Richard Clark wrote in message
...
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,

Hi, Richard,

It may be regarded as ignorance,

It may be regarded as ignorance when
one questions a simple term...

especially when your claim is
unsubstantiated

Not in the minds of users, or to
those who made confirmation
indepently.

and demands that your proof is available only through
a privileged knowledge.

Knowledge comes from experience...
anyone can achieve it if they truly had the
desire.

Getting off one's butt and performing
experiments works wonders in this
regard... :)

However being ignorant is not the same as
being stupid.

Agreed.

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.

Let me suggest, the onus is on you to
prove the claim is without substance
since you are the one making the
allegation. The design is time tested,
and I tire of closed minds.

If some folks wish to remain ignorant
in this regard, it's their loss, for they
only deny themselves a better way.

I have more important concerns in
my life do deal with now.

73,
Chuck, WA7RAI


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Wes Stewart wrote in message
...
[snip]


I'm curious.

I don't believe that's possible...

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:14:47 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

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.

Let me suggest, the onus is on you to
prove the claim is without substance

Hi Chuck,

That is about as funny as when Art appeared here proclaiming the
marvels of his new invention - and then telling us it was our
responsibility to prove his claims. Can you guess how many years ago
that was?

I'm afraid you are in line behind cfa claims, eh claims, fractal
claims and the notable efficiency per unit length claims.

But as you have more important things to do, one wonders why you spend
so much time with these trivial issues?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:37:58 -0400, "J. Mc Laughlin"
wrote:
Good reading. 73 Mac N8TT

Hi Mac,

I stopped after the obvious mis-application of the term end-fire. I
am spending 12 hour days in the field registering new voters - 280
today - and this "patent" clearly exhibits the pay-as-you-go mentality
of the PTO. In the field of financial planning this would be called
churning accounts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Roy Lewallen wrote in message
...

...pirated copy of EZNEC.

That is an absolute lie!

My disk is an original - with a large, black,
bold, italicized EZNEC at the top of its
label - and the party from whom I acquired
it, gave it to me with your full knowledge
and approval. I can only assume this lie is
an egregious and deliberate attempt on
your part to defame. I will not discuss this
further in public.

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.


It's rather moot, now that I am no longer in
business. However, If it's your desire to
spend money to embarrass yourself, I
won't argue.

There were two reasons why I let your offer
slide. First, I was unaware of any testing
facilities in my area, and second, I was
struggling to meet customer demand and
could not justify spending the time to
develop a unit for UHF, since it was my
understanding that most testing facilities
could not accommodate frequencies lower
than 100 MHz or so.

I've since learned that the US Army testing
range at Fort Huachuca in Tucson, AZ is
open to civilian testing, and they can
accommodate frequencies as low as 50
MHz.

My wife will finish her chemotherapy and
radiation treatments in March, and since
she is quite ill, I cannot foresee my being
available until after that time.

Allowing say 30 days or so for me to
prepare an antenna, I invite you to make
the arrangements in Tucson - say April -
May, 2005 or so - and I will be more
than happy to join you there.

Is this agreeable?

Chuck, WA7RAI

Richard Clark wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:14:47 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

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.

Let me suggest, the onus is on you to
prove the claim is without substance

Hi Chuck,

That is about as funny as when Art appeared here proclaiming the
marvels of his new invention - and then telling us it was our
responsibility to prove his claims. Can you guess how many years ago
that was?

Hi Richard,

It is my opinion - and only an opinion -
that Art's antenna did achieve critical
coupling... and perhaps yet another
case where the model failed to agree
with empirical observations...

I'm afraid you are in line behind cfa claims, eh claims, fractal
claims and the notable efficiency per unit length claims.

But as you have more important things to do, one wonders why you spend
so much time with these trivial issues?

A few hours a month or less is 'much'
time? Surely you jest... :)

In any case, since you have no first-
hand experience with my design, all you
can offer is mere opinion - the antithesis
of fact.

Since my design can stand on its
established record, the onus is on you
to provide something of real substance
- say, empirical data - to support your
opinion.

73,
Chuck, WA7RAI


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Chuck wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in message
...

...pirated copy of EZNEC.


That is an absolute lie!

My disk is an original - with a large, black,
bold, italicized EZNEC at the top of its
label - and the party from whom I acquired
it, gave it to me with your full knowledge
and approval. I can only assume this lie is
an egregious and deliberate attempt on
your part to defame. I will not discuss this
further in public.

I'll take your word for it, and apologize. You had claimed long ago that
the program was given or sold to you, but for reasons of your own you
would never tell me from whom. (Although I certainaly approve of such
transfers, I never gained knowledge of whom the transfer was from.) In
my posting of Sept. 26, 1997 on this newsgroup, I said:

I don't generally give support to someone who's not a registered user,
but in this case I guess it's necessary. (You still haven't sent me
the name of the person who gave you the program, so I can transfer the
ownership to you from him.)

Because you never furnished that information, I assumed that you had
acquired it illicitly.

If you'll email me the name or call of the person from which you
acquired it and the amount you paid, I'll promptly send you a full
refund, in accordance with my guarantee. You're obviously not a
satisfied user.



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.



It's rather moot, now that I am no longer in
business. However, If it's your desire to
spend money to embarrass yourself, I
won't argue.

There were two reasons why I let your offer
slide. First, I was unaware of any testing
facilities in my area, and second, I was
struggling to meet customer demand and
could not justify spending the time to
develop a unit for UHF, since it was my
understanding that most testing facilities
could not accommodate frequencies lower
than 100 MHz or so.

I've since learned that the US Army testing
range at Fort Huachuca in Tucson, AZ is
open to civilian testing, and they can
accommodate frequencies as low as 50
MHz.

My wife will finish her chemotherapy and
radiation treatments in March, and since
she is quite ill, I cannot foresee my being
available until after that time.

Allowing say 30 days or so for me to
prepare an antenna, I invite you to make
the arrangements in Tucson - say April -
May, 2005 or so - and I will be more
than happy to join you there.

Is this agreeable?

No, you'll have to make the arrangements.

Determine the cost of the test. I suggest that we find someone who is
willing and we both can trust to whom I'll send the money the test will
cost, as proof of my willingness and ability to pay the test fee if the
antenna meets the criteria. Let me know when the test is to be done, and
I'll come down and observe. The person who pays will have the legal
right to make the results public. I agree in advance to do so if I pay;
I expect you to do likewise.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

W7EL wrote:

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.


Ken, K7GCO got bunch of RAIbeams and put them up, wrote glowing review for 73
Mag. He was impressed with the performance and wanted to figure out why is it
so. He very carefully inserted dimensions into EZNEC model and could not get
agreement. He had to go down to 48. 5 MHz in EZNEC to obtain similar pattern
and parameters as real antenna resonant at 51.25 MHz.

So, maybe modeling doesn't "see" the dual driven elements and critical coupling
well? It is amusing to see the "experts" defending unmistakability of software
(loading coil case etc.)

Yuri, K3BU.us
can we all get alone?

...pirated copy of EZNEC.

That is an absolute lie!

My disk is an original - with a large, black,
bold, italicized EZNEC at the top of its
label - and the party from whom I acquired
it, gave it to me with your full knowledge
and approval. I can only assume this lie is
an egregious and deliberate attempt on
your part to defame. I will not discuss this
further in public.

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.


It's rather moot, now that I am no longer in
business. However, If it's your desire to
spend money to embarrass yourself, I
won't argue.

There were two reasons why I let your offer
slide. First, I was unaware of any testing
facilities in my area, and second, I was
struggling to meet customer demand and
could not justify spending the time to
develop a unit for UHF, since it was my
understanding that most testing facilities
could not accommodate frequencies lower
than 100 MHz or so.

I've since learned that the US Army testing
range at Fort Huachuca in Tucson, AZ is
open to civilian testing, and they can
accommodate frequencies as low as 50
MHz.

My wife will finish her chemotherapy and
radiation treatments in March, and since
she is quite ill, I cannot foresee my being
available until after that time.

Allowing say 30 days or so for me to
prepare an antenna, I invite you to make
the arrangements in Tucson - say April -
May, 2005 or so - and I will be more
than happy to join you there.

Is this agreeable?

Chuck, WA7RAI


Chuck,

I am sorry to hear that another individual here is allegedly making false
statements.

I, personally, wish you well, and I am very sorry to hear about your wife's
illness, and wish her a speedy recovery.

I appreciate that you are a professional, and as one professional to another, I
want to point out that you are an honorable person. I am of the opinion that we
should all show you the proper respect. I am sorry if that is not, apparently,
being shown by a very few.

Sierra Vista is a beautiful place, and the Fort has some cool antenna stuff.
They might go down below 50 MHz, BTW.

My best wishes to you; been a long time.

73,
Chip N1IR

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

Ken, K7GCO got bunch of RAIbeams and put them up, wrote glowing review for 73
Mag. He was impressed with the performance and wanted to figure out why is it
so. He very carefully inserted dimensions into EZNEC model and could not get
agreement. He had to go down to 48. 5 MHz in EZNEC to obtain similar pattern
and parameters as real antenna resonant at 51.25 MHz.

So, maybe modeling doesn't "see" the dual driven elements and critical coupling
well? It is amusing to see the "experts" defending unmistakability of software
(loading coil case etc.)

I'm sure you're glad, as I am, that Chuck has finally accepted my offer
and agreed to have a real, professional test done, after something like
8 years. The results of the test should put to rest any speculation
about this issue. I'm looking forward to the test and seeing the test
results.

I get feedback from some of my professional customers who have the
capability to test the antennas they analyze with EZNEC. They report
very good agreement between analysis and measurement. Of course, most of
them are real pros in both modeling and measurement. Given the choice of
believing their results or Ken's and Chuck's, I go for theirs. Even
though you might not consider those folks to be "experts", I do.

But by all means, let's look at the test results -- unless you believe
that "critical coupling" results in radiation that conventional test
ranges can't detect but hams can. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL