|
Printing wire list from EZNEC?
How can I print wire list or table from EZNEC?
Yuri, K3BU.us |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
How can I print wire list or table from EZNEC? Yuri, K3BU.us Good question- also print for sources, and loads and perhaps all on the same page ?? Only work-around I have is a program called " Screen Shot ", but that has its own set of headaches-- Prints the WHOLE SCREEN- not just the dialog on the screen you want to view !! Don't think these are just text files for this program !! Would be a handy addition! Jim NN7K |
|
Look in the EZNEC manual index under "Printing The Antenna Description".
To see what the "Outputs" at the top of the topic means, click the Contents tab over the left window pane while you have the topic displayed in the right pane. The three normally intelligent people posting on this thread weren't able to find this, and it's a question I'm frequently asked. Is there any way I can index it so people can find it more easily? What did you look under in the index before posting this question, and where did the two people responding look? Apparently people don't make the association between "antenna description" and "wires table". Roy Lewallen, W7EL Yuri Blanarovich wrote: How can I print wire list or table from EZNEC? Yuri, K3BU.us |
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:23:22 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: Apparently people don't make the association between "antenna description" and "wires table". Hi Roy, So it would seem. When I open the currents window, I can go to the File menu selection and perform "save as." When I open the source data window, I can go to the File menu selection and perform "save as." When I open the load data window, I can go to the File menu selection and perform "save as." When I open the far field data window, I can go to the File menu selection and perform "save as." When I open the near field data window, I can go to the File menu selection and perform "save as." When I open the wires data window, I can NOT go to the File menu selection and perform "save as." This is a lack of symmetrical design. When I go to the File menu of EZNEC, I can select "Import Wires from ASCII Table." When I go to the File menu of EZNEC, I can NOT select "Export Wires to ASCII Table." This is a lack of symmetrical design. When I am twice frustrated in trying to find an operation that would flow from similar program controls, it is not intuitive to seek it further in what is called a "description." I like my data separable and even though I am competent to the matter of building automatic parsers to obtain the data I am interested in, this is just another pain. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The three normally intelligent people posting on this thread weren't able to find this, and it's a question I'm frequently asked. Is there any way I can index it so people can find it more easily? What did you look under in the index before posting this question, and where did the two people responding look? Apparently people don't make the association between "antenna description" and "wires table". Roy Lewallen, W7EL Normally, print option should be included/listed under FILE or in this case under WIRES. It would also help to have SAVE AS in ascii file or whatever. Richard outlines the idea of organizing the options well. I actually got around it by using MultiNEC, into which one can import EZNEC data and then use it as a spreadsheet with print selection of the sheet. K7GCO asked me how to print wire list and that created the question. Yuri, K3BU.us |
Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they
confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything, including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything, including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual. Roy Lewallen, W7EL It is more like what is accepted convention in organizing the programs and menus. Menus can be intuitive and as used elsewhere, or in the form of mystery chase. Normally, programs allow to print the contents of the window just by going to FILE and PRINT and active window is printed. No need to aks questions on the NG :-) You know how it is with manuals - they are for dummies, we are smart. :-) Yuri, K3BU.us |
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ... Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything, including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Hi Roy, Not meaning to insult, but judging from the past, let me suggest that constructive criticism seems to end up in your waste basket. Here, it's obvious you'd rather demean confused users, rather than admit to a flaw in your program's conception. One would assume you would have learned something in regards to "intuitive" or "user friendly" from the many negative comments you've received in regards to the horribly clunky interface of your DOS version. Apparently, you either haven't the ability to conceptualize an intuitive interface or you're just too arrogant to listen to your customer's suggestions... which is it? Chuck, WA7RAI |
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:22:16 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote: | |Roy Lewallen wrote in message ... | Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they | confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything, | including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual. | | Roy Lewallen, W7EL | |Hi Roy, | |Not meaning to insult, but judging from the |past, let me suggest that constructive |criticism seems to end up in your waste |basket. Here, it's obvious you'd rather |demean confused users, rather than admit |to a flaw in your program's conception. | |One would assume you would have learned |something in regards to "intuitive" or "user |friendly" from the many negative comments |you've received in regards to the horribly |clunky interface of your DOS version. | |Apparently, you either haven't the ability to |conceptualize an intuitive interface or you're |just too arrogant to listen to your customer's |suggestions... which is it? You must be talking about another Roy. I have on several occasions contacted Roy and pointed out minor bugs and every time I have been thanked for reporting the problem. Usually a patch was forthcoming to me via email within a day if not sooner. A public patch could be found on his web site shortly after. I have to contrast this to a popular logging program that I use where I have had similar difficulties and posted my comments on their reflector. Once, the program developer had the nerve to call me on my unlisted number and ask me to refrain from making such comments because I was costing them sales. During that conversation I used Roy as an example of how a software company *should* support its customers. They also have the MO of "saving up" bug fixes and selling me an annual "improved" program, something that I haven't had to do with EZNEC. |
En Roy Lewallen va escriure en Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:29:06 -0700:
Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything, including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Hi Roy, It is true that your program's user interface is not the best in the world, but... Who cares? I think the free version of EZNEC has made a lot for the ham community, much more than some of the people criticizing you. Best regards, -- Toni "Auto" = prefijo griego que significa "no funciona" |
Wes Stewart wrote in message ... On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:22:16 -0700, "Chuck" wrote: | |Roy Lewallen wrote in message ... | Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they | confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything, | including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual. | | Roy Lewallen, W7EL | |Hi Roy, | |Not meaning to insult, but judging from the |past, let me suggest that constructive |criticism seems to end up in your waste |basket. Here, it's obvious you'd rather |demean confused users, rather than admit |to a flaw in your program's conception. | |One would assume you would have learned |something in regards to "intuitive" or "user |friendly" from the many negative comments |you've received in regards to the horribly |clunky interface of your DOS version. | |Apparently, you either haven't the ability to |conceptualize an intuitive interface or you're |just too arrogant to listen to your customer's |suggestions... which is it? You must be talking about another Roy. I have on several occasions contacted Roy and pointed out minor bugs and every time I have been thanked for reporting the problem. Usually a patch was forthcoming to me via email within a day if not sooner. A public patch could be found on his web site shortly after. I have to contrast this to a popular logging program that I use where I have had similar difficulties and posted my comments on their reflector. Once, the program developer had the nerve to call me on my unlisted number and ask me to refrain from making such comments because I was costing them sales. During that conversation I used Roy as an example of how a software company *should* support its customers. They also have the MO of "saving up" bug fixes and selling me an annual "improved" program, something that I haven't had to do with EZNEC. Hi Wes, There is no doubt, Roy is an excellent engineer, but as an interface programmer, IMO, the opposite is true. Apparently, my experience has not been the same as yours, but in any case, there is no excuse for inconsistency... or demeaning those who request help on NGs as a result. Chuck, WA7RAI |
Toni wrote in message ... En Roy Lewallen va escriure en Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:29:06 -0700: Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything, including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Hi Roy, It is true that your program's user interface is not the best in the world, but... Who cares? I think the free version of EZNEC has made a lot for the ham community, much more than some of the people criticizing you. Best regards, -- Toni "Auto" = prefijo griego que significa "no funciona" Hi Tony, There have been over 2 million copies of my freeware 'Quickyagi' downloaded, with zero (0) complaints from users. Free, isn't everything, y'know... :) WA7RAI |
En Chuck va escriure en Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:41:59 -0700:
There have been over 2 million copies of my freeware 'Quickyagi' downloaded, with zero (0) complaints from users. Free, isn't everything, y'know... :) Hi Chuck, I didn't know that program, but I'll Google for it and have a look. In any case, from it's name, I infer that it is a Yagui design/optimize program that may be very good, but only for advanced amateurs. What I was referring to, and this is what makes EZNEC special, is the posibility of "try and see". You read about, for ex., delta match and go to EZNEC and try it. You can experiment what happens if the match is too long or too short or... whatever. This is specially good to check that your design is not too critical. If you see that small differences in element construction will cause big degradation you can forget building it with real tools and materials. As for the price, effectively, free isn't everything but it helps with programs whose utility is not clear until you have used them for long enough. I know this is the shareware concept but I reckon it does not work for business. Roy's intermediate approach seems good to me: reduced but sufficient functionality for the masses and full for whoever pays it. 73's -- Toni "Auto" = prefijo griego que significa "no funciona" |
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything, including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual. Roy Lewallen, W7EL As someone who has done a large amount of software design and implementation with highly varied target audiences, I would suggest that making the design such that minimal need for reference to the manual because of multiple paths to user desired results is something to be looked at seriously. Sorry about the awkward verbage, I'm not sure how to express it elegantly. tom K0TAR |
Tom, you're absolutely right. And the number of times I've been asked
this particular question shows that I do need to address the issue being discussed. But. . . While there are some standards which can just about universally be agreed on as far as usability and consistency are concerned, there are vast differences in opionion about how a large number of features should be handled. An interface that's intuitive to one person is hopelessly awkward to another. I know this for a fact, since I get comments clear across the spectrum about the program and its interface. During product development, I often ask the beta testers to choose among two or more ways of implementing a feature, and seldom get unanimity. Two things I've learned in this very interesting endeavor a 1. Avoid making changes or implementing features to please one or a small number of people. 2. You can't please everyone. Considering the complexity of the program, it's a certainty that everyone can find something he doesn't like. Complaints like Chuck's would bother me if it weren't for the very large number of positive comments I receive, the amateurs and professional customers who continue to purchase upgrades, and the commercial customers who keep buying more and more copies. Complaints and negative comments aren't to be ignored by any means, but the positive feedback keeps them in context. Anyone who does buy the program gets a fast and complete refund if not fully satisfied (although, ironically, they might not know that if they're unwilling to open the manual) -- there's simply no way to get a bad deal and no excuse to feel cheated. The demo program is exactly like the full program with the single exception of the segment limit, and includes the full manual, so anyone can see exactly what the program is like before they buy it. Those who don't like it hopefully won't buy it. It is indeed my goal to make the program operable without any reference to the manual. A secondary goal is to make the manual as complete as possible, so a user can easily find out how to do something that isn't immediately obvious (remembering that what's obvious to one person is often obtuse to another). I'll never fully meet both goals, but I do keep trying. And I appreciate the suggestions and comments. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Tom Ring wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything, including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual. Roy Lewallen, W7EL As someone who has done a large amount of software design and implementation with highly varied target audiences, I would suggest that making the design such that minimal need for reference to the manual because of multiple paths to user desired results is something to be looked at seriously. Sorry about the awkward verbage, I'm not sure how to express it elegantly. tom K0TAR |
Hubris aside Roy, you still fail to address the
most salient: due to a programming inconsistency - yours - your customer feels he is left with no option but to come to this NG in search of an answer to a dilemma. Rather than apologizing for your programming failure, you berate him instead. If I were in your position (and I have been), I would have made an apology, then offered a free upgrade once the inconsistency was resolved. Is your ego so fragile that it is more important than your customer's satisfaction? Apparently so... Indeed, it seems our views on business ethics are as opposite as are our views on the need to model a bi-directional coaxial phasing line, as well as the induced energy that would be present at the reverse input of such a line, in a dual element (critically coupled) broadside array. Tom, you're absolutely right. And the number of times I've been asked this particular question shows that I do need to address the issue being discussed. But. . . While there are some standards which can just about universally be agreed on as far as usability and consistency are concerned, there are vast differences in opionion about how a large number of features should be handled. An interface that's intuitive to one person is hopelessly awkward to another. I know this for a fact, since I get comments clear across the spectrum about the program and its interface. During product development, I often ask the beta testers to choose among two or more ways of implementing a feature, and seldom get unanimity. Two things I've learned in this very interesting endeavor a 1. Avoid making changes or implementing features to please one or a small number of people. 2. You can't please everyone. Considering the complexity of the program, it's a certainty that everyone can find something he doesn't like. Complaints like Chuck's would bother me if it weren't for the very large number of positive comments I receive, the amateurs and professional customers who continue to purchase upgrades, and the commercial customers who keep buying more and more copies. Since yours is one of the few available in-depth interfaces to the NEC(n) engine, this is not surprising. What is surprising is your cavalier attitude - I'd think a seasoned professional like yourself would want to do his very best. Chuck, WA7RAI Complaints and negative comments aren't to be ignored by any means, but the positive feedback keeps them in context. Anyone who does buy the program gets a fast and complete refund if not fully satisfied (although, ironically, they might not know that if they're unwilling to open the manual) -- there's simply no way to get a bad deal and no excuse to feel cheated. The demo program is exactly like the full program with the single exception of the segment limit, and includes the full manual, so anyone can see exactly what the program is like before they buy it. Those who don't like it hopefully won't buy it. It is indeed my goal to make the program operable without any reference to the manual. A secondary goal is to make the manual as complete as possible, so a user can easily find out how to do something that isn't immediately obvious (remembering that what's obvious to one person is often obtuse to another). I'll never fully meet both goals, but I do keep trying. And I appreciate the suggestions and comments. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Tom Ring wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything, including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual. Roy Lewallen, W7EL As someone who has done a large amount of software design and implementation with highly varied target audiences, I would suggest that making the design such that minimal need for reference to the manual because of multiple paths to user desired results is something to be looked at seriously. Sorry about the awkward verbage, I'm not sure how to express it elegantly. tom K0TAR |
Chuck wrote:
Hubris aside Roy, you still fail to address the most salient: due to a programming inconsistency - yours - your customer feels he is left with no option but to come to this NG in search of an answer to a dilemma. Rather than apologizing for your programming failure, you berate him instead. If I were in your position (and I have been), I would have made an apology, then offered a free upgrade once the inconsistency was resolved. Is your ego so fragile that it is more important than your customer's satisfaction? Apparently so... Indeed, it seems our views on business ethics are as opposite as are our views on the need to model a bi-directional coaxial phasing line, as well as the induced energy that would be present at the reverse input of such a line, in a dual element (critically coupled) broadside array. Hi Chuck, I'm sure you're justifiably proud of your own programming efforts, and there's no reason not to brag if you want to, but writing posts like this only serves to reinforce the notion among some readers that you've succumbed to the temptation to act like a sanctimonious ass. The EZNEC manual is a good thing to read if you're going to use EZNEC. There aren't many technical instruction manuals in the world as well written. If you've ever had to use a manual such as the old GE Fanuc machine tool controller instruction manual which was machine translated from Japanese to some language that only superficially resembles English, you'll know what I mean. As for being able to write a program that anyone can pick up and use without the need for written instruction, that will always remain an unrealizable fantasy, since the user's cognitive abilities are beyond the control of the program designer. There's a name for people who write posts full of invidious little insults, and oblique little bitch-slaps, but I won't use it here. You can bet, however, that some of the people who read your post are going to use it, if only to themselves. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
J. Mc Laughlin wrote in message ... Let me see if I understand. A competitor of EZNEC feels a need to draw a red fish in front of one of the most successful and effective programs in existence. One wonders why. Disparagement from a competitor is not appropriate. Especially since anyone may and can evaluate the suitability of EZNEC without charge. Tout the advantages of your work on your site and let the market place work. Mac, Clearly, you do not understand! Public disparagement of a customer with a valid issue is not appropriate under any circumstances. And that's the issue I am raising here, as well as opposing the cavalier attitude that engenders such disparagement. With all due respect, you erroneously concluded I am a software vender, when in fact, I am here simply as an interested Ham who has a right to form an opinion - good or bad. Chuck, WA7RAI Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: |
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:03:21 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote: | |J. Mc Laughlin wrote in message ... | Let me see if I understand. | A competitor of EZNEC feels a need to draw a red fish in front of one of the | most successful and effective programs in existence. One wonders why. | | Disparagement from a competitor is not appropriate. Especially since | anyone may and can evaluate the suitability of EZNEC without charge. | | Tout the advantages of your work on your site and let the market place | work. | |Mac, | |Clearly, you do not understand! | |Public disparagement of a customer with |a valid issue is not appropriate under any |circumstances. Are you the "wronged" customer? | |And that's the issue I am raising here, as |well as opposing the cavalier attitude that |engenders such disparagement. | |With all due respect, you erroneously |concluded I am a software vender, when |in fact, I am here simply as an interested |Ham who has a right to form an opinion - |good or bad. And a disingenuous one at that. You are an antenna vendor who has made unsubstantiated claims about your product. When modeling has pointed out those shortcomings, you claim that some new law of physics makes it impossible to model your product and people selling those modeling programs should be disparaged. You have an agenda that overrides any legitimate criticism of Roy's product or integrity. Shame on you. |
Wes Stewart wrote in message ... On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:03:21 -0700, "Chuck" wrote: | |J. Mc Laughlin wrote in message ... | Let me see if I understand. | A competitor of EZNEC feels a need to draw a red fish in front of one of the | most successful and effective programs in existence. One wonders why. | | Disparagement from a competitor is not appropriate. Especially since | anyone may and can evaluate the suitability of EZNEC without charge. | | Tout the advantages of your work on your site and let the market place | work. | |Mac, | |Clearly, you do not understand! | |Public disparagement of a customer with |a valid issue is not appropriate under any |circumstances. Are you the "wronged" customer? Are you Roy's official toady? | |And that's the issue I am raising here, as |well as opposing the cavalier attitude that |engenders such disparagement. | |With all due respect, you erroneously |concluded I am a software vender, when |in fact, I am here simply as an interested |Ham who has a right to form an opinion - |good or bad. And a disingenuous one at that. You are an antenna vendor who has made unsubstantiated claims about your product. Wes, Apparently, when you don't like a message you attempt to malign the messenger... where is the intellectual honesty in that? In any case, I am not in business as of late, as my wife is dying of cancer and needs all my attention. And since I am not in business, I can now express my views here without being accused of commercialism. Regarding my claims; you cannot provide one substantiated instance where my antennas did not perform as stated. Where are the complaints? Where are the dissatisfied users. One would think after TEN years there would have been some indication of a fraud if one did exist. Or perhaps you simply imagine that all those good folks who find my antenna design a superior one, are merely deluded idiots, as Brian Beasley once accused... When modeling has pointed out those shortcomings, you claim that some new law of physics makes it impossible to model your product and people selling those modeling programs should be disparaged. 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. Furthermore, I hold the opinion that there are no assumptions in those programs that would recognize the induced energy that would be present at the reverse input of such a line. Do you have definitive proof to the contrary? Let me suggest, that until you have something of substance to offer in this regard, you should refrain from making false accusations. You have an agenda that overrides any legitimate criticism of Roy's product or integrity. Shame on you. lol... my only 'agenda' here is to point out Roy's distain towards his customers who cannot work through his inconsistencies... Though, apparently, you have an agenda of sorts, otherwise you wouldn't be posting this garbage! Shame in you! Chuck, WA7RAI |
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:01:12 -0700, "Chuck"
writes: [snip] | |Apparently, when you don't like a message |you attempt to malign the messenger... and then goes on to malign me. |
Chuck wrote:
Wes Stewart wrote in message ... On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:03:21 -0700, "Chuck" wrote: | |J. Mc Laughlin wrote in message ... | Let me see if I understand. | A competitor of EZNEC feels a need to draw a red fish in front of one of the | most successful and effective programs in existence. One wonders why. | | Disparagement from a competitor is not appropriate. Especially since | anyone may and can evaluate the suitability of EZNEC without charge. | | Tout the advantages of your work on your site and let the market place | work. | |Mac, | |Clearly, you do not understand! | |Public disparagement of a customer with |a valid issue is not appropriate under any |circumstances. Are you the "wronged" customer? Are you Roy's official toady? | |And that's the issue I am raising here, as |well as opposing the cavalier attitude that |engenders such disparagement. | |With all due respect, you erroneously |concluded I am a software vender, when |in fact, I am here simply as an interested |Ham who has a right to form an opinion - |good or bad. And a disingenuous one at that. You are an antenna vendor who has made unsubstantiated claims about your product. Wes, Apparently, when you don't like a message you attempt to malign the messenger... where is the intellectual honesty in that? In any case, I am not in business as of late, as my wife is dying of cancer and needs all my attention. And since I am not in business, I can now express my views here without being accused of commercialism. That would be a lot easier to believe if you stopped advertising on your web site. Regarding my claims; you cannot provide one substantiated instance where my antennas did not perform as stated. Where are the complaints? Where are the dissatisfied users. One would think after TEN years there would have been some indication of a fraud if one did exist. I just visited your web site. Lots of assertions, little in the way of proof. Or perhaps you simply imagine that all those good folks who find my antenna design a superior one, are merely deluded idiots, as Brian Beasley once accused... When modeling has pointed out those shortcomings, you claim that some new law of physics makes it impossible to model your product and people selling those modeling programs should be disparaged. 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. Furthermore, I hold the opinion that there are no assumptions in those programs that would recognize the induced energy that would be present at the reverse input of such a line. Do you have definitive proof to the contrary? Let me suggest, that until you have something of substance to offer in this regard, you should refrain from making false accusations. You have an agenda that overrides any legitimate criticism of Roy's product or integrity. Shame on you. lol... my only 'agenda' here is to point out Roy's distain towards his customers who cannot work through his inconsistencies... Though, apparently, you have an agenda of sorts, otherwise you wouldn't be posting this garbage! Shame in you! Chuck, WA7RAI Hi Chuck, just looking at your web site, it's hard for the ordinary ham to distinguish it from that of any other antenna shark. Do you have any engineering assessments by any qualified, disinterested , antenna testing facility? (Shootouts don't qualify.) 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Chuck wrote:
Wes Stewart wrote in message ... Trust me, most of us here grasp *exactly* what is going on. Self delusion must one of your strong points, eh? You're doing fine in that department. EZNEC works very well and a few minor GUI misfeatures are never going to alter that. It's based on real science, not handwaving and hearsay like some other things. Stop digging Chuck. |
Andy Cowley wrote in message ... Chuck wrote: Wes Stewart wrote in message ... Trust me, most of us here grasp *exactly* what is going on. Self delusion must one of your strong points, eh? You're doing fine in that department. EZNEC works very well and a few minor GUI misfeatures are never going to alter that. It's based on real science, not handwaving and hearsay like some other things. Stop digging Chuck. Oh, of course... silly me! How could I have ever thought handwaving and hearsay was the basis for EZNEC... gee, thanks for the edification, Andy. Chuck, WA7RAI |
Tom Donaly wrote in message ... 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. Tom, Either you're remarkably ignorant, or you've made a failed attempt at being clever... which is it? Chuck, WA7RAI |
Wes Stewart wrote in message ... On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:01:12 -0700, "Chuck" writes: [snip] | |Apparently, when you don't like a message |you attempt to malign the messenger... and then goes on to malign me. I'm disappointed, Wes. I was expecting a rational response, not this baseless accusation. There was nothing pejorative in my response. Apparently, intellectual honesty is not one of your assets. Chuck, WA7RAI |
Chuck wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote in message ... 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. Tom, Either you're remarkably ignorant, or you've made a failed attempt at being clever... which is it? Chuck, WA7RAI I didn't make up that silly bafflegab, you did. As those things go, it was pretty good. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Tom Donaly wrote in message m... Chuck wrote: Tom Donaly wrote in message ... 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. Tom, Either you're remarkably ignorant, or you've made a failed attempt at being clever... which is it? Chuck, WA7RAI I didn't make up that silly bafflegab, you did. As those things go, it was pretty good. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Tom, Your reply is most revealing as to your ignorance in this regard! Chuck, WA7RAI |
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 |
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: |
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 01:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com