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

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.

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