On May 10, 9:34*pm, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:
"tom" wrote in message

t...

On 5/10/2010 3:12 PM, wrote:
As Clint said in the wonderful old movie, "A man's gotta know his limits".
For antenna modelers it should read, "A man's gotta know the program's
limits".

Of course, Art thinks things have changed and the computer modelers have a
better grasp upon reality than the ones even he calls "the masters". He is
an example of the blind man leading himself.

tom
K0TAR

The computer program should know its limits. *Anytine a program allows the
data entered to be too large or small for the calculations, it should be
flagged as being out of range. *Also many computer programs will use
simplified formulars that can mast the true outcome. *Usually it is not very
much, but as all errors start to add up the end results may be way off.

I often enter data that I know will be difficult for programs to use. *If
the program gives an answer then I usually don't use that program expecting
a exect answer.
Back in the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 days the simple calculator would give wrong
answers to simple problems. *I think if you entered 3.11 and subtracted 3.1
from it you got the wrong answer. *That program was not corrected by
Microsoft.

Ralph, the computer program I use is AO pro which is equipt with an
optimiser and based on Maxwells equation. It is required to provide
arrays where the whole is in equilibrium as is its parts where all
forces are taken into account according to boundary rules.
It is quite easy to confirm if the results are in equilibrium.There
are many programs that arer similar
only they will not crunch the numbers as an optimiser will but instead
calculate only from your input but without alteration. These also are
based on Maxwells equations. However hams are bound to Yagi style
antenna designs which are planar and not in equilibrium. This style of
program is modified to encompass its primary use. There are also
programs that are specifically designed for planar arrangement only
per the Yagi and are not based solely on Maxwell equations that demand
equilibrium.
To apply any of these programs is ok for a dipole in free space say
for 14 Mhz and should give the same results. Same goes if one changes
the diameter as will the radiation pattern provided. So in this
particular
situation it matters not what program one uses the results will be the
same. To conform with Maxwells equation equilibrium is demanded ie all
vectors add up to zero.Since it is based on boundary rules one can
make a static field dynamic which thus includes particles where the
result is applicable to Maxwells equations. Thus we have an conductive
element covered or encapsulated by particles the later being
dynamic.This produces two resistances, the element and the particle
skin. The element resistance goes to zero as the current flow moves
towards the surface thus removing skin penetration losses and where
all energy input is applied to propagation where we get accountability
for all forces resulting in an array or element where all is in
equilibrium without being planar as one must account for the earths
rotation vector as well as that for gravity otherwise equilibrium
cannot be retained. Thus as the diameter of the element is increased
so does the surface increase for the resting particles such that the
applied energy equals the energy required to elevate and propagate
the supplied particles. without penetrating the surface of the
element. This way we do not get into the situation of dealing with the
sharing of the total resistance and thus removing element losses that
do nothing for propagation, at the same time balancing the propagation
vectors upon the particles alone to the applied energy.
All basic classical physics which uses only fully accepted rules of
the masters without alteration of any kind as predicted by Einstein in
his search for the std model.

On 5/10/2010 10:21 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Ralph, the computer program I use is AO pro which is equipt with an
optimiser and based on Maxwells equation. It is required to provide

Art

I was an alpha tester on AO. Do you know what an alpha tester is?

I am sure that I know much more about this program's capabilities and
especially its limitations than you.

And almost everything you claim about it, now that I know what you're
making claims against, is either wrong or inaccurate.

tom
K0TAR

On May 10, 10:40*pm, tom wrote:
And almost everything you claim about it, now that I know what you're
making claims against, is either wrong or inaccurate.

Here's my super-gain antenna with 24 dBi gain at a TOA of 23 degrees.

http://www.w5dxp.com/SUPRGAIN.EZ
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On May 11, 7:35*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 10, 10:40*pm, tom wrote:

And almost everything you claim about it, now that I know what you're
making claims against, is either wrong or inaccurate.

Here's my super-gain antenna with 24 dBi gain at a TOA of 23 degrees.

http://www.w5dxp.com/SUPRGAIN.EZ
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Shall I help you file the patent? Maybe we can split the sales
50/50 ? Chortle.. We will be rich beyond our wildest dreams.
Go down in history as two of the "masters"... :/
I'll be able to finally afford the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip after
all
these years. After all, that's what really matters.

On 5/11/2010 7:35 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 10, 10:40 pm, wrote:
And almost everything you claim about it, now that I know what you're
making claims against, is either wrong or inaccurate.

Here's my super-gain antenna with 24 dBi gain at a TOA of 23 degrees.

http://www.w5dxp.com/SUPRGAIN.EZ
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


I don't know what the problem is, Cecil, it looks perfectly normal to
me. And it's great, effectively an omnidirectional super yagi on 40m
kind of thing.

You patented it, right?

tom
K0TAR

On May 11, 9:23*pm, tom wrote:
I don't know what the problem is, Cecil, it looks perfectly normal to
me.

Yep, one of its claims to fame is that it passes all the geometry and
segmentation checks that EZNEC runs. However, it does violate the
"spacing of elements" admonition in the manual.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

As given, the average gain is about 16.7 dB - so one knows that
something-is-afoot . . .
The driven element (wire 1) is essentially touching wire 4. Current in wire
4 is unbelievably high. With use of #30 wire things improve, but wires are
too close.

Thanks for the example. Will use it when next talking about NEC as an
example of what not to do.

73, Mac N8TT
--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
snip

Here's my super-gain antenna with 24 dBi gain at a TOA of 23 degrees.

http://www.w5dxp.com/SUPRGAIN.EZ
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On May 11, 4:40*am, tom wrote:


Art

I was an alpha tester on AO. *Do you know what an alpha tester is?

I am sure that I know much more about this program's capabilities and
especially its limitations than you.

And almost everything you claim about it, now that I know what you're
making claims against, is either wrong or inaccurate.

tom
K0TAR
..
How many threads here and elsewhere are dedicated to demonstrating to
Art Unwin that he is wrong. The number must be in the hundreds. What a
waste.
Does anyone benefit? Art will go to his grave convinced that the world
is in error.
Usenet allows one person to irritate hundreds (at least) of people at
one time, on a regular basis. A borderline personality for sure.

On 5/10/2010 10:40 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/10/2010 10:21 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Ralph, the computer program I use is AO pro which is equipt with an
optimiser and based on Maxwells equation. It is required to provide

Art

I was an alpha tester on AO. Do you know what an alpha tester is?

I am sure that I know much more about this program's capabilities and
especially its limitations than you.

And almost everything you claim about it, now that I know what you're
making claims against, is either wrong or inaccurate.

tom
K0TAR

Art?

No comment?

tom
K0TAR