On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:17:40 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
.. .

Those that stand to lose the most in celebrity, rarely offer
correlating data or respond in true faith to enquiry for details. This
is, after all, the point of the exchange of correspondence where
celebrities post merely to pronounce their claims a spark of invention
to be validated here. That just isn't the way it works here, or in
"real life" either.

Your entire post seems to indicate that, in order to participate in this
newsgroup, you must use EZNEC.

Hi Dan,

No, it explicitly informs you that if you don't have any modeler, you
are only guessing. Modelers offer solutions that I doubt you could
obtain through your own efforts.

Forget about all those tiresome formulae and
the concept building; you need not know how a standing wave works or the
mathematics thereof.

Forget? Well, this certainly describes someone who will certainly
contribute to pilot error. I dare say, those who are eminently
familiar with how a standing wave works, or the math, use modelers.
Those who don't know how a standing wave works, or the math, are
rather flat-footed.

I'm sure it was a boon for you when the slide rule was
replaced by the electronic calculator, leaving your mind free from having to
wrestle with the true science and mathematics that is going on with your
engineering problems and just let the machine do it for you.

Fortunately, I don't pursue issues that don't survive a simple
rationality check. This can even eclipse the need of a slide rule
with a few figures sketch on a paper, and some simple computations.

If you make a
stupid mistake, don't fret, somebody will correct the parameters and re-run
the program until it fits. No need to understand maxwell, calculus, vectors,
phasors, just let the program do it all for your using the brute force
method of moments. Transistors are dirt cheap and efficient calculations are
no longer necessary. No need for analog computers. Just plug it into a
method of moments calculator and you are done.

Ah, but the introduction of this last quote is significant: the
mistake is caught. One needn't be a conductor to enjoy music. On the
other hand, a conductor is eminently qualified (if one can use the
word) to enjoy music.

What's missing with this, of course, is the part your grey matter is
supposed to do. Grey matter can take a permenent vacation.

Again, you have already revealed a thought process of recognizing a
mistake. Stupid or otherwise is merely a value to the problem, not to
the process of obtaining the solution.

I see no problem using a NEC to confirm a calculation or concept. But you
seem to advocate its exclusive use as the only authoritative, indeed,
available, tool.

I am still waiting for you to reveal something that does it better.
Simply throwing brain cells at it hasn't offered us much product here
- except when the internal logic of some proclamation fails on the
starting blocks.

Of course, I disagree and think that rraa still has room for real math and
scientific concepts and indeed there is room for NEC. However, if the choice
is given to prefer one over the other, I prefer the former because creative
design does not occur by arbitrary and random use computer problems such as
NEC, CADAM and the like, it comes from scientific method which requires
human thought.

A long and winding road, that. But cursing at air traffic because it
gets others there faster doesn't make blisters on your feet ennobling,
especially when you are as likely to arrive at the wrong destination
as any air traveler.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC