On 23 Sep, 18:22, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:

...

Art Unwin..KB9MZ..... ex UK

Art:

Although I may, or may not, agree or share your exact visions,
questions, assumptions, etc., only fools move to stop discussion,
debate, experimentation and new ideas. I think it is quite
apparent--for every one success a man will ask a thousand questions--try
a thousand things. The easy stuff has all been done--the more difficult
lays before us. Those before us never thought they left a completed
work but only wished for others to follow behind them and further their
thought, experiments and discovery.

Hang in their, almost every concept we now accept (until better presents
itself) was scoffed at and belittled, men have been imprisoned, and
worse for even challenging accepted principals and thinking ...

Hang in their, asking questions has never hurt. Just choose those more
capable to interact with. Interacting with self-important morons never
bears fruit ... and you know about news groups.

Regards,
JS

Fully understood. Odd thing is that 73 magazine used to make a good
living by printing details of various antenna
building and I admit I built a few of them.Ihave described the
modifications needed for the new university antenna and for some
reason see no reason to build it because it is a dud. I know you built
the university antenna to check it out for yourself but I don't know
of anybody who did the same thing to verify the claim. So it goes for
the simple modification I supplied which if I am wrong gives loads of
ammunition to every body to shoot me down once and for all with
factual details but they seam scared to search for the truth. In the
absence of knoweledge usually resort to insults and name calling and I
see you got such a burst today. Remember that time when a guy appeared
with his new NEC 4 program and wanted to model a simple arrray I
supplied? Nobody would help him in checking things out and it took a
personal E mail from somebody who did not want to be identified to
help him with the proper useage of the program. It proved the veracity
of what I had supplied dispite the lachof assistance to prove me
wrong.
As yet nobody with knoweledge of the state of the art has taken me on
with respectto what I have discovered. I have had posts given where I
believe the central theme was poetry, others who said they couldn't
understand despite posts given by a Doctrate holder, ofcourse there
are many like the blasting that you just got which should invite back
the multi posters that decimated several newsgroups. What I am doing
is sharing my work so all can enjoy but if hams are satisfied with
lesser antennas because of the poor conditions so be it. But to try
and stop thespreading of a particular advance to protect their so
called resumes as being experts is really hard to fathom. I thought it
would be a delight to all if somebody refuted the mathematics given
but only silence reigned and then joined by name calling. Look at
todays posting, how many were devoid of insults and name calling, I
think that they finished up in the majority so what does that say
antenna talk by hams?
I am beginning to wonder with the spectrum being in such demand if the
FCC would be justified in selling the amateur frequencies since it is
certainly not the same when the frequencies were given, a listen to
repeaters or a review of newsgroups going ons must fraustrate them
very much. After the upcomming sale of frequencies which is in demand
by industry I can easily see pressure on ham frequencies which is
costing not contributing to the coffers. The idea that we are a public
necessity was down graded years ago by industries inovative ideas so
hams have a hard time now justifying their position. In the past it
was often said that it was amatures that advanced the cusp of the
science well we sure are not doing that now!
O well let the discussion move away from mathematical analysis of
antennas or new designs and get back to argueing and calling people
names e.t.c. so all can participate including those who are true
hobbyist that do not wish to concern themselves with the engineering
background but who also want to participate in the augument side that
most hams relish.
Have a happy day and goodnight
Art Unwin KB9MZ...ex UK

art wrote:

...
Have a happy day and goodnight
Art Unwin KB9MZ...ex UK


Art:

Let me cut though this BS--straight to the chase; this group would be
better renamed to rec.radio.amateur.EZNEC

If eznec doesn't OK it--it just won't work; All which exists here are
eznec-appliance users.

However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 24 Sep, 06:03, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I have gonedown that road also in the past. As one programmer stated
Antenna programs are not perfect and neither are you. They do not
adhere to Maxwells laws
because some have taken the libity to insert assumptions when things
don't work out.
Mathematicians usually find a constant to insert if they are not sure
of mathematical difference
or their mods don't work. You can do that with a theory because it has
not been confirmed but an electrical LAW
stands alone as being correct as it stands. Just imagine using Ohms
law with a fudge factor inserted where you have to insert a fuse to
take care of it! Even when dealing with superconductors there are
numurous provisos with respect to an ifnittessimle length that are
"solved with mathematical technics. With my amateur thesis that is on
plus other letters and attillas I wrote down the tears
that the head of the nuclear industry in Russia stated with the
reliance on the computors ability to do multiple equations every
minuite of the dayin the hope that one answer fits the bill or at
least it will if you add constants where it deviates from what you
want!
However the assumptions used in this case finally worked out for 100
years and where it doesn't work
in the present computor era then you didn't follow the restrictions
that come with adding assumptions

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?

Cecil:

My statement was a little bold; I take it back. Not all here are stuck
in the same rut. It is just sometimes I feel I am in a room full of
children, you have to shout now and then just to get some order to the
dominant personalities.

You realize, I am sure, my bark is much worse than the bite ...

Sorry. :-(

Regards,
JS

On 24 Sep, 08:08, John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?

Cecil:

My statement was a little bold; I take it back. Not all here are stuck
in the same rut. It is just sometimes I feel I am in a room full of
children, you have to shout now and then just to get some order to the
dominant personalities.

You realize, I am sure, my bark is much worse than the bite ...

Sorry. :-(

Regards,
JS

John you are preaching to the converted! Cecil is known for standing
his ground
on technical matters despite the howls and catcalling. His posts
easily exceed a hundred or so
because he rarely get a reasonable technical response in this group.
That ofcourse takes a lot of tenaccity and visits to the texas
university library and I could never do that because the group would
attack the library contents. I prefer to hammer on the same subject a
bit over time for several years as you can see in the archives on
Gaussian antenna, this seasons you to laughing at the comments instead
of taking it personal because it becomes obvious what the technical
level is of the poster. No problem hobbiest having thought and
theories and stories of magnificent performance of a wire that rests
in a gutter and then drops to the ground so that they are part of ham
radio that produces statement that "my antenna is best because every
thing I hear I can work" Or "every thing is known about antennas"! or"
we already have good antennas so why do we need to know how they
work". But when they take on a technical mantle without the require
engineering regimen it can be very very funny.
Regards
Art

art wrote:

...
work". But when they take on a technical mantle without the require
engineering regimen it can be very very funny.
Regards
Art

Art:

Far too many times, I have been present during discussions where a
"newbie" (one not well schooled in the amateur-antenna-religious-order)
discusses some weird idea(s) he proposes to set in aluminum/copper and
insulation. And, far too often I have seen him discouraged and "converted."

What the heck, let 'em try it, someone just may hit the lotto!--but
then, I have seen the "hidden errors" in current knowledge.

Frankly, I love the fact data/knowledge exists which has been so
explored as to let us, immediately, construct "canned antennas" with
excellent performance characteristics (or at least functional/usable
characteristics.)

Is it so difficult to allow some to explore less conventional designs,
methods, ideas, experiments? From what I have seen, most who explore
these "dark arts" have already explored commonly constructed antennas
and yearn for some diversion (or, perhaps wish something for a special
purpose--for example stealth!)

For those who walk to the beat of a different drummer--I'll keep the
light on for 'ya, 'ya all hear? Just have the fortitude to take the
slings and arrows ...

Regards,
JS

art wrote:
That of course takes a lot of tenaccity and visits to the texas
university library ...

Now you've really got my dander up, Art.
It's the Texas Aggie library. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com