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

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.

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

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

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

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

art wrote:
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.

I would suggest that the various codes used by professionals DO agree,
within their stated uncertainty limits or the constraints of the model.

A simple mutual coupling approximation based on series expansion of the
exponential integral for idealized dipoles will be very close to that
derived from, say, a method of moments code like NEC2, but they will be
different, because the underlying model is subtly different. However, a
skilled user of such codes is (or should be) aware of the limitations.

Likewise, you can model a vertical monopole over ground with a simple
model (like assuming the ground is infinitely conducting and the
monopole is infinitely thin). Or you can model it as a finite thickness
monopole and a finite conductivity dielectric ground with uniform
properties. Or, you can model it with the rivet heads holding the
aluminum together, the dielectric guy wires, and the actual EM
properties of the soil that have been determined on a 10cm grid for the
surrounding km.

The answers will all be different in the details, but simultaneously the
answers will be the same within the limits of the approximations used.

The devil is in the details of those limits, eh?
Jim

On 5 Mar, 11:00, Jim Lux wrote:
art wrote:
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.

I would suggest that the various codes used by professionals DO agree,
within their stated uncertainty limits or the constraints of the model.

A simple mutual coupling approximation based on series expansion of the
exponential integral for idealized dipoles will be very close to that
derived from, say, a method of moments code like NEC2, but they will be
different, because the underlying model is subtly different. However, a
skilled user of such codes is (or should be) aware of the limitations.

Likewise, you can model a vertical monopole over ground with a simple
model (like assuming the ground is infinitely conducting and the
monopole is infinitely thin). Or you can model it as a finite thickness
monopole and a finite conductivity dielectric ground with uniform
properties. Or, you can model it with the rivet heads holding the
aluminum together, the dielectric guy wires, and the actual EM
properties of the soil that have been determined on a 10cm grid for the
surrounding km.

The answers will all be different in the details, but simultaneously the
answers will be the same within the limits of the approximations used.

The devil is in the details of those limits, eh?
Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well you can run around in circles if you think it denotes progress.
If you are really interested in the subject put the same 3 element
antenna
in super nec and 4 nec2 using all dimensions as variable and guess
before hand what result one will give you compared to what the other
one gives you
and ask yourself why with respect to the answer given.
Ofcourse you can say thats not my job and then shoot the messenger.
Do what you think is right. Im doing what I know is right
Regards
Art

art wrote:

[snip]

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,

You may have missed my earlier message, or perhaps it was not clear. I
will try again.

Gauss' Law is one of the four standard Maxwell Equations. Therefore,
statics has already been expanded to encompass all of classical
electromagnetism, a long time ago.

You may have invented a novel antenna configuration, but you did not
"invent" the extension of Gauss' Law to HF and antennas. There is
nothing to validate or invalidate.


73,
Gene
W4SZ

On 5 Mar, 12:56, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

[snip]

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,

You may have missed my earlier message, or perhaps it was not clear. I
will try again.

Gauss' Law is one of the four standard Maxwell Equations. Therefore,
statics has already been expanded to encompass all of classical
electromagnetism, a long time ago.

You may have invented a novel antenna configuration, but you did not
"invent" the extension of Gauss' Law to HF and antennas. There is
nothing to validate or invalidate.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

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