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