gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
Relying on someone's NEC program to number crunch to
produce the answer 42 is not the same as understanding
what is going on as an aid to didactification of novices.

Why is it that those who shout about NEC on the one hand, and
resort to personal remarks on the other, seem to neither have answers
nor able to contribute to discussions?

Sadly, I am reminded of those who claim that they don't need any
understanding of mathematics because of the availability of electronic
pocket calculators.

That is a childish oversimplification at best.

What is actually said is that while you need an understanding of what
a square root is, no needs to be able to calculate the square root of
2,284,987.32 either in their head or with paper and pencil.

Sadly, I am reminded of senile gas bags who long for the good old days
when the streets were full of horse crap and the air full of flies.



--
Jim Pennino

(David Platt) wrote in news:jun2hb-
:

I'm not sure if RF exposure causes brain cancer, but RF certainly
seems to be involved in the current increase in
hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian verbage, cancer of the vocabulary, and
buzzword hypertrophy epidemics. Please make an effort to avoid such
sesquipedalian words.[1]

I agree with your floccinaucinihilipilification, in this case at
least.



I was just thinking 'sadly, I have no more virtual prizes to allocate', then
I measured the doings, and you'd have missed out anyway, but by just the ONE
LETTER. Such is life.. Perhaps we need some organic chemists to compete,
or a writer of a German operating manual...

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

Perhaps we need some organic chemists to compete,
or a writer of a German operating manual...


Belay those. No-one beats the Welsh!
Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychyrndrobwllantysiliogog ogoch
I pulled that from memory, I kid you not, but I won't vouch for flawless
spelling. There might be whole syllab;les missing...

On 10/15/2014 1:53 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
Relying on someone's NEC program to number crunch to
produce the answer 42 is not the same as understanding
what is going on as an aid to didactification of novices.

Why is it that those who shout about NEC on the one hand, and
resort to personal remarks on the other, seem to neither have answers
nor able to contribute to discussions?

Sadly, I am reminded of those who claim that they don't need any
understanding of mathematics because of the availability of electronic
pocket calculators.

That is a childish oversimplification at best.

What is actually said is that while you need an understanding of what
a square root is, no needs to be able to calculate the square root of
2,284,987.32 either in their head or with paper and pencil.

Sadly, I am reminded of senile gas bags who long for the good old days
when the streets were full of horse crap and the air full of flies.




Electronic calculators certainly make things a lot easier. When I took
my exams, the only calculators out there were four function and had a
high three digit price tag. Slipsticks were the in thing (and what I
used for calculations - it got me close enough as long as I didn't lose
a decimal place).

I also remember when programmable calculators came out - the FCC started
by not letting them into the tests at all. They finally allowed them,
as long as the memories and programming were cleared first. (This was
in the days before volunteer examiners).


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

In message , Sal M. O'Nella
writes

"gareth" wrote in message
...
Relying on someone's NEC program to number crunch to
produce the answer 42 is not the same as understanding
what is going on as an aid to didactification of novices.
==============================================
Nobody says "didactification."

Ken Dodd might . Oops , sorry misread it.

Brian
--
Brian Howie

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 2014-10-11 16:27:04 +0000, gareth said:

Relying on someone's NEC program to number crunch to
produce the answer 42 is not the same as understanding
what is going on as an aid to didactification of novices.

And having the formulas in front of you aren't much help when they
can't account for the local ground, or nearby objects.

The only way to figure it out is to do it. The math is only helpful
for spherical cows in a vacuum.

In article ,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

I also remember when programmable calculators came out - the FCC started
by not letting them into the tests at all. They finally allowed them,
as long as the memories and programming were cleared first. (This was
in the days before volunteer examiners).

That's still the policy for the main VE group in my area.

When I went for Extra, I looked around my house for calculators. The
only one I had which worked, was an extremely complex HP with a
zillion built-in capabilities. I couldn't even convince *myself* that
I could completely clear it of all possibly-relevant formulas, let
alone believing that I could convince a VE... so, no go.

Instead, I pulled out a Pickett 10" slide rule, and took it along
instead. It got quite a bit of interest from the VEs - "Where in the
world did you dig that up?" (I have more than a couple - collect 'em
out of nostalgia and a love for the elegance).

The only mistake I made with it, was due to misreading a question and
calculating the sides of a delta loop as if they'd asked for the sides
of a quad. Typical eager-beaver test mistake... not reading the
question carefully. :-(

Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2014-10-11 16:27:04 +0000, gareth said:

Relying on someone's NEC program to number crunch to
produce the answer 42 is not the same as understanding
what is going on as an aid to didactification of novices.

And having the formulas in front of you aren't much help when they
can't account for the local ground, or nearby objects.

How much control do you have over the local ground or nearby objects?

How much control do you have over the design of an antenna you are
designing?

The only way to figure it out is to do it. The math is only helpful
for spherical cows in a vacuum.

On the contrary, first you analyze the antenna, then add nearby objects
to the model and adjust the ground conditions to your real ones.

I assume you have made measurements of your local ground or have at
least looked at the various maps that are available?



--
Jim Pennino

On 2014-10-15 22:04:30 +0000, said:

How much control do you have over the local ground or nearby objects?

Depends on your location, really. Some to lots, in general. It's
possible to change your local ground (especially directly under the
antenna) with soil emendation and moisture control though this is never
even considered or mentioned in any amateur or professional radio texts
as far as I have seen.

How much control do you have over the design of an antenna you are
designing?

Some to lots, depending on your budget and the space available.

On the contrary, first you analyze the antenna, then add nearby objects
to the model and adjust the ground conditions to your real ones.

I suppose that's one way. It seems unnecessarily slow and methodical
though, especially as most (all?) models are either terrible at
accounting for enarby objects, or fail to do so entirely. So you take
your rough model and start trying to account for trees, the local
topography, and pretty soon it's two years later and you haven't even
bought your antenna supplies let alone run the coax because you're
still trying to account for what happens when the geese fly over the
antenna in November.

I assume you have made measurements of your local ground or have at
least looked at the various maps that are available?

Why would you assume such a silly thing? I live about two hundred
yards from the ocean, at an altitude of about 8' above sea level.

On 2014-10-15 21:32:26 +0000, Brian Reay said:

Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2014-10-11 16:27:04 +0000, gareth said:

Relying on someone's NEC program to number crunch to
produce the answer 42 is not the same as understanding
what is going on as an aid to didactification of novices.

And having the formulas in front of you aren't much help when they can't
account for the local ground, or nearby objects.

The only way to figure it out is to do it. The math is only helpful for
spherical cows in a vacuum.

He always preached that 'real hams' should write their our software and he
claims to be a software engineer.
Perhaps he could take a break from his busy Freecell playing schedule and
develop his own antenna modelling package. I am sure another slight delay
in his 18 year project to build a receiver can stand another slippage, it
will make a change from the much reused excuse of 'gear hobbing' problems.
This Rx must have more gears than my Rolex.

Writing software is generally one of the most frightfully boring tasks
that one can possibly do. I will say, though, that since I finally
bought Mathematica I am having more fun than I have in years with
software. This is mainly because it's easy to get from point A to
point B without screwing about with finding libraries, accounting for
memory allocation, and all the crap that traditional software
development entails.