antenna physics question
 

Registered User wrote:

Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions

Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions.

The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input
power.

Power divided by power has no dimensions.

The efficiency of an engine is the mechanical energy it produces divided by
the thermal energy of the fuel it uses.

Energy divided by energy has no dimensions.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 11, 10:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 11, 9:04*pm, joe wrote:



Art Unwin wrote:

Think about it Joe
If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless.

It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets
30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining
efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless
result.

A meaningful *measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may
relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless.

What is your equation?

Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts
perfection
and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second
portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to
perfection.

OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those
portions and where does L/C fit?

Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of

that which creates losses.
Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1
which states zero losses, an ideal situation.

Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what
you say it is just some term out of nowhere.

Thus we can say the losses involved equals
root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L
and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and
therefore not part of the vectors that create
acceleration of charge.

How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is
out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy
with your position?

* Remember for legitimacy all formulae must

equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now
if you are unaware where root L/C
appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books
to fill that gap.

The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your
position, not some book.

Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ *xg

Tom. I don't trust you because of your prior posts but I am following
the norm where homework is for copying from the screen before
dismissal. As far as research goes their are many discussions
available that give support to my position so you have an avenue
to research for yourself without denial of mine.
If what you say is true regarding L and C then there is indeed a
problem. Provide a situation
where both inductors and capacitance do not provide losses and is
instrumental in creating propagation and I don't mind you providing an
excerpt from a book as to what is understood
as to how the losses incurred are part and parcel of the resultant
forces. Why not quote a formula on efficiency where the inefficiency
is not applied as a simple number but instead supplies the constituent
values that make up that number. I don't mind you quoting from the
books the same as I am doing. Think about it Tom, a capacitor
conserves energy and you know that an inductor provides a magnetic
field
by retaining half of what was supplied, Thus no amount of elements can
account for the disposition of all the power supplied.
Please note that I am not running away while missiles are being
thrown. I am stubborn ,and I am staying, and will respond, and I
certainly will not run away! I do thank you in your pursuit but in the
absence of believing me your answers will come from researching what I
state.
Why not start in stating what you do believe about my research ?
Gauss and Maxwell
Particles not waves
The actions of being diamagnetic
Levitation
Surface flow of current external to the radiator
and so on IN ORDER *from my given description.
I need to see what base you are operating from
and what you do accept so I can build upon it.
I will stay with you. If you don't care about what I propose then take
leave of the thread because it lacks importance to you.
Best regards
Art
Regard
Art

Joe
I have to apologize with respect to my stance on root L/C which is a
constant with respect to critical damping in R L C circuitry. For the
life of me I cannot retrace my thinking in the matter or my line of
thought, so that line of debate is just not on. However, if current
removes itself from an element to travel in a medium on the surface
and under a enclosing skin of particles
we have removed unwanted resistances from the equation as the
particles are in equilibrium
and their accelleration is now measurable. At the same time the medium
supplies a path for a ground vector.
Again I apologize for the path I led you
Regards
Art

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 12, 12:47*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 11, 9:04*pm, joe wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:

Think about it Joe
If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless.

It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets
30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining
efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless
result.

A meaningful *measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may
relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless.

What is your equation?

Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts
perfection
and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second
portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to
perfection.

OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those
portions and where does L/C fit?

Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of

that which creates losses.
Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1
which states zero losses, an ideal situation.

Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what
you say it is just some term out of nowhere.

Thus we can say the losses involved equals
root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L
and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and
therefore not part of the vectors that create
acceleration of charge.

How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is
out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy
with your position?

* Remember for legitimacy all formulae must

equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now
if you are unaware where root L/C
appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books
to fill that gap.

The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your
position, not some book.

Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ *xg

Tom. I don't trust you because of your prior posts but I am following
the norm where homework is for copying from the screen before
dismissal. As far as research goes their are many discussions
available that give support to my position so you have an avenue
to research for yourself without denial of mine.
If what you say is true regarding L and C then there is indeed a
problem. Provide a situation
where both inductors and capacitance do not provide losses and is
instrumental in creating propagation and I don't mind you providing an
excerpt from a book as to what is understood
as to how the losses incurred are part and parcel of the resultant
forces. Why not quote a formula on efficiency where the inefficiency
is not applied as a simple number but instead supplies the constituent
values that make up that number. I don't mind you quoting from the
books the same as I am doing. Think about it Tom, a capacitor
conserves energy and you know that an inductor provides a magnetic
field
by retaining half of what was supplied, Thus no amount of elements can
account for the disposition of all the power supplied.
Please note that I am not running away while missiles are being
thrown. I am stubborn ,and I am staying, and will respond, and I
certainly will not run away! I do thank you in your pursuit but in the
absence of believing me your answers will come from researching what I
state.
Why not start in stating what you do believe about my research ?
Gauss and Maxwell
Particles not waves
The actions of being diamagnetic
Levitation
Surface flow of current external to the radiator
and so on IN ORDER *from my given description.
I need to see what base you are operating from
and what you do accept so I can build upon it.
I will stay with you. If you don't care about what I propose then take
leave of the thread because it lacks importance to you.
Best regards
Art
Regard
Art

Joe
I have to apologize with respect to my stance on root L/C which is a
constant with respect to critical damping in R L C circuitry. For the
life of me I cannot retrace my thinking in the matter or my line of
thought, so that line of debate is just not on. However, if current
removes itself from an element to travel in a medium on the surface
and under a enclosing skin of particles
we have removed unwanted resistances from the equation as the
particles are in equilibrium
and their accelleration is now measurable. At the same time the medium
supplies a path for a ground vector.
Again I apologize for the path I led you
Regards
Art

The following aproach is not necessarily what I had in mind but root
L.C. is directly involved
in attaining oscillation for a given frequency and thus involved in
the resistance implied in the generation of oscillation required for
radiation.
It is this resistance that represents the other resistance involved
other than radiation resistance and removes itself from the element
to the medium between the entrapped element and the particles thus
leaving the radiation resistance on its own for the generation of
charge. A small amount of resistance will remain in the element in the
form of recoil from the levitating vector but it is extremely small.
I also see this resistance as the spoiler for perpetual motion of a
pendulum but that is departing from the subject at hand.
and can be neglected.
Art

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 12, 7:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:47*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 11, 10:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Dec 11, 9:04*pm, joe wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:

Think about it Joe
If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless.

It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets
30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining
efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless
result.

A meaningful *measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may
relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless..

What is your equation?

Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts
perfection
and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second
portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to
perfection.

OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those
portions and where does L/C fit?

Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of

that which creates losses.
Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1
which states zero losses, an ideal situation.

Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what
you say it is just some term out of nowhere.

Thus we can say the losses involved equals
root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L
and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and
therefore not part of the vectors that create
acceleration of charge.

How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is
out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy
with your position?

* Remember for legitimacy all formulae must

equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units.. Now
if you are unaware where root L/C
appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books
to fill that gap.

The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your
position, not some book.

Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ *xg

Tom. I don't trust you because of your prior posts but I am following
the norm where homework is for copying from the screen before
dismissal. As far as research goes their are many discussions
available that give support to my position so you have an avenue
to research for yourself without denial of mine.
If what you say is true regarding L and C then there is indeed a
problem. Provide a situation
where both inductors and capacitance do not provide losses and is
instrumental in creating propagation and I don't mind you providing an
excerpt from a book as to what is understood
as to how the losses incurred are part and parcel of the resultant
forces. Why not quote a formula on efficiency where the inefficiency
is not applied as a simple number but instead supplies the constituent
values that make up that number. I don't mind you quoting from the
books the same as I am doing. Think about it Tom, a capacitor
conserves energy and you know that an inductor provides a magnetic
field
by retaining half of what was supplied, Thus no amount of elements can
account for the disposition of all the power supplied.
Please note that I am not running away while missiles are being
thrown. I am stubborn ,and I am staying, and will respond, and I
certainly will not run away! I do thank you in your pursuit but in the
absence of believing me your answers will come from researching what I
state.
Why not start in stating what you do believe about my research ?
Gauss and Maxwell
Particles not waves
The actions of being diamagnetic
Levitation
Surface flow of current external to the radiator
and so on IN ORDER *from my given description.
I need to see what base you are operating from
and what you do accept so I can build upon it.
I will stay with you. If you don't care about what I propose then take
leave of the thread because it lacks importance to you.
Best regards
Art
Regard
Art

Joe
I have to apologize with respect to my stance on root L/C which is a
constant with respect to critical damping in R L C circuitry. For the
life of me I cannot retrace my thinking in the matter or my line of
thought, so that line of debate is just not on. However, if current
removes itself from an element to travel in a medium on the surface
and under a enclosing skin of particles
we have removed unwanted resistances from the equation as the
particles are in equilibrium
and their accelleration is now measurable. At the same time the medium
supplies a path for a ground vector.
Again I apologize for the path I led you
Regards
Art

The following aproach is not necessarily what I had in mind but root
L.C. is *directly involved
in attaining oscillation for a given frequency and thus involved in
the resistance implied in the generation of oscillation required for
radiation.
It is this resistance that represents the other resistance involved
other than radiation resistance and removes itself from the element
to the medium between the entrapped element and the particles thus
leaving the radiation resistance on its own for the generation of
charge. A small amount of resistance will remain in the element in the
form of recoil from the levitating vector but it is extremely small.
I also see this resistance as the spoiler for perpetual motion of a
pendulum but that is departing from the subject at hand.
and can be neglected.
Art

don't worry we already neglect everything you say.

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 12, 1:43*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 12, 7:32*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 12, 12:47*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Dec 11, 10:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Dec 11, 9:04*pm, joe wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:

Think about it Joe
If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless..

It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets
30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining
efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless
result.

A meaningful *measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may
relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless.

What is your equation?

Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts
perfection
and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second
portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to
perfection.

OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those
portions and where does L/C fit?

Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of

that which creates losses.
Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1
which states zero losses, an ideal situation.

Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what
you say it is just some term out of nowhere.

Thus we can say the losses involved equals
root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L
and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and
therefore not part of the vectors that create
acceleration of charge.

How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is
out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy
with your position?

* Remember for legitimacy all formulae must

equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now
if you are unaware where root L/C
appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books
to fill that gap.

The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your
position, not some book.

Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ *xg

Tom. I don't trust you because of your prior posts but I am following
the norm where homework is for copying from the screen before
dismissal. As far as research goes their are many discussions
available that give support to my position so you have an avenue
to research for yourself without denial of mine.
If what you say is true regarding L and C then there is indeed a
problem. Provide a situation
where both inductors and capacitance do not provide losses and is
instrumental in creating propagation and I don't mind you providing an
excerpt from a book as to what is understood
as to how the losses incurred are part and parcel of the resultant
forces. Why not quote a formula on efficiency where the inefficiency
is not applied as a simple number but instead supplies the constituent
values that make up that number. I don't mind you quoting from the
books the same as I am doing. Think about it Tom, a capacitor
conserves energy and you know that an inductor provides a magnetic
field
by retaining half of what was supplied, Thus no amount of elements can
account for the disposition of all the power supplied.
Please note that I am not running away while missiles are being
thrown. I am stubborn ,and I am staying, and will respond, and I
certainly will not run away! I do thank you in your pursuit but in the
absence of believing me your answers will come from researching what I
state.
Why not start in stating what you do believe about my research ?
Gauss and Maxwell
Particles not waves
The actions of being diamagnetic
Levitation
Surface flow of current external to the radiator
and so on IN ORDER *from my given description.
I need to see what base you are operating from
and what you do accept so I can build upon it.
I will stay with you. If you don't care about what I propose then take
leave of the thread because it lacks importance to you.
Best regards
Art
Regard
Art

Joe
I have to apologize with respect to my stance on root L/C which is a
constant with respect to critical damping in R L C circuitry. For the
life of me I cannot retrace my thinking in the matter or my line of
thought, so that line of debate is just not on. However, if current
removes itself from an element to travel in a medium on the surface
and under a enclosing skin of particles
we have removed unwanted resistances from the equation as the
particles are in equilibrium
and their accelleration is now measurable. At the same time the medium
supplies a path for a ground vector.
Again I apologize for the path I led you
Regards
Art

The following aproach is not necessarily what I had in mind but root
L.C. is *directly involved
in attaining oscillation for a given frequency and thus involved in
the resistance implied in the generation of oscillation required for
radiation.
It is this resistance that represents the other resistance involved
other than radiation resistance and removes itself from the element
to the medium between the entrapped element and the particles thus
leaving the radiation resistance on its own for the generation of
charge. A small amount of resistance will remain in the element in the
form of recoil from the levitating vector but it is extremely small.
I also see this resistance as the spoiler for perpetual motion of a
pendulum but that is departing from the subject at hand.
and can be neglected.
Art

don't worry we already neglect everything you say.

Well it is interesting to note that the oscillation of a radiater
inplanted the notion of a wave as the eye follows the change in
amplitude which led to the assumption that the medium entered after
leaving the radiator was the Aether of which the product of surface
wave came about.
Ofcource the medium entered is between the radiator and particle skin
where one sees the optical effect on water. It is also interesting to
note that element oscillations create a coefficient of discharge on
current flow per Bernolli which creates our old friend of Eddy
currents such that the two vectors of gravity and rotation continue to
survive and where the separation of these two vectors produce light on
collisions, but that is speculation on how equilibrium is restored
So as Einstein surmised, we followed the route of the two standard
vectors or one depending on how you see it using boundary laws, from
the containment of the Universe to light emmited from same. It is
worthy of note that the helical twist model which represents the
beginning of life is also represents the Standard Model as does the
"curls" evident on a sea shell artifacts which simulates the
equilibrium nature of the pancake antenna and that radiation can be
explained by a "point action" (MoM) which also suggest that size or
appature does not represent the path to maximum radiation ala the
spiral or helical antenna in equilibrium.
Kraus was so close but the requirement of equilibrium (closed circuit)
under boundary laws which he neglected brought him back to Earth.
A final note on the extension of Gauss
to the Maxwell equation. As for Einstein he correctly predicted the
presence of the STD Model to radiation itself. A Genius no less

I came across a science dictionary of sorts by Eric Weinstein, the
Nobel prize winner, which is the only reference that I have come
across that verifies my explanation of the Gauss extension that
everybody denies.
So if you are still rigid with respect to "waves":
you now have another person to rally against.
Regards to all
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg

antenna physics question
 

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:32:53 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:

Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions

Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions.

The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input
power.

There are two dimensions in the calculation, radiated power and input
power. Although the units of measure associated with the dimensional
data may cancel the dimensional metadata doesn't.

80% is just a number where as 80% antenna efficiency provides meaning
through the metadata. That metadata can also be properly expressed in
terms of dimensions, the ratio of radiated power to input power is
80%. The units of measure may cancel but the dimensional metadata
remains.


Power divided by power has no dimensions.

The efficiency of an engine is the mechanical energy it produces divided by
the thermal energy of the fuel it uses.

Energy divided by energy has no dimensions.

In both examples there are two dimensional values; the numerator and
the denominator but the dimensional data as expressed contains no
metadata. As a result the calculated measure is just a number with no
meaning. Without metadata to describe the dimensional values, how can
one determine which energy or power value is the numerator and which
is the denominator? Energy divided by energy means it's a ratio so
which is correct A/B or B/A? Until dimensional metadata is assigned
the formula and its result have absolutely no meaning.

Don't confuse dimensions and dimensional metadata with units of
measure. Dimensions contain data and the attributes of that data with
UOM being a possible attribute. The descriptive value of the
dimensional metadata remains even if the UOMs cancel in a calculation
e.g. the ratio of radiated power to input power, no units just
metadata. Without the metadata we're back to power divided by power
yielding a meaningless number.

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 12, 4:49*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:32:53 -0000, wrote:
Registered User wrote:

Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions

Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions.

The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input
power.

There are two dimensions in the calculation, radiated power and input
power. Although the units of measure associated with the dimensional
data may cancel the dimensional metadata doesn't.

80% is just a number where as 80% antenna efficiency provides meaning
through the metadata. That metadata can also be properly expressed in
terms of dimensions, the ratio of radiated power to input power is
80%. The units of measure may cancel but the dimensional metadata
remains.



Power divided by power has no dimensions.

The efficiency of an engine is the mechanical energy it produces divided by
the thermal energy of the fuel it uses.

Energy divided by energy has no dimensions.

In both examples there are two dimensional values; the numerator and
the denominator but the dimensional data as expressed contains no
metadata. As a result the calculated measure is just a number with no
meaning. *Without metadata to describe the dimensional values, how can
one determine which energy or power value is the numerator and which
is the denominator? Energy divided by energy means it's a ratio so
which is correct A/B or B/A? Until dimensional metadata is assigned
the formula and its result have absolutely no meaning.

Don't confuse dimensions and dimensional metadata with units of
measure. Dimensions contain data and the attributes of that data with
UOM being a possible attribute. The descriptive value of the
dimensional metadata remains even if the UOMs cancel in a calculation
e.g. *the ratio of radiated power to input power, no units just
metadata. Without the metadata we're back to power divided by power
yielding a meaningless number.

I apologize in providing a 'ratio' as a meaningless number and thank
you for the research undertaken by you to alert the group of my
meaningless error useage. I have assumed, wrongly, that percentage
was digital
sampling process to obtain productive and a non productive ratio
digital comparison or ratio in the base form of 100. If you have some
metadata to spare I request that you insert them for the record such
that the theme "baffle gab" is carried on for future readers. I also
request that you share your particular expertise in this matter with
other groups recognizing we all will be the true loosers if you decide
to depart
but I for one is willing to provide the hardship presented by your
absence for the good of all.
Regards
Art

antenna physics question
 

Registered User wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:32:53 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:

Efficiency is a measure so it must have one or more dimensions

Efficiency is a ratio usually expressed as a percentage and has no dimensions.

The efficiency of an antenna is the radiated power divided by the input
power.

There are two dimensions in the calculation, radiated power and input
power. Although the units of measure associated with the dimensional
data may cancel the dimensional metadata doesn't.

x power/ y power = x/y

The units cancel to form a dimensionles, unitless, ratio.

This is grade school math.

The phrase "dimensional metadata" is meaningless babble.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

antenna physics question
 

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:11:40 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:


I apologize in providing a 'ratio' as a meaningless number and thank
you for the research undertaken by you to alert the group of my
meaningless error useage. I have assumed, wrongly, that percentage
was digital
sampling process

sampling of what?

to obtain productive and a non productive ratio

ratio of what to what?

digital comparison

digital comparison of what to what?

or ratio in the base form of 100.

ration of what to what measured in what?

If you have some
metadata to spare I request that you insert them for the record such
that the theme "baffle gab" is carried on for future readers. I also
request that you share your particular expertise in this matter with
other groups recognizing we all will be the true loosers if you decide
to depart
but I for one is willing to provide the hardship presented by your
absence for the good of all.

Nothing you have written in this post makes sense but that should be
expected.

AFA metadata goes it is invaluable in data analysis applications
including antenna modeling programs. Every variable has its own
dimension containing potential values. Each combination of dimension
variables produces a measure known as a fact. Changing a single
dimensional value can change the value of the fact.

If one is modeling an antenna and changes the value of height above
ground, the calculated value of the measure will change. Height above
ground is only one of the many dimensional values used in the
calculation of the measure.

This all seems relevant because you question antenna modeling
applications' calculations and how they are made.

I'll go back to lurking after I stretch so I can be looser. Enter OLAP
or analysis cube for more information on metadata and its use in
analysis applications.

antenna physics question
 

On Dec 12, 6:17*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:11:40 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:

I apologize in providing a 'ratio' as a meaningless number and thank
you for the research undertaken by you to alert the group of my
meaningless error useage. I have assumed, wrongly, that percentage
was *digital
sampling process

sampling of what?

to obtain *productive and a non productive ratio

ratio of what to what?

digital comparison

digital comparison of what to what?

or ratio in the base form of 100.

ration of what to what measured in what?

If you have some
metadata to spare I request that you insert them for the record such
that the theme "baffle gab" is carried on for future readers. I also
request that you share your particular expertise in this matter with
other groups recognizing we all will be the true loosers if you decide
to depart
but I for one is willing to provide the hardship presented by your
absence for the good of all.

Nothing you have written in this post makes sense but that should be
expected.

AFA metadata goes it is invaluable in data analysis applications
including antenna modeling programs. Every variable has its own
dimension containing potential values. Each combination of dimension
variables produces a measure known as a fact. Changing a single
dimensional value can change the value of the fact.

If one is modeling an antenna and changes the value of height above
ground, the calculated value of the measure will change. Height above
ground is only one of the many dimensional values used in the
calculation of the measure.

This all seems relevant because you question antenna modeling
applications' calculations and how they are made.

I'll go back to lurking after I stretch so I can be looser. Enter OLAP
or analysis cube for more information on metadata and its use in
analysis applications.

Metadata is just a expanded project for archival analysis. It is not
intended to revise language
in various countries so scientific works and patent will not be
withdrawn by non conformance with the program by being termed
"meaningless" with respect to the new project.
The project has had numorous changes and revisions and certainly has
not yet arrived in its final form in libraries and archival uses in
computer programs There are no plans as yet to announce that most
scientific data is to be revised or declared illegal , patents
overturned etc Or the institution of such projects where computer
language will be taught in schools as a globalization of the new
speech or verbal communication of the day in the way Fortran was once
considered since thinkers of the computer era are still in a state of
flux as to what should be imposed and who has the authority to change.
There will be many enforcement programmers milling around to spread
virus regarding the program but generally these self appointed
programmers and the like are just trying to impose a new regime on the
public at hand via the imposition
of expansion regulations in a global fashion