| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
another lie
Chuck wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ... Because you never furnished that information, I assumed that you had acquired it illicitly. I recall (I must take his word for it) that party informed you of the transfer, while assuring you that any or all copies were destroyed. Perhaps you overlooked making a record. In any case, I'll email his callsign. 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? No, you'll have to make the arrangements. Considering you are the one insisting on this, I do not agree to do that. However, I do agree to have the test fee held in an escrow account set up by my attorney, but the rest is up tp you. The person who pays will have the legal right to make the results public. I agree in advance to do so if I pay; I expect you to do likewise. Of course! Chuck, WA7RAI Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
I'm not at all insisting on your testing your antenna -- I have no need
to. NEC-2 and EZNEC are perfectly capable of accurately modeling it, and accurately show the gain and pattern it will have in practice. Its operation is simple and easily understandable. I'm entirely satisfied that I understand how it works and what its performance is. My offer, which I think was generous, was to pay the bill if a test showed your antenna to meet the claims you made. I'm not offering to test your antenna for you. You've once again chosen to fall back on your back yard test and creative pseudo-scientific theory to explain the claims you've made, rather than to show the world, at no expense to you, that the claims are valid. That's up to you. I'm not obligated to disprove your extraordinary claims. Roy Lewallen, W7EL chuck wrote: Chuck wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote in message ... Because you never furnished that information, I assumed that you had acquired it illicitly. I recall (I must take his word for it) that party informed you of the transfer, while assuring you that any or all copies were destroyed. Perhaps you overlooked making a record. In any case, I'll email his callsign. 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? No, you'll have to make the arrangements. Considering you are the one insisting on this, I do not agree to do that. However, I do agree to have the test fee held in an escrow account set up by my attorney, but the rest is up tp you. The person who pays will have the legal right to make the results public. I agree in advance to do so if I pay; I expect you to do likewise. Of course! Chuck, WA7RAI Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ... I'm not at all insisting on your testing your antenna -- I have no need to. NEC-2 and EZNEC are perfectly capable of accurately modeling it, and accurately show the gain and pattern it will have in practice. Methinks your opinion is in error, Roy... NEC2d /NEC4 may well be capable, but I have my reservations about your EZNEC. I've been looking through your Ver. 3 manual and I cannot find any reference to non- radiating networks: two-port network specification (NT)) or the thin-wire option: the Extended Thin-Wire Kernel (EK). Nor do I see these functions in your control panel. In looking through the NEC2d docs, my concern regarding NEC's ability to 'see' "induced current at one or more points in a structure" has been put to rest. However, in Section V of the NEC2d docs (p 62), quite a lot of attention is given to (1) source modeling and (2) nonradiating networks. On page 67 (Section V, 2 - Nonradiating networks), through p 71, there is much discussion ITR. In part: "The driving-point matrix relates the voltages and currents at network connection points as required by the electromagnetic interactions. The driving-point-interaction equasions are then solved together with the NETWORK or transmission line equasions to obtain the INDUCED currents and voltages." All EZNEC seems to offer ITR, are simple transmission line simulations where the fed (source) energy is applied to a segement (load). Figure 20 (p 69) and Figure 21 (p 70) and the related discussion, make clear that NEC can model parallel elements coupled through a 2-port network (simulated bi- directional transmission line). Since your control center appears to not utilize 2-port networks, it is no wonder your software fails to agree in some instances with empirical data. Its operation is simple and easily understandable. I'm entirely satisfied that I understand how it works and what its performance is. LOL My offer, which I think was generous, was to pay the bill if a test showed your antenna to meet the claims you made. I'm not offering to test your antenna for you. Wiggle, wiggle, squirm... that's not what I'm asking. You've once again chosen to fall back on your back yard test and creative pseudo-scientific theory to explain the claims you've made, rather than to show the world, at no expense to you, that the claims are valid. That's up to you. I'm not obligated to disprove your extraordinary claims. You are, however, obligated to provide ALL of the NEC capabilities in your software! If, in your closed-minded ignorance, you wish to call critical coupling a "pseudo-scientific" theory, so be it. But in doing so, you leave me wondering if, perhaps, some concepts simply lay beyond your ability to visualize. 73 de Chuck, WA7RAI Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
My offer, which I think was generous, was to pay the bill if a test showed your antenna to meet the claims you made. I'm not offering to test your antenna for you. Wiggle, wiggle, squirm... Chuck, What do you need to test? What frequency(ies)? It may be possible to arrange a test which is gratis if you are wrong and payable by a third party if you are right, in the specs:pattern/gain/SWR and so on... Drop me an e-mail. 73, Chip N1IR |
Chuck wrote:
I've been looking through your Ver. 3 manual and I cannot find any reference to non- radiating networks: two-port network specification (NT)) or the thin-wire option: the Extended Thin-Wire Kernel (EK). Nor do I see these functions in your control panel. The extended thin wire kernel is invoked automatically when the model is such that it's needed, according to the criteria given in the NEC manual. Two port networks are used by EZNEC only to create current sources and transmission lines. In looking through the NEC2d docs, my concern regarding NEC's ability to 'see' "induced current at one or more points in a structure" has been put to rest. However, in Section V of the NEC2d docs (p 62), quite a lot of attention is given to (1) source modeling and (2) nonradiating networks. . . . I'm glad you've finally looked in the manual to correct your misconceptions about the NEC transmission line model. All EZNEC seems to offer ITR, are simple transmission line simulations where the fed (source) energy is applied to a segement (load). In the Transmission Lines window, the user specifies which wires the two ends of the transmission line are connected to. There's no requirement that one be a "source" or one a "load". These use the NEC network model, as does NEC. Figure 20 (p 69) and Figure 21 (p 70) and the related discussion, make clear that NEC can model parallel elements coupled through a 2-port network (simulated bi- directional transmission line). Since your control center appears to not utilize 2-port networks, it is no wonder your software fails to agree in some instances with empirical data. Huh? I'm always interested in hearing of any case where EZNEC disagrees significantly with NEC-2 for any model, and I'm not aware of any such cases. Anyone seeing such disagreement is encouraged to contact me. Please include both the NEC and EZNEC models. You are, however, obligated to provide ALL of the NEC capabilities in your software! No, Chuck, I'm not obligated to do anything you say. Anyone not satisfied with the capabilities of EZNEC is encouraged to not purchase it. I guarantee that anyone who does purchase it will be satisfied. If, in your closed-minded ignorance, you wish to call critical coupling a "pseudo-scientific" theory, so be it. But in doing so, you leave me wondering if, perhaps, some concepts simply lay beyond your ability to visualize. Indeed. I also have trouble with Chi, the healing power of crystals, astrology, homeopathy, reflexology, phrenology, and water witching. Believers in those things say exactly the same thing about me, so surely you must be right. Guilty as charged. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ... Chuck wrote: [... ] The extended thin wire kernel is invoked automatically when the model is such that it's needed, according to the criteria given in the NEC manual. Which states: "Transmission lines interconnecting parts of an antenna may be modeled either explicitly by including the transmission wires in the thin-wire model, OR implicitly by the method described in the preceding section for nonradiating networks." Then goes on to explain the implicit model, followed by: "The implicit model is limited, however, in that it neglects interaction between the transmission line and its environment." (Which is what's implied for a transmission line in the EZNEC manual.) When is the thin-wire model invoked? What is your criteria for this 'automatic' choice? Continuing: "This approximation is justified if the currents in the line are balanced, i.e., in a log periodic dipole antenna, and in general if the transmission lies in an electric symmetry plane. The balance can be upset, however, if the transmission line is connected to an unbalanced load or by unsymmetrical interactions. If the unbalance is significant, the transmission line can be modeled by including the wires in the thin-wire model." In the Raibeam design, the load is unbalanced due to its "plumbers delight" construction and the resultant matching networks. From this, one would naturally assume the interconnecting phasing line must be included in the thin-wire model. 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? you leave me wondering if, perhaps, some concepts simply lay beyond your ability to visualize. Indeed. I also have trouble with Chi, the healing power of crystals, astrology, homeopathy, reflexology, phrenology, and water witching. Does this include action-at-a-distance as well? Chuck, WA7RAI Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:16:32 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote: How does one determine if this is the case or not? Hi Chuck, Model the structure explicitly. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Chuck, WA7RAI wrote:
"wrote: "And BTW, how does one model a revceiving 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 |
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? . . . |
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 |
"Richard Harrison"
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. A receiving antenna exposed to the far field, receives plane waves (essentially flat wavefront). If you 'play the film backwards', does a transmitting antenna emit plane waves? ;-) |
A receiving antenna exposed to the far field, receives plane waves
(essentially flat wavefront). If you 'play the film backwards', does a transmitting antenna emit plane waves? ;-) They end up that way. Reciprocity is a fundamental aspect of antenna theory. 73, Chip N1IR |
A receiving antenna exposed to the far field,
receives plane waves (essentially flat wavefront). If you 'play the film backwards', does a transmitting antenna emit plane waves? "Fractenna" They end up that way. Soooooo... ...the wavefront in the nearfield is now flat smirk so that it matches the flat wavefront in the receive case ? Reciprocity is a fundamental aspect of antenna theory. Only if someone can explain the above discrepancy. It seems apparent that one might arrange an array to exploit the difference between the flat (far field) incoming wavefront in the receiver mode and the obviously-curved wavefront (near field) being emitted in the transmit case to produce significantly different macro performance characteristics. In other words, playing the film backwards doesn't work. |
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:40:32 -0300, "Bob McBeth"
wrote: Only if someone can explain the above discrepancy. It seems apparent that one might arrange an array to exploit the difference between the flat (far field) incoming wavefront in the receiver mode and the obviously-curved wavefront (near field) being emitted in the transmit case to produce significantly different macro performance characteristics. In other words, playing the film backwards doesn't work. Does it say I am the walrus? Hi Bob, Obviously you've been subjected to a dumbed down attitude in response to your question. The fact of the matter is that the receive antenna does not sense a flat wave approaching it because the antenna distorts the continuum around it. The antenna and the medium out to several wavelengths is NOT a characteristic Z of 377 Ohms as seen in an undisturbed field. I've offered this treatment to Thierry, so it seems it would be useful for you to observe as well at: http://home.comcast.net/~kb7qhc/ante...elds/index.htm with a specific example for a monopole at: http://home.comcast.net/~kb7qhc/ante...ical/index.htm As you may observe, the medium surrounding the antenna is anything but consistent. In effect, the medium and the antenna present an RF lens; and as you may well appreciate, a lens distorts paths to optimize for a use. This distortion is like pressing into a bowl of jello, that medium may have been consistent in the beginning, but with the applied pressure, the near regions to the disturbance present new surfaces and densities. Same goes for an antenna - transmitting or receiving. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
A receiving antenna exposed to the far field, receives plane waves (essentially flat wavefront). If you 'play the film backwards', does a transmitting antenna emit plane waves? "Fractenna" They end up that way. Soooooo... ...the wavefront in the nearfield is now flat smirk so that it matches the flat wavefront in the receive case ? Reciprocity is a fundamental aspect of antenna theory. Only if someone can explain the above discrepancy. It seems apparent that one might arrange an array to exploit the difference between the flat (far field) incoming wavefront in the receiver mode and the obviously-curved wavefront (near field) being emitted in the transmit case to produce significantly different macro performance characteristics. In other words, playing the film backwards doesn't work. Bob, When I was a lil squirt, we had something called a 'ripple tank'. It showed how the film works backwards. 73, Chip N1IR |
Chip,
N1IR wrote: "They end up that way (as plane waves at a great distance from the radiator). Reciprocity is a fundamental aspect of antenna theory." Dr. Cohen is, of course, correct. Dr. John D. Kraus says in his 3rd edition of "Antennas" on page 439: "If an emf is applied to the terminals of antenna A and the current measured at the terminals of another antenna B, then an equal current (in both amplitude and phase) will be obtained at the terminals of antenna A if the same emf is applied to the terminals of antenna B." Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
....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 |
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 |
"Richard Clark"
Does it say I am the walrus? No, although another infamous party to this thread bears a striking resemblance (including precious 'ivory towers' [tusks], thick blubber and a tough hide)... http://images.google.com/images?q=Odobenus+rosmarus To clarify things, lets go out 27.3 wavelengths from antenna A and mark an X. When antenna A is in receiving mode, the wavefront at X is essentially flat because antenna B is in the next county. When antenna A is in transmit mode, the wavefront at X is noticeably curved with a radius of something around 27.3 lambda. In other words, things are different even if the pathloss is the same in either direction. I believe that it would be possible to design an antenna system (an array, a reflector system, or something with an RF lens) that took advantage of the difference between 'flat' versus 'curved' to produce an antennas system that had different pathloss in different directions (where antenna B was something simpler). No sense arguing about it. Someone has to produce an example. The ball is NOT in your court. |
Yuri wrote:
"True if---" Good point. The fault is mine. Kraus followed his reciprocity statement with a raft of qualifications, but I`m no typist, and Kraus` final book deserves a place with every serious collector of antenna information. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
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 |
|
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 |
Richard Clark wrote in message ... 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. Hi Richard, To be blunt, I didn't see any merit in your suggestion. (1) there are no modeling alternatives for this problem, and (2) it failed to address the issue: Roy's apparent omission of the thin-wire model in his EZNEC, which he touts as a complete NEC application. I suggest you re-read the posts if you truly are interested, then read the NEC2d documentation to confirm. As far as independent empirical testing is concerned, there is nothing new to be learned other than revealing EZNEC's shortcomings in this regard. 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 I accepted Roy's offer, but with conditions. So far, he has declined to accept those conditions. I did accept Chip's offer, though. IRT your other oratory ramblings: Incoherent nonsense... 73 de Chuck, WA7RAI |
I accepted Roy's offer, but with conditions. So
far, he has declined to accept those conditions. I did accept Chip's offer, though. IRT your other oratory ramblings: Incoherent nonsense... 73 de Chuck, WA7RAI Yep:-) Sure did. I posed no conditions nor restrictions for Chuck. It's his antenna and his technology. I don't have any bias on how or why it works; I'll just measure it. Period. I will have no problems testing it with a professional outdoor range setup. No 's' meters here, friends. If a third party has offered to pay for the tests if they meet Chuck's extant specs, that's fine with me. In fact, my inclination at this point is to have that third party pay up directly to Chuck. I'm happy to do this for Chuck, gratis. Chuck can do what he wants with the data. Always happy to help a colleague. 73, Chip N1IR |
IRT your other oratory ramblings: Incoherent
nonsense... 73 de Chuck, WA7RAI It READS like language, but I don't know what to make of it.... 73, Chip N1IR |
Sigh.
It's really a shame that I have to keep returning to this bashing session just to correct the false statements about EZNEC that Chuck keeps inventing. He did, at least, give the thread an honest and appropriate name. Responding only to his mistruths: Chuck wrote: To be blunt, I didn't see any merit in your suggestion. (1) there are no modeling alternatives for this problem, and (2) it failed to address the issue: Roy's apparent omission of the thin-wire model in his EZNEC, I clearly stated in an earlier posting that EZNEC implements the extended thick-wire kernel as required by the model. (The thin-wire kernel is the default.) Chuck has chosen to either disbelieve or ignore this, although I have no idea why he even cares about EZNEC's inner workings. Once again, I welcome any example of disagreement between EZNEC and NEC-2 modeling results. (Those which have been submitted in the past have nearly always been the result of the models indavertently being different, the most common error being due to the use of wire radius in NEC-2 and diameter in EZNEC.) which he touts as a complete NEC application. I have never, at any time, claimed that EZNEC does or would implement all the features of NEC-2, so Chuck will never be able to support his fabrication. The lack of "patches" in EZNEC is in itself a difference that's obvious to anyone with even a superficial acquaintance with NEC-2. What I do claim is that EZNEC uses NEC-2 for the calculations it performs, and that the results one gets from EZNEC will be essentially identical to NEC-2 results. EZNEC does have many features not present in NEC-2. I don't know what's motivating Chuck to continue making false statements about EZNEC, but I caution readers to look at the record, archives, or other sources of information before believing what he says. You can't say you weren't warned -- just look at the thread subject. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Someone going by 'Bob':
Someone has to produce an example. "Richard Clark" ...I've done that here through modeling too using exactly your point. The results were trivial, but for some, extremely hard to swallow. [**] ;-) Can you clarify your findings (please and thank you)? Were you able to find an antenna system (pair) that displayed direction-dependant pathloss? Since you can't prove a negative and I know that you know it, I assume that you did. If so, perhaps you could post the example on your website. **joke**: Monica Lewinsky is voting Republican this year; the Democrats have left a bad taste in her mouth. |
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:29:39 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote: To be blunt, I didn't see any merit in your suggestion. (1) there are no modeling alternatives for this problem, Can't construct a coaxial line from wire elements? Tedious perhaps but not impossible as you would suggest. and (2) it failed to address the issue Then perhaps this is a moving target. Hi Chuck, Well, now that is quite odd in that when I posed this solution earlier you agreed is was in fact achievable. Now that you deny it as a solution I can only interpret that you do not see it concludes your speculation to your advantage. IRT your other oratory ramblings: Incoherent nonsense... You mean you couldn't understand my anticipation of your proceeding to no particular resolution and the continuation of repetition and denial? :-) Difficult concepts, but obviously demonstrated. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:10:01 -0300, "Bob MacBeth"
wrote: Someone going by 'Bob': Someone has to produce an example. "Richard Clark" ...I've done that here through modeling too using exactly your point. The results were trivial, but for some, extremely hard to swallow. [**] ;-) Can you clarify your findings (please and thank you)? Were you able to find an antenna system (pair) that displayed direction-dependant pathloss? I've use EZNEC to demonstrate any number of "impossibilities" all without violating or compromising the modeler's constraints. The effects were trivial to say the least, but demonstrated that Axioms of antenna theory had limitations that were unexpressed (until you got to the graduate level of the same sophomore course work). Since you can't prove a negative and I know that you know it, I assume that you did. If so, perhaps you could post the example on your website. Well, it has been a great while in this particular instance of path reciprocity. I did use the scale of range you suggested (and perhaps further). It was not so much about loss however, but the failure of reciprocity (a common topic in photography - which, here, is an aside). I frequently use two or three antennas in one model, with the second/third being receive models with termination resistors. They would be called sniffers in field work or bench work. This work that I engaged in had no particular demonstration of your curved field issue (which, through simple abstraction suggests any differences you would observe would be out several decimal places and beyond the ability of any instrumentation to resolve with accuracy). Then again, maybe it did (it may have involved an inclined sniffer which demonstrated the curvature in one direction, with a corresponding difference in the other). I would suggest you simply follow this last speculation and see where it takes you. I suppose you could search the archives for my name and the key words of "reciprocity failure" and confine the search to the mid to late 90s. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Richard Clark"
I've use EZNEC to demonstrate any number of "impossibilities" all without violating or compromising the modeler's constraints. ... Merci. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com