|
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:01:12 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote: Are you Roy's official toady? On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:57:10 -0700, "Chuck" wrote: There was nothing pejorative in my response. Merely an example of moral relativism? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:44:02 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote: Nonsense! I have made the assertion - and I continue to do so - that minninec and NEC based programs cannot model my design simply from their inability to simulate a virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line. A "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line." That's a good one. Very inventive. Either you're remarkably ignorant, or you've made a failed attempt at being clever... which is it? I didn't make up that silly bafflegab, you did. As those things go, it was pretty good. Your reply is most revealing as to your ignorance in this regard! Hi Chuck, It may be regarded as ignorance, especially when your claim is unsubstantiated and demands that your proof is available only through a privileged knowledge. However being ignorant is not the same as being stupid. The onus is upon you to show (resolve ignorance or exhibit it in your own thinking - there are no third options) how your claim is substantial - testimonial is insufficient. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:44:02 -0700, "Chuck" wrote: Nonsense! I have made the assertion - and I continue to do so - that minninec and NEC based programs cannot model my design simply from their inability to simulate a virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line. A "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line." That's a good one. Very inventive. Either you're remarkably ignorant, or you've made a failed attempt at being clever... which is it? I didn't make up that silly bafflegab, you did. As those things go, it was pretty good. Your reply is most revealing as to your ignorance in this regard! Hi Chuck, It may be regarded as ignorance, especially when your claim is unsubstantiated and demands that your proof is available only through a privileged knowledge. However being ignorant is not the same as being stupid. The onus is upon you to show (resolve ignorance or exhibit it in your own thinking - there are no third options) how your claim is substantial - testimonial is insufficient. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi Richard, I suspect Chuck's phrase is little more than an attempt to seem technically erudite without, alas, conveying any information to the reader. In short, bafflegab if done intentionally, self deceit otherwise. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:31:54 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote: I suspect Chuck's phrase is little more than an attempt to seem technically erudite without, alas, conveying any information to the reader. In short, bafflegab if done intentionally, self deceit otherwise. Hi Tom, Well considering "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line." in isolation, I find it rather un-remarkable (if this is in fact an accurate quote). Afterall, each and every aspect is perfectly achievable by any NEC modeler on the market (even ones with less than standard GUIs). Virtual? That is the first approximation of modeling from the outset. Bi-directional? There is nothing to impede direction in any interpretation. Coaxial? This is merely a tedious exercise in construction. Phasing/delay line? This follows of necessity and application of ANY design of wire described within ANY modeler. Is there something special about the combination of the isolated terms that invalidates their being realized in ANY modeler? That is, is there something special about a "virtual bi-directional" anything that is not achieved separately as "virtual" or "bi-directional?" Further, is there some unique entity of "bi-directional coaxial" that fails resolution in a model? Or is "coaxial phasing/delay" unknown in the art of modeling? I see nothing original and foreign about "phasing/delay line" within the practice of modeling. Does this arcane art only appear at the third order of terms? That is, is there something unachieved by modelers in regard to "virtual bi-directional coaxial?" This goes again to the simple tedium of description of the various wires to construct one - tedium is not unique unfortunately as anyone who has watched the Republicans unsuccessfully try to pass their own agenda within their own majorities can attest. Perhaps it arrives at the fourth order of chaining terms. However, at this point it becomes regressive evidence of that same tedium, which can be simply resolved without a dictionary if only one were practiced in the art of modeling. Let's see, there are 5! ways to de-convolve this conundrum and none appear to be outside of the scope of rendering in a model. As such, it appears to be through the poverty of the carpenter rather than of the tool. Barring testimonials, I may be wrong and my ignorance be disclosed by evidence. Or some may call me stupid but not Ishmael ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:31:54 GMT, "Tom Donaly" wrote: I suspect Chuck's phrase is little more than an attempt to seem technically erudite without, alas, conveying any information to the reader. In short, bafflegab if done intentionally, self deceit otherwise. Hi Tom, Well considering "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line." in isolation, I find it rather un-remarkable (if this is in fact an accurate quote). Afterall, each and every aspect is perfectly achievable by any NEC modeler on the market (even ones with less than standard GUIs). Virtual? That is the first approximation of modeling from the outset. Bi-directional? There is nothing to impede direction in any interpretation. Coaxial? This is merely a tedious exercise in construction. Phasing/delay line? This follows of necessity and application of ANY design of wire described within ANY modeler. Is there something special about the combination of the isolated terms that invalidates their being realized in ANY modeler? That is, is there something special about a "virtual bi-directional" anything that is not achieved separately as "virtual" or "bi-directional?" Further, is there some unique entity of "bi-directional coaxial" that fails resolution in a model? Or is "coaxial phasing/delay" unknown in the art of modeling? I see nothing original and foreign about "phasing/delay line" within the practice of modeling. Does this arcane art only appear at the third order of terms? That is, is there something unachieved by modelers in regard to "virtual bi-directional coaxial?" This goes again to the simple tedium of description of the various wires to construct one - tedium is not unique unfortunately as anyone who has watched the Republicans unsuccessfully try to pass their own agenda within their own majorities can attest. Perhaps it arrives at the fourth order of chaining terms. However, at this point it becomes regressive evidence of that same tedium, which can be simply resolved without a dictionary if only one were practiced in the art of modeling. Let's see, there are 5! ways to de-convolve this conundrum and none appear to be outside of the scope of rendering in a model. As such, it appears to be through the poverty of the carpenter rather than of the tool. Barring testimonials, I may be wrong and my ignorance be disclosed by evidence. Or some may call me stupid but not Ishmael ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi Richard, that's a good analysis. Some inventors like to make up high-sounding names for their brain children, motivated by the same reason John of Trevisa said people learned "Freynsch" in the fourteenth century: "for to be more y-told of." 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Richard Clark wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:31:54 GMT, "Tom Donaly" wrote: I suspect Chuck's phrase is little more than an attempt to seem technically erudite without, alas, conveying any information to the reader. In short, bafflegab if done intentionally, self deceit otherwise. Hi Tom, Well considering "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line." in isolation, I find it rather un-remarkable (if this is in fact an accurate quote). Afterall, each and every aspect is perfectly achievable by any NEC modeler on the market (even ones with less than standard GUIs). Virtual? That is the first approximation of modeling from the outset. Bi-directional? There is nothing to impede direction in any interpretation. Coaxial? This is merely a tedious exercise in construction. Phasing/delay line? This follows of necessity and application of ANY design of wire described within ANY modeler. Indeed Richard, Anyone who understands antennas, in my opinion, wouldn't be demonstrating ignorance in regard to those mundane terms. That said, I take exception with your statement regarding the bi-directionality of the simulated coaxial transmission lines in available NEC(n) engines. Their simulations are uni-directional - from the input to the load, but not in reverse. As we all know, real transmission lines allow energy to flow in either direction. In order to model my design correctly, a modeling program must be able to simulate a real coaxial phasing line, which the available NEC(n) engines do not readily do. Please consider the following: Some years ago - using EZNEC - I modeled my basic 2 element driver using a simulated a bi-directional coaxial phasing line, by placing two such lines side-by-side - one fed at the front matching network and terminated in the rear matching network, the other fed at the rear matching network and terminated in the front matching network. Applying empirical data to the rear input (simulating the induced energy), the ensuing results were consistent in every way with the empirical model. While this may or may not be definitive proof, it does strongly support my assertion. Feeding induced energy from a passive antenna into an active antenna is common practice in AM broadcast engineering. All I've done is to simply apply a variation of this methodology to improve the basic Yagi design. No fairy dust, black magic, or voodoo is involved, and the laws of physics remain intact! In fact, any competent person can produce similar results using a NEC(n) engine (or EZNEC), if they make an effort to understand the principals involved and can endure the tedium. :) interesting irrelevancy snipped Barring testimonials, I may be wrong and my ignorance be disclosed by evidence. Or some may call me stupid but not Ishmael ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC A description of the simulated coaxial transmission line is in the EZNEC manual. 73, Chuck, WA7RAI |
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:08:36 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote: [snip] |Feeding induced energy from a |passive antenna into an active |antenna is common practice in AM |broadcast engineering. I'm curious. Does this require a unidirectional transmission line? |
Chuck wrote:
. . . That said, I take exception with your statement regarding the bi-directionality of the simulated coaxial transmission lines in available NEC(n) engines. Their simulations are uni-directional - from the input to the load, but not in reverse. That is patently false, and can be easily demonstrated. The transmission line model in NEC (and EZNEC) is a linear network which is completely bidirectional. . . . Please consider the following: Some years ago - using EZNEC - I modeled my basic 2 element driver using a simulated a bi-directional coaxial phasing line, by placing two such lines side-by-side - one fed at the front matching network and terminated in the rear matching network, the other fed at the rear matching network and terminated in the front matching network. Applying empirical data to the rear input (simulating the induced energy), the ensuing results were consistent in every way with the empirical model. While this may or may not be definitive proof, it does strongly support my assertion. . . . I think some doubt is warrented about both Chuck's measurement ability (which led him to conclude that his antenna has more gain than theoretically possible) and his modeling ability. In September 1997, Chuck sent me the model he created with his pirated copy of EZNEC. Among other problems, which I pointed out to him at that time, were wires which intersected at other than a segment junction, and a wire which was entirely inside another wire, which causes NEC-2 to give unpredictable and wrong results. (Such errors are now caught by EZNEC 4.0's Geometry Check, and a model with those errors wouldn't run.) This, along with more of the history of his attempts to fit his claims to modeled results, can be found by going to http://groups.google.com and searching the archives of this group for the articles with the subject "raibeam antenna models". There, you'll also find my modeling results for the "Raibeam" and a restatement of the offer I made Chuck some time before, as follows (from my posting of September 23, 1997): I made Chuck an offer a while back, as follows: That if he has the Raibeam tested at a certified antenna range and the results show a free-space gain of at least 5.5 dBd (7.65 dBi) with simultaneous 25 dB or greater f/b ratio, I'll pay the test fee. This is performance less than he claims and less than he claims his model shows. But so far he hasn't taken me up on the offer. Although I'm sure the cost of such a test is much greater than it was when I made the offer, I'll still honor it. Still not interested, Chuck? Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
I should also note that a number of professional (real P.E.) and
nationally known broadcast engineering consultants are among the users of EZNEC software. It's routinely used for the design of AM broadcast antenna arrays. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Wes Stewart wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:08:36 -0700, "Chuck" wrote: [snip] |Feeding induced energy from a |passive antenna into an active |antenna is common practice in AM |broadcast engineering. I'm curious. Does this require a unidirectional transmission line? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com