| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
October 19th 04, 02:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Chuck wrote: . . . When is the thin-wire model invoked? What is your criteria for this 'automatic' choice? . . . How does one determine if this is the case or not? Why is the user left unable to make this choice independently? And BTW, how does one model a receiving antenna in EZNEC? . . . |
|
#2
October 19th 04, 02:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. I see no evidence of this. Indeed, I see Chuck as being reasonable. I don't always agree with him, nor, I presume, him with me, but so what? Chuck is an honorable person and deserves respect. I do not view Chuck as a competitor but as a colleague. 73, Chip N1IR |
|
#3
October 19th 04, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fractenna wrote:
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. I see no evidence of this. Indeed, I see Chuck as being reasonable. I don't always agree with him, nor, I presume, him with me, but so what? Chuck is an honorable person and deserves respect. I do not view Chuck as a competitor but as a colleague. 73, Chip N1IR 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 |
|
#4
October 19th 04, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#5
October 19th 04, 04:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
....Yuri will have to vent their frustrations
without me. Roy Lewallen, W7EL OK, we tried to have discussion about the current in loading coils, you defended W8JI position, who used EZNEC model of coil with zero physical length and "proved" that current is the same at both ends. You supported him by doing "experiment" with toroid at the bottom of antenna and writing page about how Yuri and Cecil are wrong. 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. Now this is incorporated in EZNEC 4.08 and surprise, surprise - it reflects the current distribution properly, showing that there is a difference of current in the loading coils as observed by me, measured by W9UCW, explained by W5DXP and KB5WZI. I thanked you for implementing this feature and pointed out another possible improvement in way the L is entered. The result? W8JI still keeps the crap on his web site, your letter is included there. Did we get thanks of heaven forbid apology? (You got better version, made extra bucks as result of us being "stupid") Not that I care or want to vent frustration. I mentioned before, I do ham radio as a hobby, when I see crap I try to point it out for the benefit of others. I was going to do an article, but fortunately I have a life besides radio, had more pressing problems and this had to wait. I hope to do it soon, with some examples using EZNEC. I wish there was more attitude here trying to discuss the problems rather than smart alec snotty attitude by some brother hams. If you screwed up or are wrong, admit it, learn, give credit where is due and we will all benefit. Nobody is perfect. But ridiculing or dumping on someone, because you (whoever) is "superior" and you "know" better, just makes that egg in the face look more yellow. Thank you and good night! Yuri, K3BU.us |
|
#6
October 19th 04, 08:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
October 19th 04, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
October 19th 04, 07:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
October 19th 04, 08:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hope you were reading my recent correspondence about digital RF sources (seems like it would be a natural for your own digital project). Well, as for fooling around, I'm off to the campus for more Nanotech. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Thanks! Yes, I am trying to keep up with all the new stuff, plus some older, I have been out of main stream circuit design for a while, but looks like the timing is just like back then on the trehshold between sparks and tubes. One think that our dual channel DSPed RX will allow is to stear the antenna patterns and some far out noise elimination and processing. We have standing invitation to the brightest minds among hams to contribute or participate in the Dream Radio One project. www.computeradio.us Yuri, K3BU |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
