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