-
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-

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

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?

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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