Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NEC computor programs
How confident are you regarding the validity of your computor
program that you designed or purchased. If your program will handle multi variable dimensions to pursue a desired course of design then insert a program where all dimensions are variable. But first write down what you expect from your program. If the computor finds you to be correct then you surely are an expert. But what if it doesn't? Do you want to learn from it or keep quiet.? What mettle of man are you? Hint keep one dimension constant to prevent the program from going AWOL Art KB9MZ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NEC computor programs
On 27 feb, 20:22, "art" wrote:
But what if it doesn't? Do you want to learn from it or keep quiet.? It was just fun trying to make such a program, it kept me from the streets and I learned a lot from it... :-) Arie. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NEC computor programs
On 28 Feb, 00:46, "4nec2" wrote:
On 27 feb, 20:22, "art" wrote: But what if it doesn't? Do you want to learn from it or keep quiet.? It was just fun trying to make such a program, it kept me from the streets and I learned a lot from it... :-) Arie. Did you test your own program and what was the outcome? I thought you would be crowing or crying not quiet about it Art |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NEC computor programs
On 28 Feb, 16:24, "art" wrote:
On 28 Feb, 00:46, "4nec2" wrote: On 27 feb, 20:22, "art" wrote: But what if it doesn't? Do you want to learn from it or keep quiet.? It was just fun trying to make such a program, it kept me from the streets and I learned a lot from it... :-) Arie. Dhere d you test your own program and what was the outcome? I thought you would be crowing or crying not quiet about it Art These computor programs that are being offered by many is really bothering me. Since the early days of antenna programming where there was oversight over the accuracy of programs and where it was released to the public there has been no oversight. That means that anybody can sell a computor program with algorithms that are faulty and even be granted a patent. Thus amateurs and professionals are now buying antenna computor programs on pure trust! Who would have believed that science would come to this, pure trust and put themselves at risk. Now I have provided the basis of a totally new series of antennas so can I generate an algerithm that supports my claim and sell it to the masses? Yes I sure can as long as I protect the generation of Yagi's there is nobody out there that can challenge me. And these programs could then end up being used by Governments as they are not interested in checking the underlying facts as that is for a beurocrat to follow up on. The present crop of programs made around unknown and unchecked algorithms do not in the main allow for comparisom checks against other programs and frankly they all differ in their results which we all blow away since so much is based on empirical analysis and as such one will vary from another. I put out a challenge for any computor program regardless of what algarithms were used to come out with the same design using variables such that erronius algorithms could not be protected btu programmers need the money and will not agree to that and the government will buy it anyway. I stated earlier that in a way the yagi put science back a few decades and the yagi designs are perpetuating this dragging. When will those who have the power step into this morass and clear things up such that we can move towards accuracy? When will we have programs that totally agree with each other such that the likes of W4RNL doesn't have to alert us to areas where we must fudge a bit? If the power of a lashing tongue is always able to repell the advance of science we are indeed in a sorry state. Who amongst you can voutch for the veracity or accuracy of the program that you put your trust into via personal contact of all the intricancies that the programmer placed into it without oversight? Art Unwin KB9MZ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NEC computor programs
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NEC computor programs
On 5 Mar, 09:59, Roy Lewallen wrote:
snip Anyone who claims to have discovered principles which are beyond those incorporated in current programs has a heavy burden of proof to bear. The principle that I have discovered is not in a book but if a program is made up of proven facts of the masters proves one thing that is not ably checked by other programs based on the same facts then humasn intervention is the problem and not the principles of the masters. If one deduces an area that the masters have neglected to expand and a computor 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 Computor programs made by professionals do not agree with each other so there is a problem. Who would use a digital calculator with confidence when all calculators are only roughly accurate. As far as "vague claims" professional programs of today validate my "speculative" claims. it does not threaten anything of yours since yours are just number crunchers for pre made designs and even then they are not totally accurate. Nobody but nobody has invalidated my expansion of the law of statics. Nobody.Didn't the same thing happen to all the masters at one time or another. Art art Now it is your turn to wave the hands again |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|