Computer model experiment
 

On 5/20/2010 7:40 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Oh that's right, I forgot. You use my god child. I asked Brian to do
that program for 2 or 3 years before he finally did. I was the alpha
tester on it and other of his programs.

You do know that's just MiniNEC, right? With all the problems MiniNEC
has included for your computing pleasure.

It's off frequency - low. And it gets worse as the wire diameter
INCREASES. Which is what you are doing in your example.

It also doesn't like bent wires, as in things that don't meet at 180
degrees. It breaks down completely at less than 28 degrees.

It doesn't like adjacent segments that are in a ratio greater than 2 to 1.

And it doesn't like adjacent wires that are closer than .23 of a segment
length.

Given some of the things you have posted that you have modeled, I'd
guess that you break a minimum of 1, normally 2, and sometimes 3 of the
above conditions.

No wonder your stuff acts abnormal.

And you are using this tool to attempt to prove your twisted theories
about Maxwell's equations? That's like using a chain saw to do brain
surgery.

tom
K0TAR

All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions. I personally am as pleased as punch in what I
purchased from Brian and I certainly do not believe he would foist on
the ham community anything but his best. Knowing that he is not

It was his best, but based on MiniNEC. He couldn't change that. He did
tweak things in YO because it was special purpose, but I believe he left
the engine in AO pretty much alone.

exactly a peoples person I suspect he would not shy from a clash with
you when you distribute your personal opinions. So I can imagine why
such a person like you would jump at the chance to savage another's
personality. For my part I use the program strictly for his adherence
to Maxwell's equations which is the approach that I take. This allows
for an over check most times when ensuring

It adheres to MiniNEC's core. Which adhere to Maxwell no more and no
less than that. And it has serious and known shortcomings, which you
seem to want to wish away. Brian did a great, hell spectacular, job
with what he started with, but he couldn't make the problems with
MiniNEC disappear. No one has done anything like it that is available
at the prices he charged since then. But the user needs to understand
the limitations of the product.

that arrays proffered meet the condition of equilibrium of each part
and all of the provided

AO knows nothing of the equilibrium of which you speak.

array. I doubt very much you would have strayed beyond the Yagi and
other planar designs when testing, but then you are not short of
claiming anything that may boost your position in life.

You have no idea what I have done, designed or built. But I would bet
I've built more, and that it works better than anything you have come up
with unless you copied it from someone else.

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/20/2010 7:40 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions.

And this comment from someone who never states anything about his
miracle antennas except the fact that they are miraculous.

Yes, you are Mr. Credibility!

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On May 20, 8:21*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/20/2010 7:40 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions.

And this comment from someone who never states anything about his
miracle antennas except the fact that they are miraculous.

Yes, you are Mr. Credibility!

tom
K0TAR

Tom I try to provide the specifics with respect to my posts because
without them there can be no discussion. I do get discussions and
generally they
are not as nice as I would like them to be but others do get involved
while at the same time providing worth while comments such as the
continuity of the donut shape which forced me to reconsider. As far as
minninec is concerned I had no other choice since I required an
optimiser but even so minninec surely has its problems the same as
NEC. If and when NEC tries the optimiser aproach I suspect they will
incorporate minninec in some way. As far as the faults you pointed to
I can't imagine not placing segment opposite each other for close
spaced elements or in fact placing much confidence in bent angles in
the area below 30 degrees whether it be eznec or minninec.
When I started to look away from yagi's and planar devices I followed
the standard rules of mathematics with respect to equilibrium and
Maxwell's rules, I was very pleased that the mininec
conformed to my expectations. This however, did not stop me from
getting confirmation else where using NEC4. So again I have no reason
not to trust
AO any time before I distrust myself when I am more than willing to
declare what I did and who I am. The reason I do respond to your posts
is to encourage you to use free speech and thus force you to disclose
what sort of person you are to other members of the group, and not for
its technical content. I have on my page unwinantennas a sample of an
array ( diversity array)that conforms to my thinking with respect to
Maxwells equations
which were fully revealed to me by the expansion of
Gauss theorem from static to dynamic in every way,
which provided the evidence of particles as the carrier of radiation.
Since nobody on this group is willing to understand the meanings of
equilibrium in physics or the legitamacy of changing static parameters
to dynamic, minninec did supply the backing for my thoughts in every
way which no other program that was available was capable of.
Have a happy day
Art

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/20/2010 9:14 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

Tom I try to provide the specifics with respect to my posts because
without them there can be no discussion. I do get discussions and
generally they
are not as nice as I would like them to be but others do get involved
while at the same time providing worth while comments such as the
continuity of the donut shape which forced me to reconsider. As far as
minninec is concerned I had no other choice since I required an
optimiser but even so minninec surely has its problems the same as
NEC. If and when NEC tries the optimiser aproach I suspect they will
incorporate minninec in some way. As far as the faults you pointed to
I can't imagine not placing segment opposite each other for close
spaced elements or in fact placing much confidence in bent angles in
the area below 30 degrees whether it be eznec or minninec.
When I started to look away from yagi's and planar devices I followed
the standard rules of mathematics with respect to equilibrium and
Maxwell's rules, I was very pleased that the mininec
conformed to my expectations. This however, did not stop me from
getting confirmation else where using NEC4. So again I have no reason
not to trust
AO any time before I distrust myself when I am more than willing to
declare what I did and who I am. The reason I do respond to your posts
is to encourage you to use free speech and thus force you to disclose
what sort of person you are to other members of the group, and not for
its technical content. I have on my page unwinantennas a sample of an
array ( diversity array)that conforms to my thinking with respect to
Maxwells equations
which were fully revealed to me by the expansion of
Gauss theorem from static to dynamic in every way,
which provided the evidence of particles as the carrier of radiation.
Since nobody on this group is willing to understand the meanings of
equilibrium in physics or the legitamacy of changing static parameters
to dynamic, minninec did supply the backing for my thoughts in every
way which no other program that was available was capable of.
Have a happy day
Art

And yet you never, ever, give numbers that define your antennas,
excepting the almost planar example antenna. Which doesn't work all
that well, actually.

You have to present some examples of things that actually work well
before you are considered credible.

And given your claims, you are expected to show antennas that are
demonstrably better than current designs.

So far you have not done any of the above.

tom
K0TAR


tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

O Jeez! Here we go again!!!! All this about vortices sounds like spin to me.

Irv VE6BP

Computer model experiment
 

On May 20, 9:27*pm, tom wrote:




You have to present some examples of things that actually work well
before you are considered credible.



So far you have not done any of the above.



The Chronicles of Arthur Unwin. :/
Delusions of grandeur induced by abuse and misuse of
antenna modeling programs.
Excessive adult beverage consumption may also be
an issue, but I couldn't really say being as I can't give
him a breathalyzer test over the internet...

Heck, I think more than a few of the common programs
have "optimization" routines. Big deal.
I know the freeware MMANA does..
And having played with it a bit, I know you have to take
the results with a grain of salt, and often the results were
worse than what I would come up with manually. :(

Say optimizing a yagi.. I've seen some fairly peculiar
and below par results using the optimization in that
program. Art's blind trust is rather peculiar. :/

Not to mention some of his peculiar theories and notions.
IE: if the pattern of an antenna displays an isotropic
pattern, how in the heck are you going to have large
amounts of gain? The gain would be near zero if using
isotropic antenna as the reference.
Not 32 dbi or whatever number he came up with.
In order to have gain in any direction, a null must form
in some other direction. No free lunch. Sorry.
Of course, Art seems to confuse efficiency and gain, but
that's a chapter for another day.

Art generally ignores efficiency. In his world, equilibrium,
neutrinos, and solar fairy dust particles with levitating vortex
swirls cause efficiency issues to vanish into thin air.
If the vortex swirls start to resemble what you would see
off a Boeing 757 on a moist cloudy day, you have total
equilibrium and obvious 100% efficiency and 87 dbi gain
in all directions.
Tell Jethro to fix the brakes on the truck. We may be moving
soon. :)

Say as when using an A/C fan motors worth of thin wire wound
on a short stick of PVC and supposedly operated on 160m.. :(
But even Art himself claims to almost never actually use the
transmitter in his rig. Being as even a stick of wound wire can
receive halfway well on the low bands, we have a new miracle!
Never mind that some guy tried the same thing about 85 years
ago I'm sure.. :/ It doesn't work any better now than it did then.
Back to the drawing board for prior Art..

No transmit tests or comparison with known benchmarks are
required in the world of Art. The masters sayeth, so it must
be true! Woe to the non believers! They knoweth not what
they do or say!

They have no equilibrium!

Call the patent office, and get the lawyers on the phone!
Load up the truck, we're moving to Beverly Hills. :)
Did Jethro ever fix the brakes?

In the dark recesses of Art's brain, he applied the theory of
reciprocity to this antenna. It receives fairly well, so it surely
must transmit in a like manner.
If only the world were fair.

Next week.. If you run over a neutrino with a Goodyear
Accutread tire, will a puncture occur?
The answer to this question and many others on the next
installment of Art's Chronicles.

Computer model experiment
 

Uzytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 20, 11:42 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
The "like sound" is the oldest and explain the all phenomena.

"All phenomena", including traveling at the speed of light in a
vacuum? :-)

All without exceptions.
In the space are free electrons (plasma). If you move one of them the next
reacts on it. It is normal pressure wave (electric wave).

It is intresting that the speed of electric waves are the same in vacuum and
in conductors.
In insulators the electric waves travel slower.
S*

Computer model experiment
 

Computer model experiment
 

On May 21, 2:37*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
In the space are free electrons (plasma). If you move one of them the next
reacts on it. It is normal pressure wave (electric wave).

If you are correct, the feedpoint impedance of a 1/2WL standing-wave
dipole should change from 75 ohms to around 600 ohms (traveling wave
antenna) when installed in free space. Does NASA know that resonant
standing-wave antennas, like 1/2WL dipoles, will not work in free
space because of all those free electrons in free space?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Computer model experiment
 

Uzytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 21, 2:37 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
In the space are free electrons (plasma). If you move one of them the
next
reacts on it. It is normal pressure wave (electric wave).

If you are correct, the feedpoint impedance of a 1/2WL standing-wave
dipole should change from 75 ohms to around 600 ohms (traveling wave
antenna) when installed in free space. Does NASA know that resonant
standing-wave antennas, like 1/2WL dipoles, will not work in free
space because of all those free electrons in free space?

Alternate electric field from the ends of the dipole kicks the electrons in
the space and they oscillate (longitudinal electric waves).
S*