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

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

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

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.

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

art wrote:
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.

If there is a point to anything you write it is totally lost in the
rambling, arm waving, and nonsense.

snip rest


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:29:07 -0800, 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,

You need to learn NOT to rise to the rantings of the para-science
techno-trolls. :-)

73
Jonesy

Allodoxaphobia wrote:

Roy,

You need to learn NOT to rise to the rantings of the para-science
techno-trolls. :-)

You're absolutely right. It's a weakness that I resist but sometimes
succumb to in spite of my efforts. It's time to add Art to my very short
plonk list so I won't waste any more time responding to him.

The sad thing is that I don't believe Art is a troll but rather is
completely serious.

Bye, Art.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's time to add Art to my very short plonk list ...

I got ploinked for pointing out that an antenna is
a distributed network, not a lumped circuit.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 8 Mar, 19:20, Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's time to add Art to my very short plonk list ...

I got ploinked for pointing out that an antenna is
a distributed network, not a lumped circuit.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

May I point out Cecil that when dealing with resonant elements in an
array
which itself is resonant in situ one can then use complex circuitry
methods of analysis for antennas. A case in point is an antenna that
functions as
a pass filter. Sadly the majority resist change especially if it is
seen as self protection. You of all people must be aware that
intolerance by certain people is the reason we have so few
acknoweledged experts left to converse with.If one thinks they have
safety by placing their heads and ears in the sand signifies safety it
is to our advantage if we let them go ahead and do it.
Art