NM5K wrote:


Yes. But they deal with the real world, not a bunch of conjered up
voodoo science.


Funny you should mention that. As, when you peek closely under the hood
of the NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to),
it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science", IMHO ...


Only people with limited room are likely to be interesting
in accepting a decrease in performance, vs using full size
antennas. The only place you see me using small antennas on HF

Don't forget us guys who are over 50 and getting tired of maintaining
large hunks of metal in the sky and fighting the force of gravity Gods
to do so (in more ways than one! And, not to mention neighbors, rules,
regulations, etc.) With the price of real estate being manipulated near
"Hong Kong Prices" (what is that, about a million dollars a sq. ft.?),
reduced size antennas will only increase in uses and demand ...

Regards,
JS

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:12:51 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

of the NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to),
it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science", IMHO ...

In your Hyper-inflated Opinion. As with many of your opunions, none
are supported in accomplishment and I dare say you cannot recite a
block of labeled code that conforms to your supposed humility. As
with your confidence in reciting the volume of a sphere (and lacking a
simple answer to my offering a chord measurement to test your
confidence), I can well anticipate your post here, is as much a Troll
as any of the rest.

You can offer that labeled block of code to support your statement
or
admit your post is so much babble
or
your post is yet another troll

How many rounds will it take to resolve to one in three? I am sure
most here would hammer the last two in a heartbeat and the mole would
be whacked twice.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:


You can offer that labeled block of code to support your statement
or
admit your post is so much babble
or
your post is yet another troll


I asked R2D2 his opinion on this matter, and he went
bleeeeppp, sputter, raiiinnnnnngggggggggggg, fart.

You can hear it for yourself if you go here and type
"bull@#Z$%" into the frame.
http://www.r2d2translator.com/


I just asked him if his sensors felt any extra amounts
of excrement applied, and he sputtered out another
long tirade, which ended up meaning, "well you can see
the stupid meter for yourself can't you!!"
You can see live streaming of this meter at:
http://home.comcast.net/~nm5k/bsmeter.gif

NM5K wrote:

...
I asked R2D2 his opinion on this matter, and he went
bleeeeppp, sputter, raiiinnnnnngggggggggggg, fart.


Somehow, by the very nature of your participation(s) here, I can believe
that! ROFLOL

Well, I mean, you are liable to interpret your visions as such ... chuckle

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:

In your Hyper-inflated Opinion. As with many of your opunions, none
are supported in accomplishment and I dare say you cannot recite a
block of labeled code that conforms to your supposed humility. As
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Doesn't it even embarrass you in the least to make such statements which
the mere application of common sense will declare an outrageous lie(s)?

The code which comes into play when a gamma match configuration of
elements is defined and handed to the NEC engine, along with the proper
pf to cancel the inductance of the gamma-rod, should be proof enough
.... to any legitimate software engineer with "an antenna hobby."
Indeed, any man with common sense who can understand the equation(s)
being called to play and their very (rounding/guessing) nature ...

Download the code and locate it yourself! It comes in Fortran, Basic
and "C" flavors--at least ... if you are intelligent to understand this
conversation on even a basic level, you should be able to accomplish
that ...

Regards,
JS

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:43:38 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:12:51 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

of the NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to),
it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science", IMHO ...

In your Hyper-inflated Opinion. As with many of your opunions, none
are supported in accomplishment and I dare say you cannot recite a
block of labeled code that conforms to your supposed humility.

Download the code and locate it yourself!

Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you
say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate
your homework?

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you
say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate
your homework?

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Due to the insane nature ALL of your postings have taken (and yes, I
have noted you have refrained from using quotes from Shakespeare to
validate your arguments), all that is left is to point out your insanity.

Restating what has been restated has lost all hope of getting though to
you ... a shrink would be required now ... perhaps a family intervention?

You can prove my time carrying on any discussions with you is valid, if
only you can download the source to the Numerical Electromagnetic Code,
compile and link it, and feeding it a problem containing a defined
gamma, and observing it though a debugger ... if you can't, all you are
is a waste of time to me ... indeed, to any of consequence in this debate.

Regards,
JS

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:40:38 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you
say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate
your homework?

all that is left is to point out

Plenty of wheezing, but not a whisper of support for your own
statement.

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Plenty of wheezing, but not a whisper of support for your own
statement.

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

HEY! Are you guys making fun of my antenna again?!

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:40:38 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you
say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate
your homework?

all that is left is to point out

Plenty of wheezing, but not a whisper of support for your own
statement.

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In this instance, I said what I meant, and meant what I said, and
ABSOLUTELY--stand behind it ... if you are pre-Alzheimer's, you already
know that ... your real problem is that real men have went underground
.... don't count on that as a condition which will alway exist ... fools
with no mind and no extrapolative powers bore us (and, you will note, me
especially!,) and, if you think I am a bad-A$$, what until you see my
son ... ROFLOL

Regards,
JS