Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question?

wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

You have obviously missed the point. There's absolutely nothing wrong
with an approximation. That includes EZNEC and my rule-of-thumb.
"EZNEC is only an approximation", is NOT a negative statement any more
than, "You are only a man", is a negative statement. Everything,
including precise measurements with expensive instruments, has
limitations.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On 31 Mar 2004 08:27:20 -0800, (Cecil Moore)
wrote:

Everything,
including precise measurements with expensive instruments, has
limitations.

I note no measurement with instruments, expensive nor inexpensive, no
expression of limitations, no references - simply innuendo. Innuendo
is not approximation. There is no discussion as to the genesis of
this "approximation." There is no data garnered by experiment to
support it. There are no correlatives to associate it. Nothing
educational, no generality. As such, all the quality of the Old
Wife's Tale.

I believe Tom's point was that more information was known or available
preceding the "approximation" than following it, which portrays the
"approximation" as a degradation of knowledge. The process of the
"approximation" has so many constraints as to fall out of the field of
a generality, which is the common understanding of "approximation."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question?
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

Funny, I have exactly this same problem with my dog. The only
response I ever get from her is "Arf", the exact intellectual
equivalent of your responses.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Richard Clark wrote in message
There is no discussion as to the genesis of
this "approximation." There is no data garnered by experiment to
support it.

That's simply a false statement. So please tell us what objection do
you have to the graphs in the ARRL Antenna Book (a previous reference
of mine) from which everything I have said logically follows.

I believe Tom's point was that more information was known or available
preceding the "approximation" than following it, which portrays the
"approximation" as a degradation of knowledge.

That's a laugh since most hams are incapable of measuring anything
like 3000+j2000 ohms. I have no idea what your (or Tom's) agenda is
but it is apparently to convince everyone that shortcuts are useless
and only gurus like yourself can bestow the sacred cow knowledge of
antennas on us, the unwashed masses.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On 31 Mar 2004 18:02:41 -0800, (Cecil Moore)
wrote:
Richard Clark wrote in message
There is no discussion as to the genesis of
this "approximation." There is no data garnered by experiment to
support it.

That's simply a false statement.

Recite your data.

"Cecil Moore" a écrit dans le message de
om...

I have no idea what your (or Tom's) agenda is
but it is apparently to convince everyone that shortcuts are useless
and only gurus like yourself can bestow the sacred cow knowledge of
antennas on us, the unwashed masses.

Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot.

"Cecil Moore" a écrit dans le message de om...
Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question?
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

Funny, I have exactly this same problem with my dog. The only
response I ever get from her is "Arf", the exact intellectual
equivalent of your responses.

Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot.

"Cecil Moore" a écrit dans le message de om...
Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question?

wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

You have obviously missed the point. There's absolutely nothing wrong
with an approximation. That includes EZNEC and my rule-of-thumb.
"EZNEC is only an approximation", is NOT a negative statement any more
than, "You are only a man", is a negative statement. Everything,
including precise measurements with expensive instruments, has
limitations.

Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot.

Richard Clark wrote:

On 31 Mar 2004 18:02:41 -0800, (Cecil Moore)
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in message

There is no discussion as to the genesis of
this "approximation." There is no data garnered by experiment to
support it.

That's simply a false statement.

Recite your data.

Once again: The ARRL Antenna Book, 15th edition, page 2-10, the graph
of resistance Vs reactance in Fig. 10 for frequencies from f/2 to 2f.
The same graph appears as a series of graphs in the ARRL Antenna Book
CD, ver. 2.0. Everything I said falls out directly from those graphs.

Fig. 10 is for a 1/4WL monopole so it has to be extrapolated for a
1/2WL dipole. The point of maximum reactance is approximately equal
to the (anti)resonant resistance divided by 2. The resistance at
the point of maximum reactance is approximately equal to the (anti)
resonant resistance divided by 2.

How can you guys get so upset at someone who simply describes a graph
in the ARRL Antenna Book?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Albert Berouette wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote:
I have no idea what your (or Tom's) agenda is
but it is apparently to convince everyone that shortcuts are useless
and only gurus like yourself can bestow the sacred cow knowledge of
antennas on us, the unwashed masses.

Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot.

If describing a graph from the ARRL Antenna Book makes me a
troll and a crackpot, so be it.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----