On Jun 5, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:
On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. *It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.