GUT ( Grand unification theory)
 

On 8 Dec, 13:00, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

...





On 8 Dec, 07:30, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

news:oov6j.253$va7.168@trndny08...

"Dave" wrote in message
news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04...

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message

art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has
he
got in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!

Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.

Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.

Derek.

Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states.
STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a
time
component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you
have a
time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then
you
have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric
field,
and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the
complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to
Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to
the fields produced.

i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed
in
it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero.
you
can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single
electron
is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the
field
from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the
other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's
law.
now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the
surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you
are
moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to
the
charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the
surface
to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also
increase.
BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit
the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen
instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the
surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad
absurdum, QED, take your new theory and....

hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that
i
haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't
correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically
pushed through the integration surface and make up for the extra field?
oh wait, then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where
it
the diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the
10m contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group.

Should be easy enough to check the claims. If as Art suggests there is a
constant interchange of particles in the surface element of a radiator,
then
some detectable physical changes should take place. Construct an antenna
using anodised aluminium (aluminum for US readers) for the radiating
element. Take some smaller (non resonant pieces) and mount them some
distance away from the antenna but exposed to similar environmental
conditions. Leave for a year or so and then examine the radiating element
surface and compare with the samples. Is there any difference in the
surface
structure?

The samples should be non resonant, of the same batch material as the
antenna and arranged so that they are not likely to radiate or absorb RF
energy from the test antenna, while still being exposed to the same
weathering and other factors as the test antenna.

Mike G0ULI
Using anodised al- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike that is a novel aproach but it does appear that
exposure to the antmosphere of any element cnnot be prevented
i.e. pin hole propargation which is evidenced by my mercedes
plating processes. However the guts of GUT is the unification
of mechanical laws ( revolving around equilibrium) with electro
magnetic laws. There is no simpler way to verify that cvonnection
than to verify the required angle for a radiator to produced a
uniform radiation such as horizontal polarization. This is a
direct connection that can now be resolved by the use of computor
programs that follow Maxwell and not the equilibrium dictates
of the mechanical world. That is the test for finality in this quest,
an acceptable unity between the sciences.I am beginning to believe
that most of the participants do nor have a computor program or
even a trust in the results when it shown that is formed around
empirical evalution and not solely on Maxwells laws without
suspect additional conditions.To my mind anybody who is antenna
computor savvy would leap at the chance of determining the structure
of a particular radiator to become a leader in this debate, but
unfortunately there are none. When the programmer involved with Eznec
refutes the validity of accepted mechanical laws or dismisses the
notion of non frictional environments there would appear to be some
merit
in questioning their "corrective" actions which for a viable law such
as
Maxwell's is somewhat fraudulent.
For the same person to descend into personal attacks in defence of
his posture certainly suggests that his limits of viability.
have been some what strained
Like Cecil he has a large amount of knoweledge which in itself is
not enough when the quest in total victory and elimination to all
oponents
What a waste of such valuable brain power.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)
has been some what strained

Hi Art,

Provided that the antenna and sample pieces are exposed to the same
atmospheric effects, gross damage such as random pinholing to the surface
will be identical in all pieces. However I believe that the antenna element
should additionally show a regular pattern of disturbance caused by standing
waves which might be identified using electron microscopy or just possibly a
high power visual microscope.

Computer modelling has its place, but all computer models are constrained by
the constants and formulae used to calculate the final results. When the
computer model does not agree with physical measurements in the real world,
then one of three conclusions may be drawn. The wrong data has been entered,
the real world measurement is in error, or a previously unknown variable
needs to be taken into account and added to the computer model. Of the three
possibilities, the last is the most unlikely if the model is mature and
correctly predicts the behaviour of known, experimentally proven systems.

In order to successfuly add a new calculating method to a computer model, it
must correctly match the existing results while also correctly predicting
the new previously unknown behaviour. This is not a trivial task and it is
insufficient to just add a correction factor as this just demonstrates that
the true nature of the problem is not understood.

NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy grail
in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or
configurations. They can accurately predict 'established' antenna design
performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what
properties a new and previously untried design might have. The programs are,
of necessity, constrained by the accuracy of the physical measurements and
formulae used in writing the original program.

I do not consider the challenge to Newton's Laws to be valid. Just because
there is no true vacuum anywhere in the universe, as far as can be
established, then all objects will eventually come to rest due to friction.
This does not invalidate the premis that in the absence of friction or any
other external influence, an object would continue in motion along a
straight path forever.

Ultimately whatever predictions are made by computer modelling programs or
theory, the only measure of success is by physical measurement in the real
world.

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Darned good logic from beginning to end
Except if logic produces an answer that the
group will not recognise it would be hopeless.
Before even embarking on such a journey someone will say
that I hung a piece of wire from my gutter and you will get
the same results or for that matter a capacitive top hat is better
so it is your mission to prove it isn't. Do you really
think we could bring the members up to par in physics in
what remains of our lifetime?
I will hold your jacket!
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk)

GUT ( Grand unification theory)
 

Mike Kaliski wrote:
. . .
NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy
grail in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or
configurations. They can accurately predict 'established' antenna design
performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what
properties a new and previously untried design might have. . .

They are used daily by a very large number of people to predict, with
excellent accuracy, how new and untried antenna designs will work.

The programs
are, of necessity, constrained by the accuracy of the physical
measurements and formulae used in writing the original program.

That's not quite correct. The "formulae" used are very fundamental
electromagnetic equations. The "physical measurements" used are
fundamental constants such as the speed of light and permittivity and
permeability of free space, all of which are known to much greater
accuracy than antenna performance measurements are capable of
delivering. So neither constitutes any real constraint on program
accuracy. The main constraints are the inability to model all physical
structures. For example, NEC has no provision for including a slab of
dielectric, making microstrip antennas impossible to model accurately
(except the rare ones with air dielectric). There are many such
constraints, of which the user has to be acutely aware. The programs are
very accurate if, and only if, the model is indeed representative of the
physical antenna.

I do not consider the challenge to Newton's Laws to be valid. Just
because there is no true vacuum anywhere in the universe, as far as can
be established, then all objects will eventually come to rest due to
friction. This does not invalidate the premis that in the absence of
friction or any other external influence, an object would continue in
motion along a straight path forever.

This would be funny if it weren't sad. This newsgroup is one of the few
places I can think of where the silly statement I posted about moving
bodies and friction would be taken seriously. But it's really no
surprise, since it's much less unreasonable than the imaginative
alternative theories which are seriously presented, and just as
seriously argued, here daily.

My postulate about objects in motion was a parody of Cecil's rejection
of theoretical cases on the basis that they can't exist in practice, my
intent being to show how such a rejection leads to incorrect results.
But I see it's drawing the same serious response as Cecil's and Art's
postings. All that's missing is one of Richard's quotes from Terman and
support from Derek.

Ultimately whatever predictions are made by computer modelling programs
or theory, the only measure of success is by physical measurement in the
real world.

That's almost true. It's important also to know that even moderately
accurate antenna measurements are extremely difficult and exacting to
make. Consequently, there are often cases where model results are a
better indicator of an antenna's performance than measured ones.
Antennas and models follow the same physical laws. So to the extent that
the model imitates reality, the results are the same.

This philosophy isn't restricted to antenna modeling. Circuit designers
use programs to model circuits which can't be measured. I've designed
circuitry which operates from a few GHz to several tens of GHz, which is
still in production. It's simply impossible to measure voltages and
currents in such circuits, so modeling is heavily used. Often, every PC
board or hybrid circuit pad and trace has to be included as a
transmission line model; I've even had to build a transmission line
model of a capacitor which was 80 mils long. That the overall
performance matched the models' predictions is evidence that the models
matched the physical circuits. IC designers rely entirely on models to
predict the performance of circuits which can be measured only after
huge financial investments to commit the model results to physical
reality. The principles are exactly the same for antenna modeling as for
circuit modeling.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

GUT ( Grand unification theory)
 

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:37:38 -0800, art wrote:

Impossible to do that if they don't understand the basics of physics!

Respectfully disagree.

I have met people who can explain quantum theory in a manner that a
normal high school student can understand.

I have also met people who make sharpening a pencil incomprehensible.

If a person cannot explain something so that an another intelligent
person can get at least a rudimentary grasp, the fault does not lie with
the person looking for the education.

--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

GUT ( Grand unification theory)
 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:33:11 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

This newsgroup is one of the few
places I can think of where the silly statement I posted about moving
bodies and friction would be taken seriously.

Hi Roy,

You would best leave such crafting to craftsmen, word carpenters such
as myself.

That's almost true. It's important also to know that even moderately
accurate antenna measurements are extremely difficult and exacting to
make. Consequently, there are often cases where model results are a
better indicator of an antenna's performance than measured ones.
Antennas and models follow the same physical laws. So to the extent that
the model imitates reality, the results are the same.

This philosophy isn't restricted to antenna modeling. Circuit designers
use programs to model circuits which can't be measured. I've designed
circuitry which operates from a few GHz to several tens of GHz, which is
still in production.

And when I want to craft field designs, I use the appropriate tools
there too. My current explorations are at the low visible band
frequency of 4.54E+08 MHz with materials measuring 1nM by 1nM by 4nM.
Results are coming along without complaint (aside from segment
lengths).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

GUT ( Grand unification theory)
 

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Mike Kaliski wrote:
. . .
NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy
grail in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or
configurations. They can accurately predict 'established' antenna design
performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what
properties a new and previously untried design might have. . .

They are used daily by a very large number of people to predict, with
excellent accuracy, how new and untried antenna designs will work.

The programs are, of necessity, constrained by the accuracy of the
physical measurements and formulae used in writing the original program.

That's not quite correct. The "formulae" used are very fundamental
electromagnetic equations. The "physical measurements" used are
fundamental constants such as the speed of light and permittivity and
permeability of free space, all of which are known to much greater
accuracy than antenna performance measurements are capable of delivering.
So neither constitutes any real constraint on program accuracy. The main
constraints are the inability to model all physical structures. For
example, NEC has no provision for including a slab of dielectric, making
microstrip antennas impossible to model accurately (except the rare ones
with air dielectric). There are many such constraints, of which the user
has to be acutely aware. The programs are very accurate if, and only if,
the model is indeed representative of the physical antenna.


My point entirely - It is impossible to take into account absolutely every
factor that someone might want to model. It is either so esoteric as to be a
'one off', or someone wishes to work outside of the constraints of accepted
design principles.

I do not consider the challenge to Newton's Laws to be valid. Just
because there is no true vacuum anywhere in the universe, as far as can
be established, then all objects will eventually come to rest due to
friction. This does not invalidate the premis that in the absence of
friction or any other external influence, an object would continue in
motion along a straight path forever.

This would be funny if it weren't sad. This newsgroup is one of the few
places I can think of where the silly statement I posted about moving
bodies and friction would be taken seriously. But it's really no surprise,
since it's much less unreasonable than the imaginative alternative
theories which are seriously presented, and just as seriously argued, here
daily.

My postulate about objects in motion was a parody of Cecil's rejection of
theoretical cases on the basis that they can't exist in practice, my
intent being to show how such a rejection leads to incorrect results. But
I see it's drawing the same serious response as Cecil's and Art's
postings. All that's missing is one of Richard's quotes from Terman and
support from Derek.


Well I felt I had to comment in case someone was taking your remark
seriously. As you rightly say there have been plenty of arguments over many
less obvious tongue in cheek remarks.


Ultimately whatever predictions are made by computer modelling programs
or theory, the only measure of success is by physical measurement in the
real world.

That's almost true. It's important also to know that even moderately
accurate antenna measurements are extremely difficult and exacting to
make. Consequently, there are often cases where model results are a better
indicator of an antenna's performance than measured ones. Antennas and
models follow the same physical laws. So to the extent that the model
imitates reality, the results are the same.

This philosophy isn't restricted to antenna modeling. Circuit designers
use programs to model circuits which can't be measured. I've designed
circuitry which operates from a few GHz to several tens of GHz, which is
still in production. It's simply impossible to measure voltages and
currents in such circuits, so modeling is heavily used. Often, every PC
board or hybrid circuit pad and trace has to be included as a transmission
line model; I've even had to build a transmission line model of a
capacitor which was 80 mils long. That the overall performance matched the
models' predictions is evidence that the models matched the physical
circuits. IC designers rely entirely on models to predict the performance
of circuits which can be measured only after huge financial investments to
commit the model results to physical reality. The principles are exactly
the same for antenna modeling as for circuit modeling.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I think we are in agreement Roy that the doubts cast on computer modelling
are generally raised by those who have an incomplete understanding of the
problem they are trying to model. While it may be fun to chuck in some
random figures to see what happens, the results are unlikely to be of use
without a thorough understanding of the basics. That only comes through a
lot of hard work and experience.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

GUT ( Grand unification theory)
 

On 8 Dec, 17:39, Mike Coslo wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:37:38 -0800, art wrote:
Impossible to do that if they don't understand the basics of physics!

Respectfully disagree.

I have met people who can explain quantum theory in a manner that a
normal high school student can understand.

I have also met people who make sharpening a pencil incomprehensible.

If a person cannot explain something so that an another intelligent
person can get at least a rudimentary grasp, the fault does not lie with
the person looking for the education.

--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike ,
I agree with you, it is my fault but one I cannot rectify.
After having a life without medical problems one suddenly
go thru one after the other. Physical problems you can
find a way to accomodate or adjust for them. Mental problems
are a different animal when you can't read a book because
your memory doesn't extend to the end of a line. To boot
this has left me bipolar which you will have to read up for yourself
but now external stress has a larger impact on your life tho in
the last month I have been questioned more than once at hospital
on the living will of my wife you fortunately has survived a
few large hurdles. I am not asking for sympathy as I can handle
adversity
but not in the way I used to do since I am a shell of who I was.
Fortunately I have few worries, no debts,a couple of mercedes
and this laptop and a loving family who dotes upon me.
There are some on the group whose minds are agile enough
to make concessions with respect to my postings. Others of
different backgrounds have difficulty but it is something
I cannot correct, only time can do that and I have little left.
Again, just explaining the complications that I have personaly
but at the same time stating that in myself I am a satisfied
and happy man and bear no ill will to anybody and very,
very proud to be an Englishman.( yes I am a US citizen)
I will leave it at that and that will be the end of my
personal explanation
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg (uk)

GUT ( Grand unification theory)
 

On 8 Dec, 18:17, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message

...





Mike Kaliski wrote:
. . .
NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy
grail in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or
configurations. They can accurately predict 'established' antenna design
performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what
properties a new and previously untried design might have. . .

They are used daily by a very large number of people to predict, with
excellent accuracy, how new and untried antenna designs will work.

The programs are, of necessity, constrained by the accuracy of the
physical measurements and formulae used in writing the original program.

That's not quite correct. The "formulae" used are very fundamental
electromagnetic equations. The "physical measurements" used are
fundamental constants such as the speed of light and permittivity and
permeability of free space, all of which are known to much greater
accuracy than antenna performance measurements are capable of delivering.
So neither constitutes any real constraint on program accuracy. The main
constraints are the inability to model all physical structures. For
example, NEC has no provision for including a slab of dielectric, making
microstrip antennas impossible to model accurately (except the rare ones
with air dielectric). There are many such constraints, of which the user
has to be acutely aware. The programs are very accurate if, and only if,
the model is indeed representative of the physical antenna.

My point entirely - It is impossible to take into account absolutely every
factor that someone might want to model. It is either so esoteric as to be a
'one off', or someone wishes to work outside of the constraints of accepted
design principles.





I do not consider the challenge to Newton's Laws to be valid. Just
because there is no true vacuum anywhere in the universe, as far as can
be established, then all objects will eventually come to rest due to
friction. This does not invalidate the premis that in the absence of
friction or any other external influence, an object would continue in
motion along a straight path forever.

This would be funny if it weren't sad. This newsgroup is one of the few
places I can think of where the silly statement I posted about moving
bodies and friction would be taken seriously. But it's really no surprise,
since it's much less unreasonable than the imaginative alternative
theories which are seriously presented, and just as seriously argued, here
daily.

My postulate about objects in motion was a parody of Cecil's rejection of
theoretical cases on the basis that they can't exist in practice, my
intent being to show how such a rejection leads to incorrect results. But
I see it's drawing the same serious response as Cecil's and Art's
postings. All that's missing is one of Richard's quotes from Terman and
support from Derek.

Well I felt I had to comment in case someone was taking your remark
seriously. As you rightly say there have been plenty of arguments over many
less obvious tongue in cheek remarks.





Ultimately whatever predictions are made by computer modelling programs
or theory, the only measure of success is by physical measurement in the
real world.

That's almost true. It's important also to know that even moderately
accurate antenna measurements are extremely difficult and exacting to
make. Consequently, there are often cases where model results are a better
indicator of an antenna's performance than measured ones. Antennas and
models follow the same physical laws. So to the extent that the model
imitates reality, the results are the same.

This philosophy isn't restricted to antenna modeling. Circuit designers
use programs to model circuits which can't be measured. I've designed
circuitry which operates from a few GHz to several tens of GHz, which is
still in production. It's simply impossible to measure voltages and
currents in such circuits, so modeling is heavily used. Often, every PC
board or hybrid circuit pad and trace has to be included as a transmission
line model; I've even had to build a transmission line model of a
capacitor which was 80 mils long. That the overall performance matched the
models' predictions is evidence that the models matched the physical
circuits. IC designers rely entirely on models to predict the performance
of circuits which can be measured only after huge financial investments to
commit the model results to physical reality. The principles are exactly
the same for antenna modeling as for circuit modeling.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I think we are in agreement Roy that the doubts cast on computer modelling
are generally raised by those who have an incomplete understanding of the
problem they are trying to model. While it may be fun to chuck in some
random figures to see what happens, the results are unlikely to be of use
without a thorough understanding of the basics. That only comes through a
lot of hard work and experience.

Regards

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike let me put things into perspective. I use the programs a lot
and trust them. At the same time there is an article in a compendium
that relates the difficulties they have had with calculations meeting
empirical solutions.They then added a condition which infers that
the time varient used is that of the current.But when I used the
computor
by following Gauss and the terms of equilibrium the result is a tank
circuit which contradicts the added condition. So in a sense the
program corroberates my work despite the imposed condition which
the program itself describes as erronious.
When I read of the difficulties associated with antenna programs
and how they were adjusted especially with an erronious condition
which is not allowable in mathematics then the corroberation of
my work is seriously strained to what appears as the correct results
for the wrong reasons. A specific case is where using magnetic and
electrical standards one can use vectors in a known direction
the summation of which is not parallel to the axis of the radiator.
The paradox is that the computor results are in line with Maxwells
laws
when one is confined to a situation of equilibrium demanded by Gauss.
Thus the question is how can this be if the program itself has
imposed
a condition around the laws of Maxwell whereas the program itself
overrules the validity of that same condition.
This obviously leaves the computor analysis in a precarious position.
For myself I would like to know how the programmers implemented this
condition they imposed and how it affected derived results.If this
inconsistency is not resolved to my satisfaction then the thesis
is tenacious at best and subject to serious question.
Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk)

GUT ( Grand unification theory)
 

Mike Coslo wrote:

...
I have also met people who make sharpening a pencil incomprehensible.

If a person cannot explain something so that an another intelligent
person can get at least a rudimentary grasp, the fault does not lie with
the person looking for the education.


Right on!

I interact with both types, preferring the latter. The purpose here is
to learn something I am ignorant of and not to be whamboozled by
self-importance ...

Regards,
JS

GUT ( Grand unification theory)
 

On Dec 9, 2:23 am, John Smith wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

...

I have also met people who make sharpening a pencil incomprehensible.

If a person cannot explain something so that an another intelligent
person can get at least a rudimentary grasp, the fault does not lie with
the person looking for the education.

Right on!

I interact with both types, preferring the latter. The purpose here is
to learn something I am ignorant of and not to be whamboozled by
self-importance ...

The challenge for the "person looking for the education" is
deciding who is doing the "whamboozling".

....Keith

GUT ( Grand unification theory)
 

"art" wrote in message
...
On 8 Dec, 18:17, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message

...





Mike Kaliski wrote:
. . .
NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy
grail in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or
configurations. They can accurately predict 'established' antenna
design
performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what
properties a new and previously untried design might have. . .

They are used daily by a very large number of people to predict, with
excellent accuracy, how new and untried antenna designs will work.

The programs are, of necessity, constrained by the accuracy of the
physical measurements and formulae used in writing the original
program.

That's not quite correct. The "formulae" used are very fundamental
electromagnetic equations. The "physical measurements" used are
fundamental constants such as the speed of light and permittivity and
permeability of free space, all of which are known to much greater
accuracy than antenna performance measurements are capable of
delivering.
So neither constitutes any real constraint on program accuracy. The
main
constraints are the inability to model all physical structures. For
example, NEC has no provision for including a slab of dielectric,
making
microstrip antennas impossible to model accurately (except the rare
ones
with air dielectric). There are many such constraints, of which the
user
has to be acutely aware. The programs are very accurate if, and only
if,
the model is indeed representative of the physical antenna.

My point entirely - It is impossible to take into account absolutely
every
factor that someone might want to model. It is either so esoteric as to
be a
'one off', or someone wishes to work outside of the constraints of
accepted
design principles.





I do not consider the challenge to Newton's Laws to be valid. Just
because there is no true vacuum anywhere in the universe, as far as
can
be established, then all objects will eventually come to rest due to
friction. This does not invalidate the premis that in the absence of
friction or any other external influence, an object would continue in
motion along a straight path forever.

This would be funny if it weren't sad. This newsgroup is one of the few
places I can think of where the silly statement I posted about moving
bodies and friction would be taken seriously. But it's really no
surprise,
since it's much less unreasonable than the imaginative alternative
theories which are seriously presented, and just as seriously argued,
here
daily.

My postulate about objects in motion was a parody of Cecil's rejection
of
theoretical cases on the basis that they can't exist in practice, my
intent being to show how such a rejection leads to incorrect results.
But
I see it's drawing the same serious response as Cecil's and Art's
postings. All that's missing is one of Richard's quotes from Terman and
support from Derek.

Well I felt I had to comment in case someone was taking your remark
seriously. As you rightly say there have been plenty of arguments over
many
less obvious tongue in cheek remarks.





Ultimately whatever predictions are made by computer modelling
programs
or theory, the only measure of success is by physical measurement in
the
real world.

That's almost true. It's important also to know that even moderately
accurate antenna measurements are extremely difficult and exacting to
make. Consequently, there are often cases where model results are a
better
indicator of an antenna's performance than measured ones. Antennas and
models follow the same physical laws. So to the extent that the model
imitates reality, the results are the same.

This philosophy isn't restricted to antenna modeling. Circuit designers
use programs to model circuits which can't be measured. I've designed
circuitry which operates from a few GHz to several tens of GHz, which
is
still in production. It's simply impossible to measure voltages and
currents in such circuits, so modeling is heavily used. Often, every PC
board or hybrid circuit pad and trace has to be included as a
transmission
line model; I've even had to build a transmission line model of a
capacitor which was 80 mils long. That the overall performance matched
the
models' predictions is evidence that the models matched the physical
circuits. IC designers rely entirely on models to predict the
performance
of circuits which can be measured only after huge financial investments
to
commit the model results to physical reality. The principles are
exactly
the same for antenna modeling as for circuit modeling.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I think we are in agreement Roy that the doubts cast on computer
modelling
are generally raised by those who have an incomplete understanding of the
problem they are trying to model. While it may be fun to chuck in some
random figures to see what happens, the results are unlikely to be of use
without a thorough understanding of the basics. That only comes through a
lot of hard work and experience.

Regards

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike let me put things into perspective. I use the programs a lot
and trust them. At the same time there is an article in a compendium
that relates the difficulties they have had with calculations meeting
empirical solutions.They then added a condition which infers that
the time varient used is that of the current.But when I used the
computor
by following Gauss and the terms of equilibrium the result is a tank
circuit which contradicts the added condition. So in a sense the
program corroberates my work despite the imposed condition which
the program itself describes as erronious.
When I read of the difficulties associated with antenna programs
and how they were adjusted especially with an erronious condition
which is not allowable in mathematics then the corroberation of
my work is seriously strained to what appears as the correct results
for the wrong reasons. A specific case is where using magnetic and
electrical standards one can use vectors in a known direction
the summation of which is not parallel to the axis of the radiator.
The paradox is that the computor results are in line with Maxwells
laws
when one is confined to a situation of equilibrium demanded by Gauss.
Thus the question is how can this be if the program itself has
imposed
a condition around the laws of Maxwell whereas the program itself
overrules the validity of that same condition.
This obviously leaves the computor analysis in a precarious position.
For myself I would like to know how the programmers implemented this
condition they imposed and how it affected derived results.If this
inconsistency is not resolved to my satisfaction then the thesis
is tenacious at best and subject to serious question.
Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk)

Art

I wasn't having a go at you or your use of computer modelling. The problem
is that computer models can only simulate what might be happening in the
real world. They cannot take into account every possible situation.
Mathematics itself is riddled with logical inconsistancies and we have
learned to work around them. Some methods work better than others for
solving specific problems.

Cheers

Mike G0ULI