Help with EZNEC
 

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:24:43 -0700, art wrote:

No, comparison would quickly reveal all this and thus I will leave you
with the last gasping denial. ;-)

Do you think I didn't realise what direction you was heading?
Look at mine not at his!

Hi Arthur,

Now, if you want us to look at yours, let's compare with something
real and not just your stale boasting that is short on technology:

First point - non planar (you can't beat this)
design fits within a box with a volume of 0.122 by 0.196 by 0.210
wavelength.

Second point - greatest length efficiency (you can't beat this either)

Third point - best TOA in comparison at 10 degrees (you certainly
can't beat that) and at less than 1/8th wave of the highest tip off
the ground!

Fourth point - more than 10dB F/B (you don't even come close)

Fifth point - a fractal! You don't know how to do it, do you?

Home Run!

And now for the full details:
http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/fr...r/k2/index.htm
(hint, this stuff is so old, it is going on 10 years). Even the EZNEC
file is found here.

Now, you are up to bat. Going to bunt for a sacrifice at first base?

Gasp out another denial and save us a comparison with your pale
designs retread from what Gauss forgot to do. Modern analysis wins
over your grave robbing through books every time. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Help with EZNEC
 

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:02:58 -0500, "amdx" wrote:

Hey you two, stop it,

Hi Mike,

Aw c'mon now. It's Arthur's favorite game of spitting on everything
to get me wet by chance. I cheat and wear a Nor'Wester. ;-)

this is my thread about EZNEC modeling and Flag antennas.

Well, you got an EZNEC model from me (if you follow the link); and it
is for a small low antenna which has more gain, less loss than the
flag (woops, Art will be entertaining us with classical phlegm casting
about being un-amurricun now).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Help with EZNEC
 

On 14 Jun, 16:49, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:24:43 -0700, art wrote:
snip his!

Hi Arthur,

snip

SHHHHHus

It is not yours or my thread
I agree with you, that antenna is dead
Now go away.

Help with EZNEC
 

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:18:19 -0700, art wrote:

I agree with you, that antenna is dead

Hi Arthur,

As I said, you don't understand what you are criticizing, or why. That
antenna is not DEAD, but we can both agree you can't find anything
better - I can however, and it was published on the same page. You
looked, didn't you? This IS a technical forum afterall, not a fashion
runway.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Help with EZNEC
 

On 13 Jun, 23:01, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:45:35 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:


snip

... tsk, tsk, tsk. Such a fall from grace for the fractal antenna.
Gone, and long forgotten.

Make up your mind. I'll now change it back to
"It is NOT gone and NOT forgotten"

It will be exhibited at the antenna exposition in Denver this year.
Maybe your name will be mentioned as the one that knew about it
all the time.And you tell me that you are heavily sought after
by entropreneurs to oversee technical propositions before
a committment is made? Brevity is not your strong point, 400
pages of index is way to much, 300 pages on a fractal
is also way to much. Remember your attempt at a patent,
to large to fit into a "shoe", to large to fit in any cabinet
thus placed on the floor never to be found or read and where
pages were sucked in by passing vacuum cleaners.
Hark the phone is ringing again, maybe it is IBM begging you again.



73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Help with EZNEC
 

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:56:29 -0700, art wrote:
"It is NOT gone and NOT forgotten"
this is simply passing gauss.

Hi Arthur,

When was the last time you SAW one in front of you, and not simply in
a book or on the screen? When was the last time you USED one? Have
you ever BUILT one? Do you REMEMBER how one works? :-0

Offer us something that could beat my page's 10 year old example that
fits within the defined bounds, at a nearly zero height, and
demonstrate yours has a better efficiency, smaller turn radius, is
non-planar, and the rest....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Help with EZNEC
 

With respect to EZNEC. MANA is much more ambedextrous than
Eznec. It does provide all the old stuff that eznec does
but it also supplies what is new from the last decade.
[...]
Ofcourse even optimisation is not new to antennas
which is why the program is offered for free to
amateurs.

Unfortionally however, it uses the old MiniNec 3.13 engine. Those
interested in antenna modelling should know the drawbacks and pitfalls
as compared to then Nec2 or Nec4 engine used by EZnec and others...

Help with EZNEC
 

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:18:12 -0700, 4nec2 wrote:


Unfortionally however, it uses the old MiniNec 3.13 engine. Those
interested in antenna modelling should know the drawbacks and pitfalls
as compared to then Nec2 or Nec4 engine used by EZnec and others...

The exception to that is Antenna Model

http://www.antennamodel.com/


Danny, K6MHE

Help with EZNEC
 

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:54:12 -0700, Danny Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:18:12 -0700, 4nec2 wrote:


Unfortionally however, it uses the old MiniNec 3.13 engine. Those
interested in antenna modelling should know the drawbacks and pitfalls
as compared to then Nec2 or Nec4 engine used by EZnec and others...

The exception to that is Antenna Model

http://www.antennamodel.com/

"Best viewed at 6400x4800" :-/

Help with EZNEC
 

On 15 Jun, 01:18, 4nec2 wrote:
With respect to EZNEC. MANA is much more ambedextrous than
Eznec. It does provide all the old stuff that eznec does
but it also supplies what is new from the last decade.
[...]
Ofcourse even optimisation is not new to antennas
which is why the program is offered for free to
amateurs.

Unfortionally however, it uses the old MiniNec 3.13 engine. Those
interested in antenna modelling should know the drawbacks and pitfalls
as compared to then Nec2 or Nec4 engine used by EZnec and others...

There are many view as what is advantageous and what is not.
In the early days I compared mininec and NEC programs both of
which had pitfalls that you had to be aware of and that really
was the key in achieving most for what you bought. To me EZNEC
is for people who like crossword puzzles in that the progam
tells you that what you have is no good. Where as the other
program puts out a helping hand to show the direction changes
that are needed for success and frankly the majority of program
users need more than the realisation that what they have
designed is no good. It is like the carrot and the stick aproach,
if a bite of the carrot seems implausable you stop trying to
bite and put the program away Now we have NEC programs that
posses optimizers that older programs such as eznec e.t.c.
cannot supply but with the increase of availability of newer
programs such as yours the cost becomes a powerful motivator
such that the modern programs which are more than suitable for
a amateurs needs are now available, for free no less.
To have a program that meets all my needs for the cost of nothing
carries much more weight than owning just a calculator or a
slide rule of yesteryear. True there are many users of the eznec
computor programs by those who purchased many years ago many
of which have tired of it but for a person at the entry level
to fork out hundred of dollars for an antique when he can get
more for free and keep his money to me there is no argument
At the same time should we not inform newcomers to the hobby
of the pitfalls that could delusion those who we need so badly?