|
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Hello everybody,
I am searching for an antenna programming tool/compiler/preprocessor/ language. To finilize my work with similar subject (based on NEC2/ NEC4, especially on 4NEC2 from Arie Voors), I want to catch some good ideas for this. Are you knowing some good tools, that provide to model your antenna with a program code? It should look like a program source code (like Basic, C or else) with mathematical equations, variables, etc. It should not a GUI-Program, where antenna parameters can be given in edit windows. (I hate this.) So far, I am able to create construction models of antenna, so antenna parameters can be optimized via 4NEC2. The complete output NEC file has symbolic parameters instead of hard coded numbers. It supports many features, that makes antenna modeling easy for you and me. Especially for old "C"-programmers like me. With this work, it will be soon able to model very complex antennas. Please help me, to make a new standard of antenna modeling tool/ language. You will be get an advantage of this soon. Regards, Aziz Some cut of source code (from offset parabolic reflector generator): ....snipped.. //--- Intermediate Symbols --- P_y0 = -P_W/2 // Starting y position #if (P_Type==3) P_z0 = -P_Tp // Starting z position for offset parabola #else //--if (P_Type==3) P_z0 = -P_Hp/2 // Starting z position for center parabola #endif //--if (P_Type==3) P_dy = P_W/P_nsegw // Step width (y) P_dz = P_Hp/P_nsegh // Step height (z) //--- Generate Surface Patches or wires --- for (z=0; z P_nsegh; z=z+1) { for (y=0; y P_nsegw; y=y+1) { // Elliptischer Test, wenn aktiv #if ( (P_Shape == 1) || (sq(%%z+0.5-P_nsegh/2)/sq(P_nsegh/2) + sq(%%y+0.5-P_nsegw/2)/sq(P_nsegw/2) = 1) ) //-- y=%%y, z=%%z // if model is constructed with wires, correct wire flags must be set. P_wrflags = %%(_P1P2|_P2P3) #if ( (z == P_nsegh-1) || ( (P_Shape == 2) && (sq(%%(z+1)+0.5- P_nsegh/2)/sq(P_nsegh/2) + sq(%%y+0.5-P_nsegw/2)/sq(P_nsegw/2) 1)) ) P_wrflags = %%(P_wrflags | _P3P4) #endif #if ( (y == 0) || ( (P_Shape == 2) && (sq(%%z+0.5-P_nsegh/2)/ sq(P_nsegh/2) + sq(%%(y-1)+0.5-P_nsegw/2)/sq(P_nsegw/2) 1)) ) P_wrflags = %%(P_wrflags | _P4P1) #endif #SP4 1 1 P_a*(P_y0+%%y*P_dy)*(P_y0+%%y*P_dy)+P_a*(P_z0+% %z*P_dz)*(P_z0+%%z*P_dz) P_y0+%%y*P_dy P_z0+%%z*P_dz P_a*(P_y0+%%(y +1)*P_dy)*(P_y0+%%(y+1)*P_dy)+P_a*(P_z0+%%z*P_dz)* (P_z0+%%z*P_dz) P_y0+ %%(y+1)*P_dy P_z0+%%z*P_dz P_a*(P_y0+%%(y+1)*P_dy)*(P_y0+%%(y+1)*P_dy) +P_a*(P_z0+%%(z+1)*P_dz)*(P_z0+%%(z+1)*P_dz) P_y0+%%(y+1)*P_dy P_z0+%% (z+1)*P_dz P_a*(P_y0+%%y*P_dy)*(P_y0+%%y*P_dy)+P_a*(P_z0+%%(z +1)*P_dz)*(P_z0+%%(z+1)*P_dz) P_y0+%%y*P_dy P_z0+%%(z+1)*P_dz P_wrflags #endif } // for y } // for z ......... This source code must be compiled and you get some output code like below... (note: _8 is not a number but an intermediate variable (symbol)) Some cut off output code of other example: ....snipped.. SY _8 = (0+(BQ_RW)/2-(0+(BQ_RW)/2))/8 SY _9 = (0+(BQ_RH)/2-(0-(BQ_RH)/2))/8 SP 0 3 0+0*_1-0*(_7+0*(_1+_4)/8) 0+(BQ_RW)/2+0*_2-0*(_8+0*(_2+_5)/8) 0+(BQ_RH)/2+0*_3-0*(_9+0*(_3+_6)/8) 0+1*_1-0*(_7+1*(_1+_4)/8) 0+ (BQ_RW)/2+1*_2-0*(_8+1*(_2+_5)/8) 0+(BQ_RH)/2+1*_3-0*(_9+1*(_3+_6)/8) SC 0 3 0+1*_1-1*(_7+1*(_1+_4)/8) 0+(BQ_RW)/2+1*_2-1*(_8+1*(_2+_5)/8) 0+(BQ_RH)/2+1*_3-1*(_9+1*(_3+_6)/8) 0+0*_1-1*(_7+0*(_1+_4)/8) 0+ (BQ_RW)/2+0*_2-1*(_8+0*(_2+_5)/8) 0+(BQ_RH)/2+0*_3-1*(_9+0*(_3+_6)/8) .... SP 0 3 P_a*(P_y0+29*P_dy)*(P_y0+29*P_dy) +P_a*(P_z0+20*P_dz)*(P_z0+20*P_dz) P_y0+29*P_dy P_z0+20*P_dz P_a*(P_y0+30*P_dy)*(P_y0+30*P_dy)+P_a*(P_z0+20*P_d z)*(P_z0+20*P_dz) P_y0+30*P_dy P_z0+20*P_dz SC 0 3 P_a*(P_y0+30*P_dy)*(P_y0+30*P_dy) +P_a*(P_z0+21*P_dz)*(P_z0+21*P_dz) P_y0+30*P_dy P_z0+21*P_dz P_a*(P_y0+29*P_dy)*(P_y0+29*P_dy)+P_a*(P_z0+21*P_d z)*(P_z0+21*P_dz) P_y0+29*P_dy P_z0+21*P_dz .... etc... generates very complex output NEC files... I am still wondering, that 4NEC2 can handle such complex NEC files. But it works well. |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
In article om,
wrote: Hello everybody, I am searching for an antenna programming tool/compiler/preprocessor/ language. To finilize my work with similar subject (based on NEC2/ NEC4, especially on 4NEC2 from Arie Voors), I want to catch some good ideas for this. Are you knowing some good tools, that provide to model your antenna with a program code? I've used a PERL pre-processing script which allows the embedding of PERL expressions/calculations into a NEC input file, and substitution of the results of these calculations into the statements in the deck. It's somewhat simple-minded and doesn't have all of the flexibility that you seem to be shooting for, but it might get you started. Google for nec_param_util.Z - it's in most of the NEC2 archive repositories, I believe. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
|
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Hello Dave,
thanks for your hint. I know the problem with perl scripts. What I am searching is, that no text or symbol replacement or calculating symbols is done on your source nec file. I am searching for a compiler/ pre-processor, that makes from source file (antenna model) a compatible nec file (still left in symbolic 4nec2-format). I am sick off, to code many symbolic lines of nec code. It is boring and difficult, when your model gets complex and has much more segments. Therefore I started with my pre-processor few month ago, that makes the code for me automatically. It supports primitive object and complex structures. It also let you "to program" your antenna model. But the most advantage of letting the nec file symbolic, you can optimize the antenna parameters. I tried and constructed many antenna models and wont miss the optimizer tool from 4nec2. I am wondering, that nobody made such a tool till now. Aziz |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:11:24 -0700, wrote: from I am searching for an antenna programming tool/compiler/preprocessor/ language. to Especially for old "C"-programmers like me. suggests defining your language using BNF and building the compiler with YACC. Anyway, how I've done similar projects for 30 years. You could gussy it up with Prolog, but who wants to go down that path (at least if you want it distributable)? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Prolog. Been a long while since I heard that. I thought it was long buried. tom K0TAR |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
On 16 Jun., 02:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:11:24 -0700, wrote: fromI am searching for an antenna programming tool/compiler/preprocessor/ language. to Especially for old "C"-programmers like me. suggests defining your language using BNF and building the compiler with YACC. Anyway, how I've done similar projects for 30 years. You could gussy it up with Prolog, but who wants to go down that path (at least if you want it distributable)? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Due to the similarity to 4nec2 and nec2 format, I implemented a very simple line based parser. Of course, it looks like C, but the pre- processer has limitations. It is kept left simple except the expression parser for calculation (fully c compatible). I started with very simple one and the implementation growed up till now. It is not finished yet - a big mile stone for documentation must be realized. Also testing is not finished. And I found new bugs, when I implemented a regression test model. But it is a good time now, to implement some usefull features or ideas. Regard, Aziz |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
|
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:49:41 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote: Prolog. Been a long while since I heard that. I thought it was long buried. Hi Tom, The current iteration is so vastly removed from the early days as to be unrecognizable. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Richard Clark wrote:
... programmer. Besides, C is a pretty crummy language with even more horrid library syntaxes (assembler is far more elegant). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC A lot of people like to think themselves programmers, real programmers use C/C++. (Weekend programmers use visual basic) C is simply a macro language which calls assembler procedures and functions--Dennis Richie was a real assembly language programmer, he simply designed a "shorthand" language for using assembler--C itself was written in assembler--nowadays C can compile and link itself ... a real C programmer will add to the C libraries and include files using assembler definitions, procedures and functions. While every subroutine of a C program is a function, they can be written as procedures which are only cloaked as functions. Example: #include iostream void helloworldprocedure(void) { cout "hello world!" endl; } void main(void) { helloworldprocedure(); } .... takes no parameters, returns none ... I think most C programmers prefer to program in assembly (but with windows allowing NO direct access of devices, peripherals, memory or disk--why bother, assembly can only be used as a wrapper to call windows libs/dlls/activex/scripts/etc., or custom ones--linux can be made to allow direct access), however, C adds a productivity factor of magnitudes over assembly. No other language offers the efficiency of program "character text" (source code) to actual binary code compiled/linked by C. Indeed, any C compiler I have ever seen gives a option to spit out assembler source .... and the assembler source so generated is quite capable of being assembled/linked by an assembler/linker for the platform in question. C simply has no rules which cannot be broken, even if it breaks all programming rules, and you want to override them, go ahead! (bill gates won't let you break windows rules though :-( )--C is only structured if you program in a structured style. For that reason alone, it is not a good language for newbie programmers ... JS |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:49:41 -0500, Tom Ring wrote: Prolog. Been a long while since I heard that. I thought it was long buried. Hi Tom, The current iteration is so vastly removed from the early days as to be unrecognizable. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Any open source version(s) you would recommend? I may have to have a look again. Thanks. tom K0TAR |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:43:00 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote: Any open source version(s) you would recommend? I may have to have a look again. Hi Tom, I would like to say Trilogy, which is also a declarative language, but long gone by nearly 20 years. On the active front, there is XPCE/Prolog (google this) out of Amsterdam. It appears to be the product of a one-man show and to my mind suffers from what he thinks the language should be (and not what it was). I suppose my attitude would be better if I could have read the users manual which, unfortunately, mimics all the poorly written user manuals that have come down the pike since PL/M. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:13:37 -0700, John Smith I
wrote: Example: #include iostream void helloworldprocedure(void) { cout "hello world!" endl; } void main(void) { helloworldprocedure(); } ... takes no parameters, returns none ... Horrid examples of language, these are like the proverbial turds in the punch bowl at a party. I think most C programmers prefer to program in assembly (but with windows allowing NO direct access of devices, peripherals, memory or disk--why bother, assembly can only be used as a wrapper to call windows libs/dlls/activex/scripts/etc., or custom ones--linux can be made to allow direct access), Most C programmers are Neanderthals with their skills frozen in the 70s. There is at least one Windows Assembler out there, it's free and has been available for years from Steve Gibson at: http://www.grc.com/smgassembly.htm His executables perform network connections in file sizes of barely more than 5K up to a massive 22K. however, C adds a productivity factor of magnitudes over assembly. Bull Looney. This kind of syrupy rationale was composed to sooth the nerves of Dilbert's pointy haired boss. It merely reveals that many coders need training wheels to allow them to ride faster when designers could have walked there in half the time. C is NOT a user language. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Richard Clark wrote:
... C is NOT a user language. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Quite obviously, you are not a software engineer ... even is someone is willing to pay you for such. JS |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:46:59 -0700, John Smith I
wrote: C is NOT a user language. Quite obviously, you are not a software engineer ... even is someone is willing to pay you for such. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:46:59 -0700, John Smith I wrote: C is NOT a user language. Quite obviously, you are not a software engineer ... even is someone is willing to pay you for such. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard: Ahhh, to wise to take the bait, huh? grin Well, you are right, anyone who programs deserves respect, no matter the language--sure beats being to lazy to learn something new ... a scripting language is best for what was first implied--I lied. :-( We only need steer the app ... I am like y'all, I prefer the command line to the gui. Warm regards, JS |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
John Smith I wrote:
[stuff] .... err, just for today, to = too :-) JS |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:13:37 -0700, John Smith I wrote: Example: #include iostream void helloworldprocedure(void) { cout "hello world!" endl; } void main(void) { helloworldprocedure(); } ... takes no parameters, returns none ... Horrid examples of language, these are like the proverbial turds in the punch bowl at a party. I think most C programmers prefer to program in assembly (but with windows allowing NO direct access of devices, peripherals, memory or disk--why bother, assembly can only be used as a wrapper to call windows libs/dlls/activex/scripts/etc., or custom ones--linux can be made to allow direct access), Most C programmers are Neanderthals with their skills frozen in the 70s. There is at least one Windows Assembler out there, it's free and has been available for years from Steve Gibson at: http://www.grc.com/smgassembly.htm His executables perform network connections in file sizes of barely more than 5K up to a massive 22K. however, C adds a productivity factor of magnitudes over assembly. Bull Looney. This kind of syrupy rationale was composed to sooth the nerves of Dilbert's pointy haired boss. It merely reveals that many coders need training wheels to allow them to ride faster when designers could have walked there in half the time. C is NOT a user language. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard You may not like C programmers in general. However, some of us document our code (my "code" is probably 80% comments) and don't declare (assuming they declare at all) our functions as void. Unless they really are. Sorry about the sentence structure there, I am very tired, and also watching F1 qualifying at the same time. CPU idle time nonexistent. ;) tom K0TAR |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Tom Ring wrote:
... our code (my "code" is probably 80% comments) and don't declare (assuming they declare at all) our functions as void. Unless they ... tom K0TAR I certainly would not go about bragging in that style, dead sign of lack of structure/logic in the code leading to obfuscation and requiring extraordinary effort of documentation ... The comments in source are only meant for other programmers, they already know how to program, you don't have to teach 'em, nor attempt to impress them with your brilliance--if such is present--they'll know. With the proper use of significant names for variables, structs, defines, etc. and programming for a "logical flow" of code, few comments are needed (approx. 10-20% comments should be more than sufficient--if the source is structured and non-obfuscated.) Krist, they pay me to engineer software, not write books ... (if management had their way--they'd screw that up ...) SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE: // call at any point to debug/check variables (void) debug_printout_of_variables_used(float whip_self-capacitance_pf, float coil_self-capacitance_pf, float coil_inductance_uh, ...) { cout "Whip self capacitance (pf): " whip_self-capacitance_pf endl; cout ... ... } JS |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:19:57 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote: You may not like C programmers in general. However, some of us document our code (my "code" is probably 80% comments) and don't declare (assuming they declare at all) our functions as void. Unless they really are. Sorry about the sentence structure there, I am very tired, and also watching F1 qualifying at the same time. CPU idle time nonexistent. ;) Hi Tom, Documenting code (any language, and even more so for "self documenting" languages) is a necessary talent, and the first casualty often abandoned to schedule. This has nothing to do with "liking" C programmers in general; however, C as a language is wholly inappropriate for a user's interface to antenna design engines. The intersection of C programmers and Antenna designers is so marginal that the focus on C is six sigma to the left of the bell curve (and, of course, these comments can be extended to assembler). I've designed parsers and compilers - no easy chore certainly - and I have enough experience in the matter to know that expressing the user's need in BNF and pushing it through YACC would present something vastly better than C; with the libraries stripped out, is nothing more than simple conditionals and loops (and again, since the assembler set for the 80x86, ASM could do that just as well). C programmers' fluency through brute force attention does not elevate these opaque libraries' troglodyte style. With the advent of C++, things only got worse. I was doing that in the late 80s and when Java came along, I jettisoned that baggage. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Richard Clark wrote:
[stuff] Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard, Yes, a simplified script language to feed the logic in the app from the commandline and a backup gui for those desiring it would be most appreciated by those having to learn it and use the app ... C programmers will participate by writing the app ... :-) Regards, JS |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Again,
my intention is, not to re-invent the programming language "C". My intention is, to describe in a prooven language an antenne. I decided the programming language C, because it is most used language on the world. I have not given any name for my language to the pre-processor. Lets call this as SNEC - just for "Symbolic NEC". The commands for the pre- processor has similar syntax to the programming language C. But not exactly the same. It has many limitations. As an example, I show you one of the source code of a horn antenna for WLAN. It has three modules. As you can see, the language is as superset of NEC2 and 4NEC2. It can be adapted easily to any other antenne defining formats. If the pre-processor detects an unknowing command, it will do nothing. Just taking the line of code and writing to output file. A special set of commands will be interpreted by the pre-processor. It will translate it into the 4NEC2/NEC2 commands. That is all. It is a very simple language, but you can design very complex antenna model with few lines of "code". The output file has a lot of kilobytes of code! It will split surface patches into many segments or wires. The main module is Horn1.txt. Aziz --------------- File: Horn1.txt ------------------------- CM Horn Antenna Model at 2.437 GHz (C) 2007 by Aziz Oeguet CE #include "Common.txt" #include "PP4NEC2Defs.txt" #ifndef H_wrmode H_wrmode = 0 // Drahtmodus (0=Surface-Path, 1=Wire-Modus) #endif #if (H_wrmode) // Parameter für Wire-Modus #pragma mode = _MODE_WR, wrnumseg = 1, wrtagstart=5000, wrtaginc = 1, wrradius = 0.00075 #pragma symode = _SYMODE_REUSE #else #pragma mode= _MODE_SP #pragma symode = _SYMODE_REUSE #endif //--- Biquad-Parameter definieren --- BQ_nsegw = 8 // Number of segments for width BQ_nsegh = 8 // Number of segments for height BQ_RW = 0.10 // Reflector width (y-axis) BQ_RH = 0.10 // Reflector height (z-axis) // Erreger-Antenne einfügen #include "FeedBiQ.txt" refdist = 0.014617 // Reflector distance to antenna // Box parameters B_Px = -refdist // Position of box (x-Axis) B_Py = 0 // Position of box (y-Axis) B_Pz = 0 // Position of box (z-Axis) #if (H_wrmode) B_lseg = 25 // Number of segments for length (x-axis) B_wseg = 21 // Number of segments for width 2 (y-axis) B_hseg = 18 // Number of segments for height 2 (z-axis) #else B_lseg = 30 // Number of segments for length (x-axis) B_wseg = 24 // Number of segments for width 2 (y-axis) B_hseg = 20 // Number of segments for height 2 (z-axis) #endif B_W1 = BQ_RW // Box width 1 (y-axis) B_H1 = BQ_RH // Box height 1 (z-axis) // Opt. simuliert B_L = 0.385216 // 0.398 // Box length (x-axis) B_W2 = 0.40 // Box width 2 (y-axis) B_H2 = 0.291 // Box height 2 (z-axis) #if (H_wrmode) B_nBox = 1 // Number of box divisions for a better segmentation #else B_nBox = 10 // Number of box divisions for a better segmentation #endif #if B_nBox == 1 B_wseg1 = B_wseg // Number of segments for width 1 (y-axis) B_hseg1 = B_hseg // Number of segments for height 1 (z-axis) #else B_wseg1 = 2+B_W1/(B_W2/B_wseg) // Number of segments for width 1 (y- axis) B_hseg1 = 2+B_H1/(B_H2/B_hseg) // Number of segments for height 1 (z- axis) #endif // Deltas for box divisions B_DH = (B_H2-B_H1)/B_nBox B_DW = (B_W2-B_W1)/B_nBox B_DL = B_L/B_nBox //--- Horn Reflektor --- B_dws = (B_wseg - B_wseg1)/B_nBox B_dhs = (B_hseg - B_hseg1)/B_nBox for (i=0; i B_nBox; i=i+1) { #if i==0 #Box %%(B_wseg1+i*B_dws) %%(B_hseg1+i*B_dhs) %%(B_lseg/B_nBox) (B_Px+%%i*B_DL) B_Py B_Pz (B_W1+%%i*B_DW) (B_W1+%%(i+1)*B_DW) (B_H1+% %i*B_DH) (B_H1+%%(i+1)*B_DH) B_DL BLRUD _8ALL #else #Box %%(B_wseg1+i*B_dws) %%(B_hseg1+i*B_dhs) %%(B_lseg/B_nBox) (B_Px+%%i*B_DL) B_Py B_Pz (B_W1+%%i*B_DW) (B_W1+%%(i+1)*B_DW) (B_H1+% %i*B_DH) (B_H1+%%(i+1)*B_DH) B_DL LRUD _8ALL-_4ALL #endif } // for i ofsx = -B_L-B_Px // Offset structure // Achsen-Transformation (verschieben, um aus dem Nahfeld rauszukommen) GM 0 0 0 0 0 ofsx 0 0 0 // End-Of-Geometry GE 0 //--- Wire-Load (HF-Speisung) --- EX 0 Ant_Feed_Tagnr Ant_Feed_Segnr 0 1.0 0.0 LD 5 0 0 0 62900000 // Extended-Wire-Kernel einschalten EK 1 //--- Frequency Parameter and Execute --- FR 0 1 0 0 freq 1 EN -------------------File: Common.txt ---------------------- CM CM File: Common.txt CM CM Antenna Model at 2.437 GHz (C) 2007 by Aziz Oeguet CM CM --- General parameters --- CE freq = 2437.0 // Operating frequency in MHz pi = 3.14159265358979 // famous pi c0 = 299792.458 // Light speed km/s lambda = c0/freq/1000 // One wave length in m lambda2= lambda/2 // Half wave length in m lambda4= lambda/4 // Fourth wave length in m CM End of File Common.txt CE -----------------File: PP4NECDefs.txt ---------------------- CM CM File: PP4NEC2Defs.txt CM CM PP4NEC2 Constant Definitions (C) 2007 by Aziz Oeguet CM //--- Modus-Arten definition (Bit-Flag, Number-Codes) --- _MODE_SP = 0 // #pragma mode=_MODE_SP - Surface Patch Modus (Metallflächen) _MODE_WR = 1 // #pragma mode=_MODE_WR - Wire Modus (Drahtmodell) _SYMODE_UNIQUE = 1 // #pragma symode = _SYMODE_UNIQUE - interne Symbole einzigartig (keine Mehrfachverwendung) _SYMODE_REUSE = 0 // #pragma symode = _SYMODE_REUSE - interne Symbole mehrfach verwenden (durch Neuzuweisung) _HS_OUTSIDE = 0 // Struktur nur ausserhalb zulassen (innerhalb des Hotspots keine Objekte) _HS_INSIDE = 1 // Struktur nur innerhalb zulassen (ausserhalb des Hotspots keine Objekte) //--- Edge definitions (Bit-Flags) (#Sp3 only) --- _P1P2 = 1 // Kante P1-P2 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _P2P3 = 2 // Kante P2-P3 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _P3P1 = 4 // Kante P3-P1 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _3ALL = 7 // alle Kanten des Dreiecks mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) //--- Edge definitions (Bit-Flags) (#Sp4 plus #Sp3) --- _P3P4 = 4 // Kante P3-P4 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _P4P1 = 8 // Kante P4-P1 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _4ALL = 15 // alle Kanten des Vierecks mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) //--- Edge definitions (Bit-Flags) (#Box, #Horn plus #Sp4) --- _P5P6 = 16 // Kante P5-P6 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _P6P7 = 32 // Kante P6-P7 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _P7P8 = 64 // Kante P7-P8 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _P8P5 = 128 // Kante P8-P5 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _P1P5 = 256 // Kante P1-P5 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _P2P6 = 512 // Kante P2-P6 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _P3P7 = 1024 // Kante P3-P7 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _P4P8 = 2048 // Kante P4-P8 mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) _8ALL = 4095 // alle Kanten des Objekts mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) //--- Edge definitions (Bit-Flags) (#SpArc and #Tube only) --- _A1 = 1 // Kante Alpha1 (Startwinkel) _A2 = 2 // Kante Alpha2 (Endwinkel) _R1 = 4 // Kante Radius 1 (Startradius) _R2 = 8 // Kante Radius 2 (Endradius) _RALL = 15 // alle Kanten des Objekts mit Draht verbinden (nur bei Wire Modus) //--- Konvex definition (Bit-Flag) (für Metallflächen (Surface Patches)) --- _CONVEX = 65536 // Objekt ist Konvex, alle Normalenvektoren zeigen nach aussen CM End of File PP4NEC2Defs.txt CE ----------------File: FeedBiQ.txt------------ CM CM File: FeedBiQ.txt CM CM BiQuad-Feeder Antenna Model at 2.437 GHz (C) 2007 by Aziz Oeguet CM CE //--- Antenne parameters --- #ifndef BQ_sgap BQ_sgap = 0.003 // Soldering gap distance #endif #ifndef BQ_wr BQ_wr = 0.00075 // Wire radius #endif #ifndef BQ_wrseg BQ_wrseg = 5 // Number of segments on partial antenne wire part #endif #ifndef BQ_tagwr BQ_tagwr = 1000 // Antenna Tag-Start #endif BQ_elemlen = lambda/4 // Antenna element length BQ_ea = BQ_elemlen/sqr(2) // Projected axis length of antenna element //--- Antenne (BiQuad) --- GW BQ_tagwr 1 0 0 BQ_sgap/2 0 0 - BQ_sgap/2 BQ_sgap/6 GW BQ_tagwr+1 BQ_wrseg 0 0 BQ_sgap/2 0 BQ_ea BQ_ea BQ_wr GW BQ_tagwr+2 BQ_wrseg 0 BQ_ea BQ_ea 0 2*BQ_ea 0 BQ_wr GW BQ_tagwr+3 BQ_wrseg 0 2*BQ_ea 0 0 BQ_ea - BQ_ea BQ_wr GW BQ_tagwr+4 BQ_wrseg 0 BQ_ea -BQ_ea 0 0 - BQ_sgap/2 BQ_wr GW BQ_tagwr+5 BQ_wrseg 0 0 -BQ_sgap/2 0 -BQ_ea - BQ_ea BQ_wr GW BQ_tagwr+6 BQ_wrseg 0 -BQ_ea -BQ_ea 0 -2*BQ_ea 0 BQ_wr GW BQ_tagwr+7 BQ_wrseg 0 -2*BQ_ea 0 0 -BQ_ea BQ_ea BQ_wr GW BQ_tagwr+8 BQ_wrseg 0 -BQ_ea BQ_ea 0 0 BQ_sgap/2 BQ_wr //--- Wire-Load Punkt definieren (HF-Speisepunkt) --- Ant_Feed_Tagnr = BQ_tagwr Ant_Feed_Segnr = 1 CM End of File FeedBiQ.txt CE -------------------END---------------- |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
|
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Sorry Richard,
no source code will be available for anybody. Only binaries and antenna models. But the expression-syntax is shown below: (you must convert the text below to courier font, to see the diagram right). // Level1 : ---+---(Level2)---+--- // | | // +-----[||]-----+ // Level2 : ---+---(Level3)---+--- // | | // +-----[&&]-----+ // Level3 : ---(Level4)---+------------------------+--- // | +--[!=]--+ | // +--+ +--(Level4)--+ // +--[==]--+ // Level4 : ---(Level5)---+------------------------+--- // | +--[ ]--+ | // | | | | // | +--[=]--+ | // +--+ +--(Level5)--+ // +--[ ]--+ // | | // +--[=]--+ // Level5 : ---+---(Level6)---+--- // | | // | +--[+]--+ | // +--+ +---+ // +--[-]--+ // Level6 : ---+---(Level7)---+--- // | | // | +--[^]---+ | // | +--[|]---+ | // | +--[&]---+ | // | +--[*]---+ | // +--+--[/]---+--+ // +--[%]---+ // Level7 : ---+-------------+---(Level8)--- // | +--[+]--+ | // +--+--[-]--+--+ // +--[!]--+ // +--[~]--+ // Level8 : ---(Level9)---+-----------------+--- // disabled (// +--[^]--(Level8)--+) // Level9 : +---[(]---(Level1)---[)]----------------+ // | | // +---(Zahl)------------------------------+ // ---+ +--- // +---(Funktion)---[(]---(Level1)---[)]---+ // | | // +---(Funktion2)--[(](Level1),(Level1)[)] + // , or ; allowed // | | // +---(Variable)--------------------------+ // Zahl: +[.]+(Ziffer)+------------+ // | +--------+ | // ---+ +-+--------------------+--- // | | |+[e]++[+]+ | // ++(Ziffer)++-------------++ ++ ++---++(Ziffer)++ // +--------++[.]+(Ziffer)++ +[E]++[-]++--------+ // +--------+ // Variable: +------[_]------+ // ---+ +---+-----------------------+--- // +--(Buchstabe)--+ | +------[_]------+ | // +-+-+--(Buchstabe)--+-+-+ // | +----(Ziffer)---+ | // +-------------------+ // Ziffer: [0] .. [9] // Buchstabe: [a] .. [z], [A] .. [Z] // Funktion: [sin], [cos], [tan], [asin], [acos], [atan], [sqrt], // [ln], [exp], [sinh], [cosh], [tanh], [abs], [ceil], [floor] and more |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
|
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
|
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:47:37 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote: As I said, there's no reason why your work can't survive, my question was why do you simply re-invent C, a language as dead to antenna designers as Sanskrit? For instance. Even C programmers (some) enjoy the benefit of structs as a layer of abstraction. This is a pretty thin difference, but certainly within furthering the scheme of antenna design. Why I say that is that the NEC card deck is already a struct. To ignore the card deck is a step backwards from antenna design to simply conform to a programmer's model. Further, taking the deck, you stand a better model with Pascal and records. This gives the antenna designer a way to more fluently describe and access segments, wires, or elements. It is a natural progression. However, Pascal is hardly a symbolic language, except by some of its own elements (the record). Abstracting further, LISP (a decidedly intense symbolic language) is a chained and recursive language (you say you've licked recursion) that mimics not only the linear connections of wires, but the regress of arrays. However, I wouldn't wish LISP on anyone as an antenna design language, but it is certainly far more suitable than C. All-in-all, each of these variants can still contain exactly what you've offered in BNF. In short, your expression syntax is not a language at all (not even C). It is incomplete being only the phrase particles of many languages. Phrases need to aggregate into clauses and then sentences. You exhibit none of that. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
|
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Keep it, I'll write my own ... :-)
Regards, JS Ok, I will wait for your ones and save time and effort. ;-) Aziz |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Hi Richard,
I am really not happy with old stuff like NEC-Cards. And I do not want do a lot of work. But a minimum of command set must be interpreted. For the translation of primitive objects (#SP3, #SP4, #Horn, #Box, #Tube, #Pipe, #SPArc), I am only using simple CM, CE, GW, SP, SC and GM cards. For symbols (variables) I am using only the extension SY of 4nec2. Any other cards, that can not be detected from the parser, they are simply passed through without changing. Of course, some comment line transformation must also be done. Thats all. Complex data type structures would explode the amount of work. I want to keep the pre-processor as simple as possible. The pre-processor is a NEC-processor and not a compiler. However, there are some good ideas built in: - fully symbolic (SY abc=..) NEC-code generation or hard wired (calculated) NEC-code - SP3 (triangle), SP4 (quadrilateral) can be divided into more small peaces (segmentation) - easy to use primitive objects - complex (hierarchical) object transformation (move, rotation, scaling does not work due to NEC limitation) - surface-patch or wire-mode support, without changing the model - hotspots, where parts of structures or locations can be masked out (-----!) - generator modules (parabolic reflector, helix, etc.) - program control commands - programable antenna models Again, I am not re-inventing C. I am only using the syntax whenever possible. That is the difference. Now, many old neglected deposits from the pre-processor must be redesigned and improved. I am doing this step by step. Of course, a good BNF notation and implementation would simplfy many things. I will do this for the future version may be. Regards, Aziz |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
|
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:27:28 -0700, wrote: Sorry Richard, no source code will be available for anybody. Only binaries and antenna models. But the expression-syntax is shown below: (you must convert the text below to courier font, to see the diagram right). Hi Aziz, OK, all pretty conventional stuff 30 years ago. So what is the problem with abstracting a symbolic wrapper to level 1 to make it generally useful? As I said, there's no reason why your work can't survive, my question was why do you simply re-invent C, a language as dead to antenna designers as Sanskrit? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard, I'd like you a whole lot more if you would just pick up the "C" syntax and quit your complaining grin! Regards, JS |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:08:49 -0700, John Smith I
wrote: Richard, I'd like you a whole lot more if you would just pick up the "C" Nutz! And I thought I had the bathing suit competition in the palm of my hand. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antenna programming tool/language/compiler/preprocessor?
Richard Clark wrote:
... Nutz! And I thought I had the bathing suit competition in the palm of my hand. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC ROFLOL! Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com