NEC
 

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.

NEC
 

On 10/11/2014 11:27 AM, gareth wrote:
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.


Your comment doesn't make sense (at least not to me), Gareth.
Please elaborate, but leave out the less commonly used words such as
didact- whatever. You might get better responses by using common
language. Just a suggestion.

NEC
 

"John S" wrote in message
...
On 10/11/2014 11:27 AM, gareth wrote:
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.


Your comment doesn't make sense (at least not to me), Gareth.
Please elaborate, but leave out the less commonly used words such as
didact- whatever. You might get better responses by using common language.
Just a suggestion.


You have to be a science fiction fan to understand this.

From the movie Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Anyway there is a super
computer that has been working for 7 1/2 million years for the answer of
life and the answer is 42 which is 101010 in bianary.



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

NEC
 

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
:

You have to be a science fiction fan to understand this.

From the movie Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Anyway there is a super
computer that has been working for 7 1/2 million years for the answer of
life and the answer is 42 which is 101010 in bianary.


I'm very familiar with HGGTTG and I still didn't understand what his post was
about. As to 42, I like the interpretation of life being 'all at sixes and
sevens', i.e. irrational, indeterministic, a big part of the whole HHGTTG
thing, and also of Adam's other work too.

Apparently Stephen Fry is one of the very few people (perhaps the only one)
to know the real, original derivation of 42, and why it was chosen, but I
like my idea partly because it's not one I have ever heard from anyone else.

NEC
 

gareth wrote:
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.

Except that antenna analysis is much more complex than a single number.

NEC is the PERFECT learning tool for antennas as one can almose instantly
see the three dimensional pattern, the gain, the losses, the complex
impedance, etc.

I hardly think doing a huge number of complex calculations by hand is
more informative than letting a computer do the calculations.

The goal is to learn how an antenna works, not develop proficiency in
manual 3 dimensional calculus.

Of course you do have a dog in this race as NEC easily shows much of
what you say is utter, arm waving, nonsense.



--
Jim Pennino

NEC
 

wrote in message
...

Of course you do have a dog in this race as NEC easily shows much of
what you say is utter, arm waving, nonsense.

May I commend to you, early, the mature and civil approach to international
debate which will come when you grow up?

NEC
 

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

Of course you do have a dog in this race as NEC easily shows much of
what you say is utter, arm waving, nonsense.

May I commend to you, early, the mature and civil approach to international
debate which will come when you grow up?

May I commend to you that you suck it up and admit much of what you have
said so far is utter, arm waving, nonsense?

If you have equations and numbers to show otherwise...




--
Jim Pennino

NEC
 

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
:

You have to be a science fiction fan to understand this.

From the movie Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Anyway there is a
super computer that has been working for 7 1/2 million years for the
answer of life and the answer is 42 which is 101010 in bianary.


I'm very familiar with HGGTTG and I still didn't understand what his
post was about. As to 42, I like the interpretation of life being 'all
at sixes and sevens', i.e. irrational, indeterministic, a big part of
the whole HHGTTG thing, and also of Adam's other work too.

Apparently Stephen Fry is one of the very few people (perhaps the only
one) to know the real, original derivation of 42, and why it was chosen,
but I like my idea partly because it's not one I have ever heard from
anyone else.


I'm enjoying this too much to stop, but I'll keep it short ant try to
entertain someone with it... Another Douglas Adams deduction of mine: "The
Long Dark Teatime Of The Soul", a Dirk Gently novel title.

One time listening to Radio 3, I heard an announcer speak of Berlioz' "Les
Nuits d'Été" (Summer Nights).

Not speaking French well at all, I misheard that one. I heard "Le nuit dé
thé" (The night of tea!) While pondering that bit of silliness, I also
thought of "L'ennui de thé", based on a bit of French I actually did know.

And then it dropped on me with several of the attributes of the Pan-galactic
gargle blaster, a vivid realisation that Douglas Adams had probably been in
exactly this position, but with greater imagination than mine by far, he came
up with "The Long Dark Teatime Of The Soul".

NEC
 

"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.

But NEC is a good tool for learning. If your theoretical understanding does
not match the results predicted by NEC, then a prudent course of action is
to look at your theoretical understanding for errors.

NEC
 

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

Of course you do have a dog in this race as NEC easily shows much of
what you say is utter, arm waving, nonsense.

May I commend to you, early, the mature and civil approach to international
debate which will come when you grow up?

I notice you have absolutely nothing to say about the utility of NEC
as a learngin tool...


--
Jim Pennino

NEC
 

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

Of course you do have a dog in this race as NEC easily shows much of
what you say is utter, arm waving, nonsense.
May I commend to you that you suck it up and admit much of what you have
said so far is utter, arm waving, nonsense?
If you have equations and numbers to show otherwise...

May I commend to you, early, the mature and civil approach to international
debate which will come when you grow up?

NEC
 

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

Of course you do have a dog in this race as NEC easily shows much of
what you say is utter, arm waving, nonsense.
May I commend to you that you suck it up and admit much of what you have
said so far is utter, arm waving, nonsense?
If you have equations and numbers to show otherwise...

May I commend to you, early, the mature and civil approach to international
debate which will come when you grow up?

Still absolutely nothing to say about the utility of NEC as a learning
tool?

Still trying to change the subject to how offended you are that your
arm waving nonsense was pointed out?



--
Jim Pennino

NEC
 

wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

Of course you do have a dog in this race as NEC easily shows much of
what you say is utter, arm waving, nonsense.
May I commend to you that you suck it up and admit much of what you have
said so far is utter, arm waving, nonsense?
If you have equations and numbers to show otherwise...
May I commend to you, early, the mature and civil approach to
international
debate which will come when you grow up?
Still absolutely nothing to say about the utility of NEC as a learning
tool?
Still trying to change the subject to how offended you are that your
arm waving nonsense was pointed out?

Stupid boy

NEC
 

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

Of course you do have a dog in this race as NEC easily shows much of
what you say is utter, arm waving, nonsense.
May I commend to you that you suck it up and admit much of what you have
said so far is utter, arm waving, nonsense?
If you have equations and numbers to show otherwise...
May I commend to you, early, the mature and civil approach to
international
debate which will come when you grow up?
Still absolutely nothing to say about the utility of NEC as a learning
tool?
Still trying to change the subject to how offended you are that your
arm waving nonsense was pointed out?

Stupid boy

Gas bag old man.


--
Jim Pennino

NEC
 

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

Of course you do have a dog in this race as NEC easily shows much of
what you say is utter, arm waving, nonsense.
May I commend to you that you suck it up and admit much of what you have
said so far is utter, arm waving, nonsense?
If you have equations and numbers to show otherwise...
May I commend to you, early, the mature and civil approach to
international
debate which will come when you grow up?
Still absolutely nothing to say about the utility of NEC as a learning
tool?
Still trying to change the subject to how offended you are that your
arm waving nonsense was pointed out?

Stupid boy

Still absolutely nothing to say about the utility of NEC as a learning
tool, Colonel Blimp?



--
Jim Pennino

NEC
 

"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."

NEC
 

Sal M. O'Nella 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.
==============================================
Nobody says "didactification."

Likely because after a search of several dictionaries and a thesaurus
there doesn't seem to be any such word.



--
Jim Pennino

NEC
 

En el artículo , Sal M. O'Nella salmonella@
food_poisoning.org escribió:

Nobody says "didactification."

Nobody normal, anyway.

"gareth" (Gareth Alun Evans) likes to bandy about long words in an
attempt to make himself look learned and erudite, when in reality it
just marks him out as a pompous old fool.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

NEC
 

"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in
:


"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."



He did. :) I think it was that as much as the 42 bit that made me spiral
outward into to Douglas Adams-related fun. It sounded like it came from some
pronouncement from the Guide.

NEC
 

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
"gareth" (Gareth Alun Evans) likes to bandy about long words in an
attempt to make himself look learned and erudite, when in reality it
just marks him out as a pompous old fool.

It continues to be that you seek to lay at my door the personal
nastiness that is your own style.

Comparing my posts recently to yours, I regularly speak out
against the abusive infants who seem to have escaped from
the local kindergarten school, and you regularly exhibit yourself
as being one of them.

Grow up, Sonny!

NEC
 

On 14/10/2014 08:08, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Sal M. O'Nella salmonella@
food_poisoning.org escribió:

Nobody says "didactification."

Nobody normal, anyway.

"gareth" (Gareth Alun Evans) likes to bandy about long words in an
attempt to make himself look learned and erudite, when in reality it
just marks him out as a pompous old fool.

Stop indulging in ridiculisation and tomfoolerification and get back on
track.
Expansionification of the vocabulary by extendificationalisers is
entirely valid.

Andy

NEC
 

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:35:05 +0100, AndyW wrote:

On 14/10/2014 08:08, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Sal M. O'Nella salmonella@
food_poisoning.org escribió:

Nobody says "didactification."

Nobody normal, anyway.

"gareth" (Gareth Alun Evans) likes to bandy about long words in an
attempt to make himself look learned and erudite, when in reality it
just marks him out as a pompous old fool.

Stop indulging in ridiculisation and tomfoolerification and get back on
track.
Expansionification of the vocabulary by extendificationalisers is
entirely valid.
Andy

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 have the opposite problem. In the 1960's, as part of a teacher
preparation and indoctrination program, I was required to reduce my
vocabulary to something suitable for a 10 year old. That was about
1500 words. I don't think I ever fully recovered from the ordeal.
See radio run, run radio run.

Ever notice that antenna designers have fairly short last names?
Moxon, Yagi-Uda, Vivaldi, Gray-Hoverman, Marconi, Hertz, etc. Those
with longer names often use their shorter ham radio call signs. I'm
not sure why the short names, but the effect suggests that there will
never be a Liebermann antenna named after me. Bummer.


[1] Spoilers:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sesquipedalian
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

NEC
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian

antidisestablishmentarianism?
sodiummonofluorophosphate?
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

So close! I thought for a moment we had a winner there. :)

NEC
 

On 10/15/2014 3:13 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:35:05 +0100, AndyW wrote:

On 14/10/2014 08:08, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Sal M. O'Nella salmonella@
food_poisoning.org escribió:

Nobody says "didactification."

Nobody normal, anyway.

"gareth" (Gareth Alun Evans) likes to bandy about long words in an
attempt to make himself look learned and erudite, when in reality it
just marks him out as a pompous old fool.

Stop indulging in ridiculisation and tomfoolerification and get back on
track.
Expansionification of the vocabulary by extendificationalisers is
entirely valid.
Andy

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 have the opposite problem. In the 1960's, as part of a teacher
preparation and indoctrination program, I was required to reduce my
vocabulary to something suitable for a 10 year old. That was about
1500 words. I don't think I ever fully recovered from the ordeal.
See radio run, run radio run.


Are you teaching Congress?

Or is that too high a level for them?


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

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

NEC
 

"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.

NEC
 

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:25:26 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Are you teaching Congress?
Or is that too high a level for them?

Congress critters are some of the other graduates of the teacher
preperation program. The rest write advertising copy.

"Sophomoric? Members Of Congress Talk Like 10th-Graders, Analysis
Shows":
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/21/153024432/sophomoric-members-of-congress-talk-like-10th-graders-analysis-shows


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

NEC
 

On 10/15/2014 11:38 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:25:26 -0400, Jerry Stuckleo
wrote:

Are you teaching Congress?
Or is that too high a level for them?

Congress critters are some of the other graduates of the teacher
preperation program. The rest write advertising copy.

"Sophomoric? Members Of Congress Talk Like 10th-Graders, Analysis
Shows":
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/21/153024432/sophomoric-members-of-congress-talk-like-10th-graders-analysis-shows



That's about seven grades above what I expect. But then living here in
Washington, we get to see a different side of them. Not everything is
carefully scripted. :)

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

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

NEC
 

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 02:39:26 -0500, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian

antidisestablishmentarianism?
sodiummonofluorophosphate?
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

So close! I thought for a moment we had a winner there. :)

What's important is not the length of your tool, but rather how you
use it, especially when the subject is impenetrable.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

NEC
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 02:39:26 -0500, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
m:

hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian

antidisestablishmentarianism?
sodiummonofluorophosphate?
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

So close! I thought for a moment we had a winner there. :)

What's important is not the length of your tool, but rather how you
use it, especially when the subject is impenetrable.


Ha! Ok, you win. :)

NEC
 

In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

NEC
 

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

NEC
 

NEC
 

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...

NEC
 

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

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

NEC
 

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

NEC
 

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.

NEC
 

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. :-(

NEC
 

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

NEC
 

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.

NEC
 

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.