On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:35:39 -0700, art wrote:

On 13 Jun, 23:01, Richard Clark wrote:
... tsk, tsk, tsk. Such a fall from grace for the fractal antenna.
Gone, and long forgotten.

That was another antenna that amateurs tried to remove from the
face of the earth because it provided a new aproach to antennas.

Hi Arthur,

Your soap box would carry more weight if you actually contributed to
the design.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 14 Jun, 09:37, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:35:39 -0700, art wrote:
On 13 Jun, 23:01, Richard Clark wrote:
... tsk, tsk, tsk. Such a fall from grace for the fractal antenna.
Gone, and long forgotten.
That was another antenna that amateurs tried to remove from the
face of the earth because it provided a new aproach to antennas.

Hi Arthur,

Your soap box would carry more weight if you actually contributed to
the design.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

My point is that it is not "gone and long forgotten" despite
the venom from you and Roy in you attempts to devalue the idea.
Here we are twenty years on and the antenna survives as a
new technology. Just shows that you can't stop science when
the shrill of your voices runs out of puff. Fractal antennas
are now in the books signifying that the efforts of you and Roy
was all for naught and could not overcome the test of time.
Now your efforts are concentrated anew where again you will fail
despite the shrillness of your wailing. Ideas are for the books
and your venom doesn't count for inclusion.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:24:18 -0700, art wrote:

My point is that it is not "gone and long forgotten" despite
the venom from you and Roy in you attempts to devalue the idea.

Hi Arthur,

Unfortunately you don't understand the technology, so you lack the
authority to make this anything more than a sentimental statement.

My website contains more than 300 pages of results from real Fractal
antennas and it remains the largest website in the world devoted to
that topic alone. It even supports examples of fractal designs that
you couldn't beat.

Care to compare examples? Mine will be far more length efficient than
anything you could offer. They will be non-planar. They will offer a
better turning radius than yours.

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 14 Jun, 14:35, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:24:18 -0700, art wrote:
My point is that it is not "gone and long forgotten" despite
the venom from you and Roy in you attempts to devalue the idea.

Hi Arthur,

Unfortunately you don't understand the technology, so you lack the
authority to make this anything more than a sentimental statement.

My website contains more than 300 pages of results from real Fractal
antennas and it remains the largest website in the world devoted to
that topic alone. It even supports examples of fractal designs that
you couldn't beat.

Care to compare examples? Mine will be far more length efficient than
anything you could offer. They will be non-planar. They will offer a
better turning radius than yours.

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Do you think I didn't realise what direction you was heading?
Look at mine not at his!
I remember after you did that work you turned on Chip and
everything he had to say. Heck it then got worse when the
group found out that he was jewish. That was mana for the
group and finally got the job done to get rid of him.
No matter how much shame you feel that will be part of
you forever. Can you remember the last time you said
something nice? That should take a week or so to think about.
You are such a miserable person, always pushing good aside
for the benefit of evil.If your page is the only thing
you can point to as to what you have achieved in the
last twenty years you are indeed in a sorry state.

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 14 Jun, 14:35, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:24:18 -0700, art wrote:
My point is that it is not "gone and long forgotten" despite
the venom from you and Roy in you attempts to devalue the idea.

Hi Arthur,

Unfortunately you don't understand the technology, so you lack the
authority to make this anything more than a sentimental statement.

My website contains more than 300 pages of results from real Fractal
antennas and it remains the largest website in the world devoted to
that topic alone. It even supports examples of fractal designs that
you couldn't beat.

Care to compare examples? Mine will be far more length efficient than
anything you could offer. They will be non-planar. They will offer a
better turning radius than yours.

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Do you think I didn't realise what direction you was heading?
Look at mine not at his!
I remember after you did that work you turned on Chip and
everything he had to say. Heck it then got worse when the
group found out that he was jewish. That was mana for the
group and finally got the job done to get rid of him.
No matter how much shame you feel that will be part of
you forever. Can you remember the last time you said
something nice? That should take a week or so to think about.
You are such a miserable person, always pushing good aside
for the benefit of evil.If your page is the only thing
you can point to as to what you have achieved in the
last twenty years you are indeed in a sorry state.

Hey you two, stop it,
this is my thread about EZNEC modeling and Flag antennas. :-)
Mike

On 14 Jun, 16:02, "amdx" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...



On 14 Jun, 14:35, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:24:18 -0700, art wrote:
My point is that it is not "gone and long forgotten" despite
the venom from you and Roy in you attempts to devalue the idea.

Hi Arthur,

Unfortunately you don't understand the technology, so you lack the
authority to make this anything more than a sentimental statement.

My website contains more than 300 pages of results from real Fractal
antennas and it remains the largest website in the world devoted to
that topic alone. It even supports examples of fractal designs that
you couldn't beat.

Care to compare examples? Mine will be far more length efficient than
anything you could offer. They will be non-planar. They will offer a
better turning radius than yours.

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Do you think I didn't realise what direction you was heading?
Look at mine not at his!
I remember after you did that work you turned on Chip and
everything he had to say. Heck it then got worse when the
group found out that he was jewish. That was mana for the
group and finally got the job done to get rid of him.
No matter how much shame you feel that will be part of
you forever. Can you remember the last time you said
something nice? That should take a week or so to think about.
You are such a miserable person, always pushing good aside
for the benefit of evil.If your page is the only thing
you can point to as to what you have achieved in the
last twenty years you are indeed in a sorry state.

Hey you two, stop it,
this is my thread about EZNEC modeling and Flag antennas. :-)
Mike- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Noted and understood. Its national 'flag" day is it not?
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.
When you model using optimisation where the program
predetermines direction to take it opens up a whole
new world with respect to antenna design.
Ofcourse even optimisation is not new to antennas
which is why the program is offered for free to
amateurs. There is also a newsgroup based on MANA
so there is no need to search the amateur newsgroups
for the author to report bugs.
I don't think eznec can match it in any way, even
with the allowable number of segments used let
alone the number of variables available. If you
want to design an antenna that is in equilibrium
so that focussed radiation is denied it is just
one type of antenna design that cannot be met
using eznec. A lot of time has passed by since
eznec came on the scene as well as many changes
and additions with respect to antenna programs
so why impede your antenna learning by using
old technology? It certainly cannot be the cost.
Art

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...

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

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

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.