only checked ao and aop for this anomoly that I have been
referring to but I do not have the pocket depth to check all programs
that are connected to NEC. Thus I am alerting you and all nec users
that despite my efforts to show that this is not an error the majority
of experts think otherwise therefore, it would be appropiate for
programmers to see how far this error is embedded if it is an error
and take corrective action.

Just so you don't take your normal aproach when you are out of your
depth I am informing you in the simplest way possible that AO and AOP
which uses a form of NEC produces what I term as a gaussian array if
you allow it to procede without pre direction to a yagi and will
always produce a gaussian array. I am not saying this affects you but
just alerting you since the program has been in existence for many
years when it eminated from the government release of the
underpinnings for the likes of you to copy. If gaussian arrays are in
error according to the majority of this newsgroup as well as
professionals then I suggest that such programs are subject to an
overview that portray that they are legitamate. Programmers and
experts certainly cannot have it both ways and follow the jeering
group as lemmings.Something is wrong and you use this newsgroup to
advertise your product so you cannot avoid the fact that you have been
notified in the future what ever that may be so you cannot say you
were unaware.
Certainly your customers would be comforted with your assurances that
it is not necessary to check.
Art

NEC computor programs
 

art wrote:

snip

Your choice Roy Since you have never had reason to place revisions on
your programs! ( you consider your self as always being right) I see
your point. It has been correct from the get go.

Are you out of your friggin' mind?

The current releases of eznec are 3.0.58 and 4.0.34; sounds like a
revision or two to me.

snip remaining babbling, arm waving, idiotic, utter nonsense


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

NEC computor programs
 

On 8 Mar, 14:35, wrote:
art wrote:

snip

Your choice Roy Since you have never had reason to place revisions on
your programs! ( you consider your self as always being right) I see
your point. It has been correct from the get go.

Are you out of your friggin' mind?

The current releases of eznec are 3.0.58 and 4.0.34; sounds like a
revision or two to me.

snip remaining babbling, arm waving, idiotic, utter nonsense

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

My point is that Roy is not free from error Jim and you just made my
point.
Over the last few months or even longer I have tried to rationalise
the
correctness of gaussian arrays in early programs .All experts
determined that such a thing is an error. So now I feel that so called
error should be
removed or subject to some sort of over view. As you know minninec was
one of the early programs as well as Annie to come about over thirty
years ago
and later spawned other verions that have no independent oversite. If
the product is incorrect and I am going by Roys newsnet and amateur
group then programmers should be alerted to it. The collection of
experts if we can call them that state there is no connection between
statics and electromagnetics which this derivitation is spawned from.
If they are correct then the program should be corrected and other
programs that spawn from it should also be checked. This problem has
been thoroughly discussed
by many people of this group and they have come to a consensus albiet
as amateurs so shouldn't their words be headed despite what Roy says?
Art