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 specsattern/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