On May 12, 12:42*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 11, 4:02 pm, Jim Lux wrote:

Again you preach but obviously you are not qualified to address the
issue.

Opinions on qualification differ.

*AO pro by Beasley consistently produces an array in equilibrium when
the optimizer is used as well as including the presence of particles
dictated by Gauss., The program is of Minninec foundation which
obviously does not require the patch work aproach that NEC has.

Interestingly, MININEC uses the very same method of moments that NEC
does, but, because it's "mini" it has substantial limitations. It was
developed to fit in small microcomputers of the day. *I'd hardly call
NEC "patchwork". The two programs do use different formulations for the
basis function defining the current on the segment.

There are several papers out there that compare the mechanism of MININEC
vs NEC. One might start with the report by Burke and Poggio (for NEC)
and the report by Julian, Logam, and Rockway (which talks about
MININEC). John Rockway published a paper in 1995 describing the history
and differences.
"Advances in MININEC"
John Rockway, James Logan
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, v37, #4, August 1995, p7-12

I personaly am extremely happy with AO since I am able always to do an
overcheck with respect
the element resonance. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation
moved away from the present
algerithms and rely purely on number crunching to obtain systems in
equilibrium. I personaly believe
that the programs would be much more accurate if they had a better
understanding of close elements because of proximetry effects. But as
long as the industry strays away from non planar forms we will have to
live with close approximations. Tho using Maxwell to its limits I have
yet to find a way to concentrate radiation for gain as opposed to
efficiency by the introduction of other elements but I enjoy trying
different methods and there is always a new vista that appears with
its use. My next aproach will be a multiplicity of cells or boundaries
dependent on how far my program can spread. One thing I am absolutely
sure now is that particles are the staple of propagation where the
neutrino act as the carrier and can well be the singular particle that
Einstein envisaged based on the Earths two vectors.I was absolutely
over joyed when AO allowed the radiating elements to gyrate towards
zero resistance so that the encapsulating cylinder could be divorced
from element thus removing losses. I see no better proof of my aproach
in making Gaussian static fields dynamic
which clearly exposes the presence of encapsulation that is
substantiated by the math and allows propagation to be viewed as a
point source. Next time one visits the moon they can apply a time
varying current to the space suit to prevent the carrage of particles
to the inside of the ship.
Regards
Art.Unwin