| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
-
source 158 KB VEMSA3D_source_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMSA3D_source_11.zip exe standalone 971 KB VEMSA3D_exe_standalone_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMS...ndalone_11.zip vemsa3d all downloads: http://code.google.com/p/rga/downloads/list A FLOSS Visual EM Simulator for 3D Antennas http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0031 The RGA project: http://code.google.com/p/rga/ Petros SV7BAX Antennas Research Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU -Not-for-Profit- |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/10/2010 5:39 PM, wrote:
- source 158 KB VEMSA3D_source_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMSA3D_source_11.zip exe standalone 971 KB VEMSA3D_exe_standalone_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMS...ndalone_11.zip vemsa3d all downloads: http://code.google.com/p/rga/downloads/list A FLOSS Visual EM Simulator for 3D Antennas http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0031 The RGA project: http://code.google.com/p/rga/ Petros SV7BAX Antennas Research Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU -Not-for-Profit- Well, that certainly allows "the little guy" to view the code and extract the important parameters, math and formulas so that they can construct their own specialized tools! Just a bit of understanding how math is defined by a computer language and you are good-to-go. Regards, JS |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 11, 1:10*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 8/10/2010 5:39 PM, wrote: - * *source * *158 KB * *VEMSA3D_source_11.zip * *http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMSA3D_source_11.zip * *exe standalone * *971 KB * *VEMSA3D_exe_standalone_11.zip * *http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMS...ndalone_11.zip * *vemsa3d all downloads: * *http://code.google.com/p/rga/downloads/list * *A FLOSS Visual EM Simulator for 3D Antennas * *http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0031 * *The RGA project: * *http://code.google.com/p/rga/ * *Petros SV7BAX * *Antennas Research Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU * *-Not-for-Profit- Well, that certainly allows "the little guy" to view the code and extract the important parameters, math and formulas so that they can construct their own specialized tools! *Just a bit of understanding how math is defined by a computer language and you are good-to-go. Regards, JS DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!! a 'bit of understanding' in this case could lead to totally incorrect results. be sure you thoroughly understand the limitations of the 'thin polygonal wire' model and any earth model they are using. it is likely this will have lots of undocumented limitations. also i worry about their claim of comparing to other freeware results, do they only build models for comparison that are well represented in both tools? and do they understand the limitations of what they are comparing to? |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
John Smith wrote:
On 8/10/2010 5:39 PM, wrote: - source 158 KB VEMSA3D_source_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMSA3D_source_11.zip exe standalone 971 KB VEMSA3D_exe_standalone_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMS...ndalone_11.zip vemsa3d all downloads: http://code.google.com/p/rga/downloads/list A FLOSS Visual EM Simulator for 3D Antennas http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0031 The RGA project: http://code.google.com/p/rga/ Petros SV7BAX Antennas Research Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU -Not-for-Profit- Well, that certainly allows "the little guy" to view the code and extract the important parameters, math and formulas so that they can construct their own specialized tools! Just a bit of understanding how math is defined by a computer language and you are good-to-go. Regards, JS One wonders why they converted Richmond's older code rather than NEC2. Both are available as FORTRAN source. Even NEC4 source is readily available these days, although not for free (so it wouldn't necessarily meet their FLOSS objective.. I'm not sure.. they wouldn't be copying it, they'd be converting it, by hand, to C++, and I think that would break the "proprietary" link) Maybe Richmond's code does insulation? or wires in a conductive medium? |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 11, 5:52*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
John Smith wrote: On 8/10/2010 5:39 PM, wrote: - * *source * *158 KB * *VEMSA3D_source_11.zip * *http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMSA3D_source_11.zip * *exe standalone * *971 KB * *VEMSA3D_exe_standalone_11.zip * *http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMS...ndalone_11.zip * *vemsa3d all downloads: * *http://code.google.com/p/rga/downloads/list * *A FLOSS Visual EM Simulator for 3D Antennas * *http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0031 * *The RGA project: * *http://code.google.com/p/rga/ * *Petros SV7BAX * *Antennas Research Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU * *-Not-for-Profit- Well, that certainly allows "the little guy" to view the code and extract the important parameters, math and formulas so that they can construct their own specialized tools! *Just a bit of understanding how math is defined by a computer language and you are good-to-go. Regards, JS One wonders why they converted Richmond's older code rather than NEC2. Both are available as FORTRAN source. *Even NEC4 source is readily available these days, although not for free (so it wouldn't necessarily meet their FLOSS objective.. I'm not sure.. they wouldn't be copying it, they'd be converting it, by hand, to C++, and I think that would break the "proprietary" link) Maybe Richmond's code does insulation? or wires in a conductive medium? the proprietaryness(is that a word?) or the copyright status may not be broken by changing language if the algorithms are claimed as the actual intellectual property... the code is just an implementation of it, no matter what the language. There would be no need to convert the fortran anyway, there are still fortran compilers available and you could call the fortran computations from any language gui front end. i'm doing a project like that now that calls old fortran, c, c+ +, or pascal computation modules from a new c# front end. |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/11/2010 9:03 AM, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:10 pm, John wrote: On 8/10/2010 5:39 PM, wrote: - source 158 KB VEMSA3D_source_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMSA3D_source_11.zip exe standalone 971 KB VEMSA3D_exe_standalone_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMS...ndalone_11.zip vemsa3d all downloads: http://code.google.com/p/rga/downloads/list A FLOSS Visual EM Simulator for 3D Antennas http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0031 The RGA project: http://code.google.com/p/rga/ Petros SV7BAX Antennas Research Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU -Not-for-Profit- Well, that certainly allows "the little guy" to view the code and extract the important parameters, math and formulas so that they can construct their own specialized tools! Just a bit of understanding how math is defined by a computer language and you are good-to-go. Regards, JS DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!! a 'bit of understanding' in this case could lead to totally incorrect results. be sure you thoroughly understand the limitations of the 'thin polygonal wire' model and any earth model they are using. it is likely this will have lots of undocumented limitations. also i worry about their claim of comparing to other freeware results, do they only build models for comparison that are well represented in both tools? and do they understand the limitations of what they are comparing to? LOL! Yeah, well, a lot of people wonder and worry about the light in the refrigerator, to--if it goes out when you shut the door! Regards, JS |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/11/2010 11:53 AM, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 11, 5:52 pm, Jim wrote: John Smith wrote: On 8/10/2010 5:39 PM, wrote: - source 158 KB VEMSA3D_source_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMSA3D_source_11.zip exe standalone 971 KB VEMSA3D_exe_standalone_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMS...ndalone_11.zip vemsa3d all downloads: http://code.google.com/p/rga/downloads/list A FLOSS Visual EM Simulator for 3D Antennas http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0031 The RGA project: http://code.google.com/p/rga/ Petros SV7BAX Antennas Research Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU -Not-for-Profit- Well, that certainly allows "the little guy" to view the code and extract the important parameters, math and formulas so that they can construct their own specialized tools! Just a bit of understanding how math is defined by a computer language and you are good-to-go. Regards, JS One wonders why they converted Richmond's older code rather than NEC2. Both are available as FORTRAN source. Even NEC4 source is readily available these days, although not for free (so it wouldn't necessarily meet their FLOSS objective.. I'm not sure.. they wouldn't be copying it, they'd be converting it, by hand, to C++, and I think that would break the "proprietary" link) Maybe Richmond's code does insulation? or wires in a conductive medium? the proprietaryness(is that a word?) or the copyright status may not be broken by changing language if the algorithms are claimed as the actual intellectual property... the code is just an implementation of it, no matter what the language. There would be no need to convert the fortran anyway, there are still fortran compilers available and you could call the fortran computations from any language gui front end. i'm doing a project like that now that calls old fortran, c, c+ +, or pascal computation modules from a new c# front end. I would be really surprised if you could patent math formulas, equations, etc. The software which uses them can, obviously, be patented. Something with is "self-intuitive" or a law of nature just can't be patented! Regards, JS |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 11, 7:20*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 8/11/2010 11:53 AM, K1TTT wrote: On Aug 11, 5:52 pm, Jim *wrote: John Smith wrote: On 8/10/2010 5:39 PM, wrote: - * * source * * 158 KB * * VEMSA3D_source_11.zip * *http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMSA3D_source_11.zip * * exe standalone * * 971 KB * * VEMSA3D_exe_standalone_11.zip * *http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMS...ndalone_11.zip * * vemsa3d all downloads: * *http://code.google.com/p/rga/downloads/list * * A FLOSS Visual EM Simulator for 3D Antennas * *http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0031 * * The RGA project: * *http://code.google.com/p/rga/ * * Petros SV7BAX * * Antennas Research Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU * * -Not-for-Profit- Well, that certainly allows "the little guy" to view the code and extract the important parameters, math and formulas so that they can construct their own specialized tools! *Just a bit of understanding how math is defined by a computer language and you are good-to-go. Regards, JS One wonders why they converted Richmond's older code rather than NEC2. Both are available as FORTRAN source. *Even NEC4 source is readily available these days, although not for free (so it wouldn't necessarily meet their FLOSS objective.. I'm not sure.. they wouldn't be copying it, they'd be converting it, by hand, to C++, and I think that would break the "proprietary" link) Maybe Richmond's code does insulation? or wires in a conductive medium? the proprietaryness(is that a word?) or the copyright status may not be broken by changing language if the algorithms are claimed as the actual intellectual property... the code is just an implementation of it, no matter what the language. *There would be no need to convert the fortran anyway, there are still fortran compilers available and you could call the fortran computations from any language gui front end. *i'm doing a project like that now that calls old fortran, c, c+ +, or pascal computation modules from a new c# front end. I would be really surprised if you could patent math formulas, equations, etc. *The software which uses them can, obviously, be patented. Something with is "self-intuitive" or a law of nature just can't be patented! Regards, JS what is intuitive to you is a patented or copyrighted work from a lawyer's point of view. while you can't patent or copyright maxwell's equations you can patent or copyright a method of applying them to come up with solutions to practical problems. these are common things now in the software and business world, though some countries have stopped issuing software patents and others are considering that move also. but the copyright process is well ingrained in the software world. So much so that there are specific copyright notices you can use to specify that you DON'T want to stop anyone from using your code, just so you don't get bothered by people asking all the time. |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 11, 5:52 pm, Jim Lux wrote: John Smith wrote: On 8/10/2010 5:39 PM, wrote: - source 158 KB VEMSA3D_source_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMSA3D_source_11.zip exe standalone 971 KB VEMSA3D_exe_standalone_11.zip http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMS...ndalone_11.zip vemsa3d all downloads: http://code.google.com/p/rga/downloads/list A FLOSS Visual EM Simulator for 3D Antennas http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0031 The RGA project: http://code.google.com/p/rga/ Petros SV7BAX Antennas Research Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU -Not-for-Profit- Well, that certainly allows "the little guy" to view the code and extract the important parameters, math and formulas so that they can construct their own specialized tools! Just a bit of understanding how math is defined by a computer language and you are good-to-go. Regards, JS One wonders why they converted Richmond's older code rather than NEC2. Both are available as FORTRAN source. Even NEC4 source is readily available these days, although not for free (so it wouldn't necessarily meet their FLOSS objective.. I'm not sure.. they wouldn't be copying it, they'd be converting it, by hand, to C++, and I think that would break the "proprietary" link) Maybe Richmond's code does insulation? or wires in a conductive medium? the proprietaryness(is that a word?) or the copyright status may not be broken by changing language if the algorithms are claimed as the actual intellectual property... I don't think that's what's claimed by Lawrence Livermore Lab.. the code is copyrighted, and the license agreement (I don't have it here in front of me, so I'm working off memory) basically says you can't redistribute the code. The algorithms have all been described elsewhere. the code is just an implementation of it, no matter what the language. There would be no need to convert the fortran anyway, there are still fortran compilers available and you could call the fortran computations from any language gui front end. i'm doing a project like that now that calls old fortran, c, c+ +, or pascal computation modules from a new c# front end. I did wonder why the authors bothered to convert from FORTRAN to C++... but I think they did that as a separate activity, previously, for other reasons. There's a comment in their paper about not using automated translators, too (presumably to avoid any sort of claim that the output of the translator is somehow contaminated with the proprietaryness of the translator? Kind of like Intel copyrighting the assembler instruction mnemonics for the 8080, so Zilog had to use different ones) Probably it's just a historical artifact.. when they started their development a while ago, they happened to start with the Richmond code, as opposed to the Burke and Poggio code. |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/11/2010 12:43 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 11, 7:20 pm, John wrote: On 8/11/2010 11:53 AM, K1TTT wrote: what is intuitive to you is a patented or copyrighted work from a lawyer's point of view. while you can't patent or copyright maxwell's equations you can patent or copyright a method of applying them to come up with solutions to practical problems. these are common things now in the software and business world, though some countries have stopped issuing software patents and others are considering that move also. but the copyright process is well ingrained in the software world. So much so that there are specific copyright notices you can use to specify that you DON'T want to stop anyone from using your code, just so you don't get bothered by people asking all the time. I never seen this as a problem or a road block. You are simply a matter of all the knowledge you have picked up from others along the way, most likely, a large portion of this came from copyrighted materials. Indeed, if I read a copyrighted book, then turn around and write a book, containing all I have read, I have done no wrong; If I copied the work, I am. When it comes to math, removed from other works, it is exactly the same. You would have to be an idiot to do it in such a way as to cause problems. This is all so self-apparent, it always puzzles me when I am brought to putting the concept(s) to text, or even spoken speech! Regards, JS |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 12, 1:53*am, John Smith wrote:
On 8/11/2010 12:43 PM, K1TTT wrote: On Aug 11, 7:20 pm, John *wrote: On 8/11/2010 11:53 AM, K1TTT wrote: what is intuitive to you is a patented or copyrighted work from a lawyer's point of view. *while you can't patent or copyright maxwell's equations you can patent or copyright a method of applying them to come up with solutions to practical problems. *these are common things now in the software and business world, though some countries have stopped issuing software patents and others are considering that move also. *but the copyright process is well ingrained in the software world. *So much so that there are specific copyright notices you can use to specify that you DON'T want to stop anyone from using your code, just so you don't get bothered by people asking all the time. I never seen this as a problem or a road block. You are simply a matter of all the knowledge you have picked up from others along the way, most likely, a large portion of this came from copyrighted materials. Indeed, if I read a copyrighted book, then turn around and write a book, containing all I have read, I have done no wrong; If I copied the work, I am. When it comes to math, removed from other works, it is exactly the same. You would have to be an idiot to do it in such a way as to cause problems.. This is all so self-apparent, it always puzzles me when I am brought to putting the concept(s) to text, or even spoken speech! Regards, JS it may be self apparent to you, but it is how corporate lawyers make their living. |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
I did wonder why the authors bothered to convert from FORTRAN to C++... but I think they did that as a separate activity, previously, for other reasons. There's a comment in their paper about not using automated translators, too (presumably to avoid any sort of claim that the output of the translator is somehow contaminated with the proprietaryness of the translator? Kind of like Intel copyrighting the assembler instruction mnemonics for the 8080, so Zilog had to use different ones) Probably it's just a historical artifact.. when they started their development a while ago, they happened to start with the Richmond code, as opposed to the Burke and Poggio code. FORTRAN is pretty much a dead language, although you will find strong argument to that statement in some math circles. While I do agree that language makes little difference to software engineers, most being fluent in many/multiple languages, a C translation just keeps the code, more, up-to-date. And, none of the above is of any real importance, other than complete, or even substantial fragments of, programs can be copyrighted. But, I am sure there are millions of "for statements", etc. in code that are exact duplicates of some found in Microsoft Windows, etc. To claim that the truths of mathematics is patentable is just stoopid. However, all that said, there are such things as "encoder algorithms", for an example, and such, which are so narrow and contain such an exact and specific set of math instructions to execute and obtain reproducible results from, that the validity for a patent is quite obvious. However, as has been demonstrated, for any patented algorithm which has yet been created, a freeware solution which is either so close in effectiveness as to make it a moot point, or even greater in effectiveness--an example is MP3 format (patented) as relates to Ogg Vorbis format (public domain.) The future where patents cause real road blocks in software development, or even "hoops to be jumped through", is still in software engineers' future. Regards, JS |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 12, 8:25*pm, John Smith wrote:
I did wonder why the authors bothered to convert from FORTRAN to C++... but I think they did that as a separate activity, previously, for other reasons. There's a comment in their paper about not using automated translators, too (presumably to avoid any sort of claim that the output of the translator is somehow contaminated with the proprietaryness of the translator? Kind of like Intel copyrighting the assembler instruction mnemonics for the 8080, so Zilog had to use different ones) Probably it's just a historical artifact.. when they started their development a while ago, they happened to start with the Richmond code, as opposed to the Burke and Poggio code. FORTRAN is pretty much a dead language, although you will find strong argument to that statement in some math circles. *While I do agree that language makes little difference to software engineers, most being fluent in many/multiple languages, a C translation just keeps the code, more, up-to-date. And, none of the above is of any real importance, other than complete, or even substantial fragments of, programs can be copyrighted. *But, I am sure there are millions of "for statements", etc. in code that are exact duplicates of some found in Microsoft Windows, etc. *To claim that the truths of mathematics is patentable is just stoopid. However, all that said, there are such things as "encoder algorithms", for an example, and such, which are so narrow and contain such an exact and specific set of math instructions to execute and obtain reproducible results from, that the validity for a patent is quite obvious. *However, as has been demonstrated, for any patented algorithm which has yet been created, a freeware solution which is either so close in effectiveness as to make it a moot point, or even greater in effectiveness--an example is MP3 format (patented) as relates to Ogg Vorbis format (public domain.) The future where patents cause real road blocks in software development, or even "hoops to be jumped through", is still in software engineers' future. Regards, JS don't bet on it. microsoft just had to remove a major feature from word because of patent infringement. and there are lots of cases where companies have to buy rights to use patented features before they can release their products, compression algorithms are just one of many things that have been patented. even the cursor and the mouse have patents. fortunately most of my work is using standard tools that come with distribution licenses, and the stuff i develop that is unique is from our own research programs so we obviously own the rights. but if i find a free tool that has something that will make my job much easier i have to submit the license to our software quality and then maybe legal offices to be sure we can use it without infringing. you know those long license statements that no one ever reads before installing something?? most of them unfortunately make sense to me now. |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visualem simulator for 3d antennas
John Smith wrote:
I did wonder why the authors bothered to convert from FORTRAN to C++... but I think they did that as a separate activity, previously, for other reasons. There's a comment in their paper about not using automated translators, too (presumably to avoid any sort of claim that the output of the translator is somehow contaminated with the proprietaryness of the translator? Kind of like Intel copyrighting the assembler instruction mnemonics for the 8080, so Zilog had to use different ones) Probably it's just a historical artifact.. when they started their development a while ago, they happened to start with the Richmond code, as opposed to the Burke and Poggio code. FORTRAN is pretty much a dead language, although you will find strong argument to that statement in some math circles. While I do agree that language makes little difference to software engineers, most being fluent in many/multiple languages, a C translation just keeps the code, more, up-to-date. FORTRAN is far from dead in applications processing massive arrays (just about any finite element program). For instance, I'd venture that most weather prediction codes are in FORTRAN (MM5, which is a widely used mesoscale modeling code, is in FORTRAN, as is WRF), as are a lot of structural analysis (e.g. NASTRAN is in FORTRAN), and virtually ALL electromagnetics codes. FORTRAN is hard to beat when it comes to specifying array operations, and such. Running gridded models doesn't require much in the way of pointers or string manipulation, which are admittedly a pain in older FORTRANs (pre FORTRAN-90 or FORTRAN-77). FORTRAN also has an intrinsic Complex type which is nice. Compilers for numerical analysis applications (e.g. those weather grid models) for FORTRAN are highly optimized, too. There's also nifty tools like FLIC (FORTRAN Loop and Index Converter) There's even new versions of FORTRAN coming out. However, all that said, there are such things as "encoder algorithms", for an example, and such, which are so narrow and contain such an exact and specific set of math instructions to execute and obtain reproducible results from, that the validity for a patent is quite obvious. However, as has been demonstrated, for any patented algorithm which has yet been created, a freeware solution which is either so close in effectiveness as to make it a moot point, or even greater in effectiveness--an example is MP3 format (patented) as relates to Ogg Vorbis format (public domain.) Unless you need compatibility and interoperability. Sure, there are non-patented communications coding schemes like LDPC that give better performance than, say, Turbo codes (patented), but if you need to build a radio that interoperates with a radio using Turbo codes, you're pretty well stuck. All the various high performance low bit rate voice codecs have similar issues. All the "good" ones are patented, as well as most of the "not quite so good", and the patents are broad enough that you would have a tough time designing around them. (which is actually, I think, how it should be.. patents *should* be for fairly general conceptual leaps, not for some fiddly little detail that's different.. that's what "design patents" are about) Fortunately, the patents *will* expire. Unlike copyright, which has an ever longer tail. The future where patents cause real road blocks in software development, or even "hoops to be jumped through", is still in software engineers' future. I don't think so. It's here now, especially if you consider advanced signal processing or protocol handling in software. The software is just the means by which the invention is realized, and it's no different than doing it with discrete hardware components. While raw "algorithms" and "math" can't be patented, a clever and efficient implementation technique certainly can be. |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/12/2010 3:34 PM, Jim Lux wrote:
John Smith wrote: .... FORTRAN is far from dead in applications processing massive arrays (just about any finite element program). For instance, I'd venture that most weather prediction codes are in FORTRAN (MM5, which is a widely used mesoscale modeling code, is in FORTRAN, as is WRF), as are a lot of structural analysis (e.g. NASTRAN is in FORTRAN), and virtually ALL electromagnetics codes. These days, I choose to program, almost exclusively, in assembly and C/C+/C++ (all C looks the same to someone writing in it.) If someone hands me a FORTRAN coded work, I can read it, but it tends to look like a mess to me. I simply run it though a source translator/optimizer and I have C code. When I am done, if they requested the result in FORTRAN, I run it back through the translator in reverse. C is simply a universal language which has the most favor with engineers and which has become the industry standard. Like I said, arguing language is a moot point ... FORTRAN is hard to beat when it comes to specifying array operations, and such. Running gridded models doesn't require much in the way of pointers or string manipulation, which are admittedly a pain in older FORTRANs (pre FORTRAN-90 or FORTRAN-77). FORTRAN also has an intrinsic Complex type which is nice. FORTRAN is not "hard to beat" at anything. Assembly instructions are the only "real code" which a processor understands, it is the binary language of processing units. There is not a computer language in existence which does not translate to assembly before execution. FORTRAN and C only differ in semantics. While FORTRAN was an attempt to make the language more readable in translation, C is an attempt to make the language more efficient in translation. The goals of the two languages are not exact. Compilers for numerical analysis applications (e.g. those weather grid models) for FORTRAN are highly optimized, too. There's also nifty tools like FLIC (FORTRAN Loop and Index Converter) The meaning of that is just moot, and implies an argument for leaving something unoptimized would be someones goal, somewhere, for what purpose that would be baffles me! There's even new versions of FORTRAN coming out. As I admitted, there are almost religious devotions to some languages .... another point which baffles me. .... Unless you need compatibility and interoperability. Sure, there are non-patented communications coding schemes like LDPC that give better performance than, say, Turbo codes (patented), but if you need to build a radio that interoperates with a radio using Turbo codes, you're pretty well stuck. That is some gobble-de-gook which defies meaningful translation ... perhaps a dynamic demonstration of obfuscation? To someone outside the field, I can see how it might just work! All the various high performance low bit rate voice codecs have similar issues. All the "good" ones are patented, as well as most of the "not quite so good", and the patents are broad enough that you would have a tough time designing around them. (which is actually, I think, how it should be.. patents *should* be for fairly general conceptual leaps, not for some fiddly little detail that's different.. that's what "design patents" are about) Fortunately, the patents *will* expire. Unlike copyright, which has an ever longer tail. The best ones have not even been thought-of/invented yet! However, you remind me of that patent office employee who once mentioned "the fact" that most patents had already been patented ... and your statement is just as valid as his! .... I don't think so. It's here now, especially if you consider advanced signal processing or protocol handling in software. The software is just the means by which the invention is realized, and it's no different than doing it with discrete hardware components. While raw "algorithms" and "math" can't be patented, a clever and efficient implementation technique certainly can be. .... more obfuscation ... but does acknowledge the basic truth that truths cannot be patented. Regards, JS |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/12/2010 5:34 PM, Jim Lux wrote:
John Smith wrote: snip FORTRAN is pretty much a dead language, although you will find strong argument to that statement in some math circles. While I do agree that language makes little difference to software engineers, most being fluent in many/multiple languages, a C translation just keeps the code, more, up-to-date. FORTRAN is far from dead in applications processing massive arrays (just about any finite element program). For instance, I'd venture that most weather prediction codes are in FORTRAN (MM5, which is a widely used mesoscale modeling code, is in FORTRAN, as is WRF), as are a lot of structural analysis (e.g. NASTRAN is in FORTRAN), and virtually ALL electromagnetics codes. FORTRAN is hard to beat when it comes to specifying array operations, and such. Running gridded models doesn't require much in the way of pointers or string manipulation, which are admittedly a pain in older FORTRANs (pre FORTRAN-90 or FORTRAN-77). FORTRAN also has an intrinsic Complex type which is nice. Compilers for numerical analysis applications (e.g. those weather grid models) for FORTRAN are highly optimized, too. There's also nifty tools like FLIC (FORTRAN Loop and Index Converter) There's even new versions of FORTRAN coming out. My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Her thesis was all about data sets massaged with FORTRAN. It ain't dead. Far from it. tom K0TAR |
vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/12/2010 2:33 PM, K1TTT wrote:
First, I would like to point out and "slap right on the table", obfuscation, diversion, slight-of-hand and wordiness look lame to me ... for whatever reason, they strike me as tools of the "uneducated con man." That out of the way ... ... don't bet on it. microsoft just had to remove a major feature from word because of patent infringement. and there are lots of cases where companies have to buy rights to use patented features before they can release their products, compression algorithms are just one of many things that have been patented. Microsoft stole Java from Sun and attempted to make it, its' own. Microsoft has a long history of this. The type(s) of individual(s) who do such seem to infiltrate large corporations in large numbers. However, really a moot point to the direction in which this conversation first started ... even the cursor and the mouse have patents. Yeah, as if someone grasping at straws and thinking that "just owning a patent", in someway, is some kind of status symbol ... something which fails to impress anyone worth impressing. fortunately most of my work is using standard tools that come with distribution licenses, and the stuff i develop that is unique is from our own research programs so we obviously own the rights. but if i find a free tool that has something that will make my job much easier i have to submit the license to our software quality and then maybe legal offices to be sure we can use it without infringing. you know those long license statements that no one ever reads before installing something?? most of them unfortunately make sense to me now. Yeah, most people double check their work(s) and have others do so, if available ... Regards, JS |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/12/2010 6:24 PM, tom wrote:
... My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Her thesis was all about data sets massaged with FORTRAN. It ain't dead. Far from it. tom K0TAR Frankly, I find that amazing, indeed, it implies insanity to me. Why anyone would allow a thesis to be done which would favor a particular language defies rationality. As, language is only a device for the implementation of truths, ideas, algorithms and laws. It is the underlying structure of math and logic which are the only important points. To express these in a form speaking to computer engineers, a "language" such as pseudo-code would be the logical choice. To do any different simply implies there are interests at work other than pure science. Are you sure a FORTRAN compiler/developer with financial interests did not back this academic venture? ROFLOL Regards, JS |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:06:21 -0700, John Smith
wrote: My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Frankly, I find that amazing, indeed, it implies insanity to me. And our friend Mr. Ostrom, the computer scientist, got his AS degree in Chico something more than a dozen years ago. There's authority on the topic speaking for ya'. |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:34:14 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote: There's even new versions of FORTRAN coming out. Yep. Intel has several Fortran compilers for Windoze, Mac, and Linux. http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-compilers/ Rumors of the demise of Fortran have been greatly exaggerated. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 13, 1:12*am, John Smith wrote:
On 8/12/2010 3:34 PM, Jim Lux wrote: John Smith wrote: ... FORTRAN is far from dead in applications processing massive arrays (just about any finite element program). For instance, I'd venture that most weather prediction codes are in FORTRAN (MM5, which is a widely used mesoscale modeling code, is in FORTRAN, as is WRF), as are a lot of structural analysis (e.g. NASTRAN is in FORTRAN), and virtually ALL electromagnetics codes. These days, I choose to program, almost exclusively, in assembly and C/C+/C++ (all C looks the same to someone writing in it.) *If someone well, that just blew any credibility you had with me. c+ is a joke, c# is real, and no, all flavors of c don't look the same! far from it, someone who knows c would be lost doing c++ or c#. and yes, there is a huge fortran codebase out there in scientific and engineering circles. many of the largest modeling packages use fortran for at least the backend, even if the frontend has been rewritten in a more gui friendly language. |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/13/2010 4:45 AM, K1TTT wrote:
well, that just blew any credibility you had with me. c+ is a joke, c# is real, and no, all flavors of c don't look the same! far from it, someone who knows c would be lost doing c++ or c#. and yes, there is a huge fortran codebase out there in scientific and engineering circles. many of the largest modeling packages use fortran for at least the backend, even if the frontend has been rewritten in a more gui friendly language. Yeah, you are just another idiot shooting off his mouth about what he knows nothing about. Gee, isn't that unique? ROFLOL |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/12/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:06:21 -0700, John Smith wrote: My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Frankly, I find that amazing, indeed, it implies insanity to me. And our friend Mr. Ostrom, the computer scientist, got his AS degree in Chico something more than a dozen years ago. There's authority on the topic speaking for ya'. Oh no, another know-it-all that knows nothing. ROFLOL |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 13, 4:50*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 8/13/2010 4:45 AM, K1TTT wrote: well, that just blew any credibility you had with me. *c+ is a joke, c# is real, and no, all flavors of c don't look the same! *far from it, someone who knows c would be lost doing c++ or c#. and yes, there is a huge fortran codebase out there in scientific and engineering circles. *many of the largest modeling packages use fortran for at least the backend, even if the frontend has been rewritten in a more gui friendly language. Yeah, you are just another idiot shooting off his mouth about what he knows nothing about. *Gee, isn't that unique? *ROFLOL i win! i got called a name first! |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:51:49 -0700, John Smith
wrote: On 8/12/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:06:21 -0700, John Smith wrote: My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Frankly, I find that amazing, indeed, it implies insanity to me. And our friend Mr. Ostrom, the computer scientist, got his AS degree in Chico something more than a dozen years ago. There's authority on the topic speaking for ya'. Oh no, another know-it-all that knows nothing. ROFLOL A confirmation. ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
John Smith wrote:
On 8/13/2010 4:45 AM, K1TTT wrote: well, that just blew any credibility you had with me. c+ is a joke, c# is real, and no, all flavors of c don't look the same! far from it, someone who knows c would be lost doing c++ or c#. and yes, there is a huge fortran codebase out there in scientific and engineering circles. many of the largest modeling packages use fortran for at least the backend, even if the frontend has been rewritten in a more gui friendly language. Yeah, you are just another idiot shooting off his mouth about what he knows nothing about. Gee, isn't that unique? ROFLOL Sounds more like a case of pot-kettle-black. Whether you like it or not, and whether you can accept the fact or not, what he says is true. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/13/2010 12:17 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:51:49 -0700, John Smith wrote: On 8/12/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:06:21 -0700, John Smith wrote: My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Frankly, I find that amazing, indeed, it implies insanity to me. And our friend Mr. Ostrom, the computer scientist, got his AS degree in Chico something more than a dozen years ago. There's authority on the topic speaking for ya'. Oh no, another know-it-all that knows nothing. ROFLOL A confirmation. ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC It says a lot about ability and self esteem when someone has an email address like his and says the things he does. My guess is that I have made a lot more money programming than he ever will. And in a lot more languages. And a lot fewer bugs. tom K0TAR |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 13, 10:59*pm, tom wrote:
On 8/13/2010 12:17 PM, Richard Clark wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:51:49 -0700, John Smith *wrote: On 8/12/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:06:21 -0700, John Smith * wrote: My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Frankly, I find that amazing, indeed, it implies insanity to me. And our friend Mr. Ostrom, the computer scientist, got his AS degree in Chico something more than a dozen years ago. *There's authority on the topic speaking for ya'. Oh no, another know-it-all that knows nothing. *ROFLOL A confirmation. *;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC It says a lot about ability and self esteem when someone has an email address like his and says the things he does. *My guess is that I have made a lot more money programming than he ever will. *And in a lot more languages. *And a lot fewer bugs. tom K0TAR amen on that... lets see, 42 years programming now, 26 getting paid just for that, languages??? pdp8 assy, focal, fortran(several versions), basic(several variants), pascal, x86 assy, vb, ada, c, c++, c#, vb.net, asp.net, various jcl variations, ibm360 assy, 68xxx assy, objective c, pl-1, apl, java, javascript, vrml, html, xaml, xml, matlab, mathcad, and probably a few others i have forgotten. |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/13/2010 6:47 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 13, 10:59 pm, wrote: On 8/13/2010 12:17 PM, Richard Clark wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:51:49 -0700, John Smith wrote: On 8/12/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:06:21 -0700, John Smith wrote: My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Frankly, I find that amazing, indeed, it implies insanity to me. And our friend Mr. Ostrom, the computer scientist, got his AS degree in Chico something more than a dozen years ago. There's authority on the topic speaking for ya'. Oh no, another know-it-all that knows nothing. ROFLOL A confirmation. ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC It says a lot about ability and self esteem when someone has an email address like his and says the things he does. My guess is that I have made a lot more money programming than he ever will. And in a lot more languages. And a lot fewer bugs. tom K0TAR amen on that... lets see, 42 years programming now, 26 getting paid just for that, languages??? pdp8 assy, focal, fortran(several versions), basic(several variants), pascal, x86 assy, vb, ada, c, c++, c#, vb.net, asp.net, various jcl variations, ibm360 assy, 68xxx assy, objective c, pl-1, apl, java, javascript, vrml, html, xaml, xml, matlab, mathcad, and probably a few others i have forgotten. PDP8 assy? 12 bit machine wasn't it? (didn't look it up, not cheating) I rebuilt one after someone plugged the TTY card into the bus. You may remember that none of the cards were keyed. Loop current voltage hits the bus, oops. Lots of RTL and DTL to replace. tom K0TAR |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/13/2010 6:47 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 13, 10:59 pm, wrote: On 8/13/2010 12:17 PM, Richard Clark wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:51:49 -0700, John Smith wrote: On 8/12/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:06:21 -0700, John Smith wrote: My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Frankly, I find that amazing, indeed, it implies insanity to me. And our friend Mr. Ostrom, the computer scientist, got his AS degree in Chico something more than a dozen years ago. There's authority on the topic speaking for ya'. Oh no, another know-it-all that knows nothing. ROFLOL A confirmation. ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC It says a lot about ability and self esteem when someone has an email address like his and says the things he does. My guess is that I have made a lot more money programming than he ever will. And in a lot more languages. And a lot fewer bugs. tom K0TAR amen on that... lets see, 42 years programming now, 26 getting paid just for that, languages??? pdp8 assy, focal, fortran(several versions), basic(several variants), pascal, x86 assy, vb, ada, c, c++, c#, vb.net, asp.net, various jcl variations, ibm360 assy, 68xxx assy, objective c, pl-1, apl, java, javascript, vrml, html, xaml, xml, matlab, mathcad, and probably a few others i have forgotten. Favorite assy was 6809. Did a lot on the Ericsson MD110 while writing patches. tom K0TAR |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 14, 12:41*am, tom wrote:
On 8/13/2010 6:47 PM, K1TTT wrote: On Aug 13, 10:59 pm, *wrote: On 8/13/2010 12:17 PM, Richard Clark wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:51:49 -0700, John Smith * *wrote: On 8/12/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Clark wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:06:21 -0700, John Smith * * wrote: My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Frankly, I find that amazing, indeed, it implies insanity to me. And our friend Mr. Ostrom, the computer scientist, got his AS degree in Chico something more than a dozen years ago. *There's authority on the topic speaking for ya'. Oh no, another know-it-all that knows nothing. *ROFLOL A confirmation. *;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC It says a lot about ability and self esteem when someone has an email address like his and says the things he does. *My guess is that I have made a lot more money programming than he ever will. *And in a lot more languages. *And a lot fewer bugs. tom K0TAR amen on that... lets see, 42 years programming now, 26 getting paid just for that, languages??? pdp8 assy, focal, fortran(several versions), basic(several variants), pascal, x86 assy, vb, ada, c, c++, c#, vb.net, asp.net, various jcl variations, ibm360 assy, 68xxx assy, objective c, pl-1, apl, java, javascript, vrml, html, xaml, xml, matlab, mathcad, and probably a few others i have forgotten. Favorite assy was 6809. *Did a lot on the Ericsson MD110 while writing patches. tom K0TAR yeah, pdp8 was 12 bit, everything in octal instead of hex. i did a lot of 6809 stuff on a ratshack coco machine, amazing what you could make that box do once you got inside it. had one doing fax, rtty, 4 channel music synthesizer, and running a dialup bulletin board even before aol started sending out floppies. and i built an 8080 based desktop computer from scratch in 1977, all of 2k of ram and a hex keypad to load the programs from manually or from cassette tapes! |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/13/2010 8:07 PM, K1TTT wrote:
Favorite assy was 6809. Did a lot on the Ericsson MD110 while writing patches. tom K0TAR yeah, pdp8 was 12 bit, everything in octal instead of hex. i did a lot of 6809 stuff on a ratshack coco machine, amazing what you could make that box do once you got inside it. had one doing fax, rtty, 4 channel music synthesizer, and running a dialup bulletin board even before aol started sending out floppies. and i built an 8080 based desktop computer from scratch in 1977, all of 2k of ram and a hex keypad to load the programs from manually or from cassette tapes! I ran OS/9 on my CoCo. I had dual 5 1/4 inch drives, woohoo! Also got a couple things published in Hot CoCo if you remember that mag. OS/9 was great. Developed by Motorola as a micro based Unix type O/S. I heard it was parallel developed with the 6809 chip with feedback between the 2 teams. It was very fast and very small. Kicked the IBM PC's butt with one fifth the clock speed. As you may know, the 6809 was about as much 16 bit as it was 8, which was probably part of the reason why. And I still have all of the bits. Haven't fired them up in maybe 15 years. I wonder if the disks will still read. tom K0TAR |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:59:10 -0500, tom wrote:
And our friend Mr. Ostrom, the computer scientist, got his AS degree in Chico something more than a dozen years ago. There's authority on the topic speaking for ya'. Oh no, another know-it-all that knows nothing. ROFLOL A confirmation. ;-) Anyone else would have asked who Mr. Ostrom is - or wait for Mr. Ostrom to indignantly reply (and he did). It says a lot about ability and self esteem when someone has an email address like his and says the things he does. My guess is that I have made a lot more money programming than he ever will. And in a lot more languages. And a lot fewer bugs. Hi Tom, Brett has an identity problem here. Even Art has a better self image. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 14, 1:20*am, tom wrote:
On 8/13/2010 8:07 PM, K1TTT wrote: Favorite assy was 6809. *Did a lot on the Ericsson MD110 while writing patches. tom K0TAR yeah, pdp8 was 12 bit, everything in octal instead of hex. *i did a lot of 6809 stuff on a ratshack coco machine, amazing what you could make that box do once you got inside it. *had one doing fax, rtty, 4 channel music synthesizer, and running a dialup bulletin board even before aol started sending out floppies. *and i built an 8080 based desktop computer from scratch in 1977, all of 2k of ram and a hex keypad to load the programs from manually or from cassette tapes! I ran OS/9 on my CoCo. *I had dual 5 1/4 inch drives, woohoo! *Also got a couple things published in Hot CoCo if you remember that mag. OS/9 was great. *Developed by Motorola as a micro based Unix type O/S. I heard it was parallel developed with the 6809 chip with feedback between the 2 teams. *It was very fast and very small. *Kicked the IBM PC's butt with one fifth the clock speed. *As you may know, the 6809 was about as much 16 bit as it was 8, which was probably part of the reason why. And I still have all of the bits. *Haven't fired them up in maybe 15 years. *I wonder if the disks will still read. tom K0TAR oh yes, i remember hot coco... at one point i had 4 floppies and extra ram extension on my coco. that was when i was using it as a bbs. finally turned it into a repeater controller in the mid 80's. |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/12/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:06:21 -0700, John Smith wrote: My daughter just got her doctorate from Columbia University. Frankly, I find that amazing, indeed, it implies insanity to me. And our friend Mr. Ostrom, the computer scientist, got his AS degree in Chico something more than a dozen years ago. There's authority on the topic speaking for ya'. To which, I reply: All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. However, I knew you would be along, shortly, with character assassination, high-jacking of content to other subjects, etc. My gawd man, so predictable, return years later, all is still the same. ROFLOL Regards, Mr. Ostrom |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/13/2010 4:47 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 13, 10:59 pm, wrote: ... It says a lot about ability and self esteem when someone has an email address like his and says the things he does. My guess is that I have made a lot more money programming than he ever will. And in a lot more languages. And a lot fewer bugs. tom K0TAR amen on that... lets see, 42 years programming now, 26 getting paid just for that, languages??? pdp8 assy, focal, fortran(several versions), basic(several variants), pascal, x86 assy, vb, ada, c, c++, c#, vb.net, asp.net, various jcl variations, ibm360 assy, 68xxx assy, objective c, pl-1, apl, java, javascript, vrml, html, xaml, xml, matlab, mathcad, and probably a few others i have forgotten. Thanks, you saved me a lot of trouble. And, when addressing a room full of engineers from such varied programming experiences, one would use pseudocode, a "universal language." Indeed, a thesis would utilize the same ... Regards, Mr. Ostrom |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/13/2010 6:30 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:59:10 -0500, wrote: Hi Tom, Brett has an identity problem here. Even Art has a better self image. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Your material has been covered long ago ... Regards, Brett |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On 8/13/2010 6:30 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:59:10 -0500, wrote: Hi Tom, Brett has an identity problem here. Even Art has a better self image. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Ohh, I forgot: Disclaimer: All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Regards, Brett |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a flossvisual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Aug 14, 6:08*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 8/13/2010 4:47 PM, K1TTT wrote: On Aug 13, 10:59 pm, *wrote: *... It says a lot about ability and self esteem when someone has an email address like his and says the things he does. *My guess is that I have made a lot more money programming than he ever will. *And in a lot more languages. *And a lot fewer bugs. tom K0TAR amen on that... lets see, 42 years programming now, 26 getting paid just for that, languages??? pdp8 assy, focal, fortran(several versions), basic(several variants), pascal, x86 assy, vb, ada, c, c++, c#, vb.net, asp.net, various jcl variations, ibm360 assy, 68xxx assy, objective c, pl-1, apl, java, javascript, vrml, html, xaml, xml, matlab, mathcad, and probably a few others i have forgotten. Thanks, you saved me a lot of trouble. *And, when addressing a room full of engineers from such varied programming experiences, one would use pseudocode, a "universal language." *Indeed, a thesis would utilize the same ... Regards, Mr. Ostrom only if the thesis didn't care about the exact implementation, but did depend on the algorithm. if the code were just a tool used to crunch data, which is what it sounded like in that part of the discussion, then the code itself may not even be part of the thesis, just the results of crunching. |
FORTRAN/ Intellectual Property was vemsa3d 1.1 - a floss visual em simulator for 3d antennas
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:05:48 -0700, John Smith
wrote: Mr. Ostrom Of course. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:00 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com