Tom Donaly wrote:

...
Mocking people like Art isn't my idea of fun.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

You were raised well, and stand in tribute to your parents; Good man!
Very rare these days ...

Regards,
JS

On Dec 10, 6:16*am, "Harold E. Johnson" wrote:
I only just read this reply.

NOTHING that I have said or referenced supports Art's ideas in any way.
His ideas are totally deluded.

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK * * * * 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

And he's been at it for several years now. I plonked him well over a year
ago. If everyone would stop paying him any attention and stop responding to
his BS, it wouldn't take him a month to go bother some other newsgroup that
would give him the audience he thinks he needs. We'd be far better off for
it. Art's a nut case. Face it and ignore him.

PLEASE!

W4ZCB

Harold,
Yes I do need an audience of radio hams of which a very small minority
is able
to operate a computer program for antennas with a optimizer. I may
well be a nut case as you say and delusional
as others would say but for many years I have presented the same
problem
to this group which in itself provides vindication to my thinking.
Over the years I have pointed out to this group that an optimizer
program ( one of which is free on the web)
will always discard the planar design in favor of a design that is in
equilibrium. Now I am not a computer programer
sio I am not resposible for the programs that push aside planar
designs such as the Yagi, I am just pointing out a fact.
Now I am not willing to take the aproach of garbage in garbage out but
I am willing to investigate why and present my findings.
I have done that and regardles what you think of me as a person as
radio hams you should be concerned about accepted programs
on antennas putting out what you consider as garbage. Now I understand
that many are not able to tackle such a problem and in fact many
cannot even operate a computer. But this is a newsgroup for the
discussion of antennas and many feel they are competant to determine
what is garbage or not without the use of a computer. But surely some
must realize that those who one suspects is really an expert in
antennas and computer programs
not one has inserted a one liner in a program to check out the info
that I placed before them.It has been several years of name calling by
those who are not skilled in the art but total silence from those that
are skilled because they cannot provide a reason for such results and
at the same time cannot aliign themselves with the naysayers. Think
about it guys, you want to shut me up then why not explain the anomoly?
Years ago hams were happy to accept outrageous gain figures advertized
in QST and advertizers knew that hams would not question it and they
were correct as the present situation shows.
You state I have been a problem for years with respect to this yet
nobody as yet has stated that the programs do not take this path or
tried to explain why.
It takes 5 minuits to check with a one liner and for a hero to emerge
to chop me off at the knees, but not one is willing to come forward
and thus lose his place in the pecking line of pseudo experts....not
one. Thus those on the group of lesser abilities gain confidence in
calling evrything trash while those that can do remain silent. They
know the computer programs are acting this way. Their silence infers
that the programs are doing something "wrong"
Harold, turning a blind eye to what i have informed others will not
force me to collect coals from Newcastle as I am not going away so a
few may maintain an un truth. If you are not just a talking head use
the free program available on the net and find out the truth for
yourself instead of being a lemming.
Art

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:58:14 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

I may
well be a nut case as you say and delusional
as others would say but for many years I have presented the same
problem
to this group which in itself provides vindication to my thinking.

Well, if this is a defense, at least it is rational (doesn't mean it
is logical, however).

Over the years I have pointed out to this group that an optimizer
program ( one of which is free on the web)

And one that Art will never divulge the name of - with his natural
inclination to suppress information. I could be wrong in that he
might be actually suborning the circulation of software pirated from
vendors. As his experience is limited to one package from the 1980s,
and that author has refused to market it anymore because of piracy, it
is rather hypocritical that Art suggest it can be freely obtained.

Art can immediately nullify this tarnished image of supporting
computer piracy by naming this so-called "free optimizer" - but I will
bet dollars to donuts that he would rather embrace this form of
illegality than utter that "free optimizer's" name.

will always discard the planar design in favor of a design that is in
equilibrium.

In fact it will NEVER discard any design for one that is inferior!

Now I am not a computer programer
sio I am not resposible for the programs that push aside planar
designs such as the Yagi,

A computer user is probably more dangerous than a computer programmer
when it comes to this erroneous usage.

I am just pointing out a fact.

Making a mistake is a fact. Publishing it as the tool's fault is
called coppin' a plea.

Now I am not willing to take the aproach of garbage in garbage out but
I am willing to investigate why and present my findings.

Another strange defense garroted by the fantasy of "findings."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
It takes 5 minuits to check with a one liner

yeah, and art thinks he is the only one who ever let an optimizer run until
it went into an unrealizable super gain state. most of us have learned to
constrain them properly so they give buildable results, but not art, he
keeps trying to explain how they use the same well known maxwell equations,
but in secret have this hidden weak force that makes them give results that
only he can understand.