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

On 19 Oct 2004 02:39:05 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
We pointed out the fallacies in the way EZNEC models the coil, examples were
given how to get around using hairpin or coil modeled as a "helix" by breaking
turns into segments.

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

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

On 19 Oct 2004 02:39:05 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

[snip]

|We pointed out the fallacies in the way EZNEC models the coil, examples were
|given how to get around using hairpin or coil modeled as a "helix" by breaking
|turns into segments.


There aren't any "fallacies". I showed how to model a distributed
inductor in an example back in January.

http://www.qsl.net/n7ws/

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