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

Dear Richard:

As an MFA candidate and antenna fan, you will find artistic stimulation in
reading US Patent 5,841,406.

Few, if anyone, will be able to serve up a literary and technical
critique of this interesting document as well as you.

Good reading. 73 Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

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

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?

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?

Wes Stewart wrote in message
...
[snip]


I'm curious.

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

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

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