On 9 Mar, 02:37, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one fer
instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn out a
better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few
churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need the
program to hold my hand while using it.

Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.

[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

What bothers me about all this Ian is that AO when allowed to run
freely
does produces an array where all elements are resonant in situ.
Put this same array in NEC4 and the program will concur with the value
of the desirables given. In the early days I thought that this was a
result of programming interference by outsiders but the symetry kept
bugging me. So I gave a rational for why AO was correct to test the
water. Well we all know that it is not in the books therefore I am an
idiot. So we flip the coin and determine why the original NEC code
provided an opening for such a big error but first we determine if
this so called"" error" had spread in any way.
Tho I believe my rational is correct surely the majority would be
interested in the cause of this anomaly, why it produced antenna
arrays that were legitametly smaller than the yagi and since NEC4
verified its performance it should be of interest to all antenna
designers. But no.
Ridicule has been put into motion and true science went out of the
window.
Cheers
Art
Go figure!

On Mar 9, 9:18 am, "art" wrote:
On 9 Mar, 02:37, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:





In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one fer
instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn out a
better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few
churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need the
program to hold my hand while using it.

Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.

[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

What bothers me about all this Ian is that AO when allowed to run
freely
does produces an array where all elements are resonant in situ.
Put this same array in NEC4 and the program will concur with the value
of the desirables given. In the early days I thought that this was a
result of programming interference by outsiders but the symetry kept
bugging me. So I gave a rational for why AO was correct to test the
water. Well we all know that it is not in the books therefore I am an
idiot. So we flip the coin and determine why the original NEC code
provided an opening for such a big error but first we determine if
this so called"" error" had spread in any way.
Tho I believe my rational is correct surely the majority would be
interested in the cause of this anomaly, why it produced antenna
arrays that were legitametly smaller than the yagi and since NEC4
verified its performance it should be of interest to all antenna
designers. But no.
Ridicule has been put into motion and true science went out of the
window.
Cheers
Art
Go figure!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.
Sorry but you tend to accept or denounce current theory just so you
can defend your current arguments.

Jimmie

On 9 Mar, 09:05, "JIMMIE" wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:18 am, "art" wrote:





On 9 Mar, 02:37, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one fer
instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn out a
better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few
churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need the
program to hold my hand while using it.

Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.

[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

What bothers me about all this Ian is that AO when allowed to run
freely
does produces an array where all elements are resonant in situ.
Put this same array in NEC4 and the program will concur with the value
of the desirables given. In the early days I thought that this was a
result of programming interference by outsiders but the symetry kept
bugging me. So I gave a rational for why AO was correct to test the
water. Well we all know that it is not in the books therefore I am an
idiot. So we flip the coin and determine why the original NEC code
provided an opening for such a big error but first we determine if
this so called"" error" had spread in any way.
Tho I believe my rational is correct surely the majority would be
interested in the cause of this anomaly, why it produced antenna
arrays that were legitametly smaller than the yagi and since NEC4
verified its performance it should be of interest to all antenna
designers. But no.
Ridicule has been put into motion and true science went out of the
window.
Cheers
Art
Go figure!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.
Sorry but you tend to accept or denounce current theory just so you
can defend your current arguments.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thats an untruth Jimmie! are you only reading what you want to read?
Art

On Mar 9, 1:58 pm, "art" wrote:
On 9 Mar, 09:05, "JIMMIE" wrote:





On Mar 9, 9:18 am, "art" wrote:

On 9 Mar, 02:37, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one fer
instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn out a
better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few
churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need the
program to hold my hand while using it.

Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.

[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

What bothers me about all this Ian is that AO when allowed to run
freely
does produces an array where all elements are resonant in situ.
Put this same array in NEC4 and the program will concur with the value
of the desirables given. In the early days I thought that this was a
result of programming interference by outsiders but the symetry kept
bugging me. So I gave a rational for why AO was correct to test the
water. Well we all know that it is not in the books therefore I am an
idiot. So we flip the coin and determine why the original NEC code
provided an opening for such a big error but first we determine if
this so called"" error" had spread in any way.
Tho I believe my rational is correct surely the majority would be
interested in the cause of this anomaly, why it produced antenna
arrays that were legitametly smaller than the yagi and since NEC4
verified its performance it should be of interest to all antenna
designers. But no.
Ridicule has been put into motion and true science went out of the
window.
Cheers
Art
Go figure!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.
Sorry but you tend to accept or denounce current theory just so you
can defend your current arguments.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thats an untruth Jimmie! are you only reading what you want to read?
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What do you mean UNTRUE, Isnt it TRUE that you have repeatedly
chastised people for only accepting that which is ACCEPTED and written
in books, calling these people LEMMINGS. ISNT it also true you use the
same software based on that long accepted data that you claim to be in
error. Sounds to me as you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Please explain how you can accept results from software that uses the
theory you have denounced.

Jimmie

On 9 Mar 2007 10:58:02 -0800, "art" wrote:

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.

Just what the Global Warming Paranoia brigade are doing these days
with their climatic change modelling software!!!

Peter, G3PHO

Peter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 10:58:02 -0800, "art" wrote:

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.

Just what the Global Warming Paranoia brigade are doing these days
with their climatic change modelling software!!!

Peter, G3PHO

Computer modeling seems to be the new shill game of street smart con men
alright.

However, I think antenna modeling software is in a bit different
category--however, the computer model can only be as good as our
understanding of "radio theory." (and note, that IS radio theory and
NOT "radio laws."

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

John Smith I wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 10:58:02 -0800, "art" wrote:

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.

Just what the Global Warming Paranoia brigade are doing these days
with their climatic change modelling software!!!

Peter, G3PHO

Computer modeling seems to be the new shill game of street smart con men
alright.

However, I think antenna modeling software is in a bit different
category--however, the computer model can only be as good as our
understanding of "radio theory." (and note, that IS radio theory and
NOT "radio laws."

Thus blovates another ignorant dweeb that doesn't know the word "theory"
has a different meaning in science than it does in a TV mystery.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...

Dweeb? Jim, are you looking in a mirror while typing your posts?


Definitions of "scientific theory" on the Web:

* An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon
occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may
be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. Examples of theories:
Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Mendel’s
theory of Inheritance, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html

* A hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community.
www.ametsoc.org/amsedu/WES/glossary.html

* a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural
phenomena.
farahsouth.cgu.edu/dictionary/

* The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do.
A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated
experiments and observations and found always to work.
jmsscienceweb.tripod.com/vocabulary.htm

* A body of knowledge using controlled-variable experimental
methods to construct a formal and mathematically structured system. It
studies the character of natural reality. Scientific Management (6).
System of management popular in the first decades of the 20th c.
Proponants sought to transform industry, government and society through
greater efficiency. Utilizes top-down approach.
http://www.udmercy.edu/faculty_pages.../glossary.html

* a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific
theories must be falsifiable"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* The word theory has a number distinct meanings depending on the
context.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

Peter wrote:
Just what the Global Warming Paranoia brigade are doing these days
with their climatic change modelling software!!!

Wonder what caused the Global Warming trend that
began 140,000 years ago and eventually resulted
in temperatures a lot higher than today?

Wonder what triggered the present Global Warming
trend that started 20,000 years ago? Caveman
campfires?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:
Just what the Global Warming Paranoia brigade are doing these days
with their climatic change modelling software!!!

Wonder what caused the Global Warming trend that
began 140,000 years ago and eventually resulted
in temperatures a lot higher than today?

Wonder what triggered the present Global Warming
trend that started 20,000 years ago? Caveman
campfires?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Algore and socialist liberal leaches looking for new "crisis" so they can
justify and fool sheeple into submitting to crazy measures and spending
money.

Any ham knows that we are on the mercy of Ol Sun which supplies us with
warmth and light and has its moods, periods and we can't do a shing about
it.

Hey Algore! See the temperature differences day/night, summer/winter? What
causes it? CO2 or Sun's generosity?

Global Scam of all times. Not even antenna optimizers or Gausian gizmos can
do a thing about it. As soon as Algore got his Ossskar, God blew wave of
cold to show him who is in charge :-)

73 and keep breathing out CO2 and step on the gas of your SUV, plants love
it!

Yuri, K3BU.us