Jerry wrote:
I'd like to know more about any data anyone has that shows
where EZNEC gives wrong data.

Here's one where all the geometry and segmentation checks
are OK but the conductors are too close together. It results
in an omnidirectional antenna with a 24 dBi gain.

http://www.w5dxp.com/SUPRGAIN.EZ
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Mike Coslo wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..

Shall I inform "Cliff", as trustee, how badly you are
abusing his call sign, or are you really "Cliff".

Oh would you please? I might be a little suspicious of that other group
in Lawrence County also with their club call of NC3LC. After all, if you
drop the first C from their callsign, and add 9 letters to the last C,
you'll come up with that N3LI callsign again.

The mystery
deepens....(hi hi)

Oy. Is there an emoticon for shaking one's head?

Take it easy on him, Mike. He has to be feeling like a fool right about
now.

Dave K8MN

Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm N3LI. Its true, I swear!

The Japanese hold the prize for confusing R's and L's.
When General MacArthur was running for the Republican
presidential nomination in 1952, the Japanese put up a
large banner in the Ginza district of Toyko that said:

Congratulations
General MacArthur
On Your Coming Erection
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:29:36 +0000, Cecil Moore wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm N3LI. Its true, I swear!

The Japanese hold the prize for confusing R's and L's. When General
MacArthur was running for the Republican presidential nomination in
1952, the Japanese put up a large banner in the Ginza district of Toyko
that said:

Congratulations
General MacArthur
On Your Coming Erection

HAR! yeah, I thought about the R an L connection, but didn't pursue it.

Great quip tough!!

--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:07 -0500, "common sense"
wrote:

Hey Tom, good one. You're the guy who said you can sign a check with your
call sign and improper use is identity theft. Are you an attorney? Is this
you? http://www.maplewoodvoterscoalition....ringfinal2.pdf

"In search of...common sense"

Hi Dan,

Gone back to the shadows of anonymity? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

AI4QJ wrote:
I am at all loss to how real scientists like Cecil Moore and Gene
Fuller can continue to participate here.

Dan,

I am a real scientist, but I would never dream of attempting "real
science" on RRAA. I try to say only things I believe to be correct, as
do most people, but this is far more like a blog than a scientific
journal. The burden of proof is simply based on who runs out of gas first.

There is some very useful information here along with quite a bit of
more questionable lore. There is some trolling. But it is all basically
entertainment. Put on your waders and remain skeptical.

Even scientists need entertainment once in a while.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm N3LI. Its true, I swear!

The Japanese hold the prize for confusing R's and L's.
When General MacArthur was running for the Republican
presidential nomination in 1952, the Japanese put up a
large banner in the Ginza district of Toyko that said:

Congratulations
General MacArthur
On Your Coming Erection

Easily explainable, they were ahead of the times. And, quite obviously,
were making reference to the development of viagra!

There crystal ball failed them though; they must have been counting on
life extending medicine which failed to be developed--however, they got
it half-right. grin

Regards,
JS

Mike Coslo wrote:
We are lucky to have someone like Roy posting here. So many truly
competent folks have been run off from the newgroups by the crazies over
the years that people like him are becoming more and more rare.

What may be the real objection is the arrogance demonstrated
by some of the contributors. Please see my new thread concerning
some of Roy's "Food for Thought" statements.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

common sense wrote:

Hey Tom, good one. You're the guy who said you can sign a check with your
call sign and improper use is identity theft. Are you an attorney? Is this
you? http://www.maplewoodvoterscoalition....ringfinal2.pdf

"In search of...common sense"


Sorry, that's not me.

tom
K0TAR

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:11:56 GMT, "Jerry"
wrote:


I have some limited accuracy test equipment for evaluating antennas.
Recently Richard Clark prodded me till I couldnt take it any more so I got
some of Roy's software. Richard even told me how to use it. It has become
clear that *my* test equipment is is very good agreement with Roy's EZNEC.
. EZNEC works so well for my situation that I thought it was woring well for
everyone. I can make real radiation patterns of my prototype antennas
(using POES signals for the illuminator) that are in agreement with EZNEC
prediction. Even the inpedance of the eklements are well predicted by
EZNEC. Do you know where any real data is in disagreement with EZNEC
predictions? I'd like to know more about any data anyone has that shows
where EZNEC gives wrong data.

Jerry KD6JDJ (who is extreemely happy with his EZNEC
"tool")



I believe there are still a lot of unknowns about antenna theory and
propagation and that something may someday come along that EZNEC
cannot properly calculate and model. There are several hams who may
or may not be lurking about this group that have invented 'new'
antenna designs that cannot be properly modeled by EZNEC.
Unfortunately, for the ones I know about, the information is held so
secretly close to the inventors that their designs cannot be properly
compared to other antennas of known design to validate the inventors'
claims.

I have been a ham for 29.5 years now and for HF base, I have almost
exclusively operated from my own home-brew antennas. I learned a few
things over the years, rules of thumb so to speak. For Yagi antennas,
the longer the boom, the greater the gain, the shorter the boom, the
wider the beam width. For wire antennas, (within certain constraints)
the more wire, the more gain, the longer the antenna, the better the
gain, the shorter the antenna (shortened antenna) the narrower the
bandwidth. It is very hard to get a 1/16th wave antenna to work as
well as a decent 1/2 wave antenna for the same frequency. Most
importantly, any antenna (that won't destroy the radio) will
communicate given adequate propagation between the two points.

I don't use EZNEC. I haven't had the time set aside for studying that
and antenna theory long enough to make good use of the program. I have
tried, but it isn't capable of modeling the antenna design that I want
to experiment with,

I don't say this to discredit Roy, as, in all honesty, from the bottom
of my heart, I acknowledge that by far he has greater intelligence in
the antenna field than I hope to have. But, his software has certain
limitations and he states at least some of the limitations in his user
manual.

There are a number of professional antenna specialists here, some
real, some wanna-be. Some of those professionals don't care for us
amateurs being here asking questions anyone with a Masters degree in
antenna science shouldn't have learned by their fifth or sixth year of
study. Others are glad to help as long as we have shown to have made
some effort to understand the basics of how an antenna works.

I have respect for both Roy and Cecil, even tho they are quite often
at odds with each other, and I have respect for others here as well.
In time you will know who you want to trust and who you don't want to
hear from.

Good luck,
Buck
N4PGW

--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."