|
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:05:56 -0300, "Bob MacBeth"
wrote: No sense arguing about it. Someone has to produce an example. Hi Bob, Oh, no argument, I've done that here through modeling too using exactly your point. The results were trivial, but for some, extremely hard to swallow. ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
|
Indeed. Which gives Chuck's claims the same legitimacy most of us
on this newsgroup ascribe to claims you make about fractal antennas. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Only to you Tom. Chuck is my colleague. As I stated, that doesn't mean that I always agree with him nor that he always agrees with me. If you were not acting so mean-spirited, IMO, you would also say the same thing. Fractal antennas are now an established and proven aspect of antenna engineering, and part of the main stream. The only 'claims' are those in extant and pending patents. What's next: an argument on whether SSB has any advantages over AM? Shall we bring Bill into the mix? 73, Chip N1IR |
Richard Harrison wrote in message ... Chuck, WA7RAI wrote: "wrote: "And BTW, how does one model a receiving antenna in EZNEC?" No need. Antennas behave the same when receiving as when transmitting. So if you know how an antenna behaves when transmitting, you also know how it behaves when receiving. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Of course, Richard, but the NEC manual says it is capable, so I was wondering why this function wasn't included in the EZNEC control panel, since Roy is claiming his software is a fully functional NEC application. 73 de Chuck, WA7RAI |
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ... If any EZNEC customer is interested in the answers to these or other questions about EZNEC, please email me and I'll be glad to answer them. (My only request is that before asking any question about EZNEC, you make an honest effort to find the answer in the manual. That's the only way I can possibly provide the level of support my customers deserve.) I have the strong feeling that Chuck isn't nearly so interested in the inner workings of EZNEC as he is in simply being as big a nuisance to me as he can. After all, he's said how horrible he thinks the EZNEC interface is, and has never purchased it. And I've been guilty of encouraging his being a nuisance by responding. I apologize to the other readers for this. I've wasted much more time with Chuck than he deserves. From here on, let Chuck, Art, Chip, and Yuri will have to vent their frustrations without me. I will continue to try to contribute positively to the newsgroup as I have (tried) in the past. Ignoring Chuck is a necessary step in doing so. Good grief, Roy... I asked honest and valid questions, seeking honest and valid answers. Instead, I get this pejorative, and rather disingenuous diatribe. My obtaining a legal copy of your software - with your full knowledge, I might add - was for evaluation purposes only. It is common opinion, that your DOS interface was less then desirable. Considering this highly unusual reaction to my questions, It's not unreasonable for me to now assume that you left out the thin-wire model. Surely you weren't thinking it was superfluous and no one would really need to use it. Perhaps you were just concerned about speed and memory back in the days of the 80386. * [p 72, NEC2d documentation] "The * explicit transmission line model is, of * course, less efficient in computer time * and storage because of the additional * segments required." I have for a long time, suspected there was a tx line modeling problem in NEC. Now, it is apparent this problem exists only in your EZNEC. Tort liabilities aside (that's not my concern here) let me suggest that it may be in your best interest to address this issue, not covertly as you seem to be suggesting, but openly, in a way that will illuminate your honesty and integrity. 73 de Chuck, WA7RAI |
Hi Yuri, You fail to attribute WHO provided those "breaking turns into segments" which was/is/isn't(?) documented at your current/former/removed(?) page as myself and Roy. Making this a part of the current software version is hardly the epiphany of a visitation seeking the absolution from sin. As I pointed out before, nothing new has been added and the fire has been drowned in spit. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC How eloquently formulated and true. Xcuse my sloppynessss. You and W4RNL showed when coil is modeled as wire running around in circles with reasonable segmentation, the current is modeled very close to reality - different at both ends and not equal. Anybody can verify that with HELIX feature in EZNEC 4.08. Actually there is another cudo to you for the treatment of space impedance and interaction with antenna impedance. I have questioned that way back and was shut off as ridiculous (Roy?). Your color pictures are very illustrative. Another "silly me" try at using term of "electrical length of conductor or antenna element" vs. physical, was poo-poohed by Roy - no such thing in textbooks. Regardles, I keep using it, makes sense, especially with insulated wires and oddball conductors. I apologize for not doing the promised article, life has been just too much here, but I keep hoping for better days and nicer weather. We have acquired lovely beachfront QTH at the Jersey shore, across the bay with potential of having superb antenna test field. This is next to 170 acre Rhombic antenna farm. Looking forward to fooling around with some crazy things. 73 Yuri, K3BU |
There aren't any "fallacies". I showed how to model a distributed inductor in an example back in January. http://www.qsl.net/n7ws/ Just look at the "proof" at W8JI web site. He still has the example how not to model the coil and sticks by it along with bunch of followers. Thanks from "our" camp for your input Wes! Yuri, K3BU |
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:03:10 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote: I have for a long time, suspected there was a tx line modeling problem in NEC. Now, it is apparent this problem exists only in your EZNEC. Hi Chuck, You asked how to avoid this (if indeed it exists), and I offered a very simple response to which you have had no comment. You continue this "claim" of a problem and yet with very simple modeling alternatives to prove it (aside from testimonials) you have yet to achieve this proof or demonstrate you have even attempted a resolution. Is this because it is not in your interest? Roy has offered a means to have a third party verify your claims, independent of his software such that it comes down to you are right, or he is right. You have not taken this offer either and it seems, given the expense, you either cannot afford to be right (which would be fully funded by Roy) or you cannot afford to be wrong (which would be fully funded by you). Any "expense" grievance leans towards the second interpretation. You also had another offer to range test, but I can full well appreciate your backing off from that in overdrive. Any such offers should be closely attended by "Who owns the intellectual rights to the results?" If you claimed X gain and the test demonstrated X+1 results because of "simple adjustments" at the site, "Who owns the intellectual rights to the results AND the "new" antenna?" If you attempted to publish the results (assuming they were complementary) would you be threatened with plagiarism and copyright violation? Answers to these questions may be researched at the Google Archives by simply entering the search terms of "Patent Pending," "you may be sued," "my lawyer will contact your lawyer," "intellectual property." Once you use any one of these phrases (or all of them - it constitutes one of our best Soap Operas), simply sort on the basis of author hits to see who holds the record for these issues as a business manifesto. It won't be Roy. There seem to be solutions in the queue, what remains to be seen is if one or several are visited, or if future communication will be stuck in the groove of repetition and denial. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
You also had another offer to range test, but I can full well
appreciate your backing off from that in overdrive. Any such offers should be closely attended by "Who owns the intellectual rights to the results?" If you claimed X gain and the test demonstrated X+1 results because of "simple adjustments" at the site, "Who owns the intellectual rights to the results AND the "new" antenna?" If you attempted to publish the results (assuming they were complementary) would you be threatened with plagiarism and copyright violation? Answers to these questions may be researched at the Google Archives by simply entering the search terms of "Patent Pending," "you may be sued," "my lawyer will contact your lawyer," "intellectual property." Once you use any one of these phrases (or all of them - it constitutes one of our best Soap Operas), simply sort on the basis of author hits to see who holds the record for these issues as a business manifesto. It won't be Roy. There seem to be solutions in the queue, what remains to be seen is if one or several are visited, or if future communication will be stuck in the groove of repetition and denial. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC As far as I'm concerned, the results are for Chuck to do what he wants with; I'm just volunteering time, range, and equipment. And, if Mr. Lewallen wants a proxy, he can get his colleague Steve Best to come down. Steve works about 1/2 mile from here. Of course, should Chuck's results be compatible with his specs, then it seems that a third party must pay the bill. That sure seems fair to me. No one is frustrated, as far as I am aware of. Why are you trying to create problems that don't exist, Mr. Clarke? 73, Chip N1IR |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com