MMANA does what you want and it's free.

However, note that because MMANA being a MiniNec based program, when
using none vertical elements below 0.2 wavelengths accuracy rapidly
drops. If you'd like to optimize on (lower) HF, a Nec based program is
prefered

Furthermore, I don't think optimization is out. But, if it should be
so, it still will learn you very much about the effect of antenna
dimension changing on antenna performance.

And last but not least, because of being freeware, experimenting with
MMANA or 4nec2
[http://home.ict.nl/~arivoors/] will cost you nothing (besides a
little studying), weather you would like to use a traditional optimizer
of a genetic algorithm based optimizer.

Arie.

Richard Clark wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 13:45:49 -0700, wrote:


Ben AD7GD wrote:

On 2006-07-11, wrote:

Unfortunately K6STI no longer markets his software to hams (due to
software piracy issues). Hopefully you can find someone with a copy
who can optimize your initial results.

Careful, you're pegging my irony meter.

Why? The documentation says:

************************************************* ***********************
This software is copyrighted. It has been provided to
you on the condition that you will not sell, rent, lend, give
away, or otherwise transfer the software to others.
************************************************* ***********************

As I read it, there is no problem if I use it to optimize a model
for someone else. I'm NOT volunteering to do that however.

Hi Bill,

Strange as it may seem, yes you would be in violation.

Copyright is the author's total monopoly to insure his revenue from
his creation. If you disrupt that revenue flow you are breaking the
law. You said it yourself, he doesn't market to amateurs - rather
professionals who will pay for the LICENSE to use it professionally.
If they choose to do someone a favor, and drop their fee, that is
their hit, not his. He granted them the right, by LICENSE and at a
cost, to lose money if they wish.

Hi Richard,

1. I paid for the non-professional version of K6STI's software while he
WAS selling to amateurs. If you read his agreement carefully, it only
prohibits transfer of the software itself.

2. I am not sure Brian markets YO to professionals any longer. There
was apparently one well-known antenna manufacturer who bought his
non-professional version and used it to design commercial antennas. I
understand that this contributed to Brian's decision to exit the
amateur business, but the main reason was someone in Europe hacked his
RITTY program and posted it publicly.

3. If I were to do a gratis optimization for someone today, that would
not violate the original license (i.e. transfer of the software itself)
and Brian's revenue flow is not being broken since he no longer has any
revenue flow from it. If a professional consultant were involved, they
would have to show they sustained actual damages (i.e. lost business)
which might be difficult to prove (not to mention the time and cost of
doing so).

Hence the irony meter being pegged.

No, that's the too-much-time-on-their-hands troll meter pegging. :-)

It's a shame the piracy issue drove K6STI from the ham business. He is
truly a genius and I love his AO, YO and DSP Blaster programs. I
believe he's now doing something in the audiophile business...their
gain and our loss.

73, Bill W4ZV.

On 12 Jul 2006 14:41:59 -0700, wrote:

Brian's revenue flow is not being broken since he no longer has any
revenue flow from it.

Hi Bill,

This is NOT a defense against infringement. The author's rights are
total, and the author's monopoly is total. There is nothing in the
law that suspends those rights or monopoly even in the event of death
of the author, so being out of the market place is a specious
argument.

This, and everything else you've had to offer may in fact be done, I
see folks run red lights frequently too.

If you read his agreement carefully, it only
prohibits transfer of the software itself.

I've read many agreements, but not this one. If you have a means to
render it faithfully here, then perhaps so; otherwise those others
I've read inform me better.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I can't speak for Brian, but any output you produce from EZNEC is yours,
and you can sell it or give it away as you wish. I think this is typical
of software license agreements.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Clark wrote:
On 12 Jul 2006 14:41:59 -0700, wrote:

Brian's revenue flow is not being broken since he no longer has any
revenue flow from it.

Hi Bill,

This is NOT a defense against infringement. The author's rights are
total, and the author's monopoly is total. There is nothing in the
law that suspends those rights or monopoly even in the event of death
of the author, so being out of the market place is a specious
argument.

This, and everything else you've had to offer may in fact be done, I
see folks run red lights frequently too.

If you read his agreement carefully, it only
prohibits transfer of the software itself.

I've read many agreements, but not this one. If you have a means to
render it faithfully here, then perhaps so; otherwise those others
I've read inform me better.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

wrote:

Sorry, I lost the attribution trail.


Why? The documentation says:

*********************************************** *************************
This software is copyrighted. It has been provided to
you on the condition that you will not sell, rent, lend, give
away, or otherwise transfer the software to others.
*********************************************** *************************

SNIPPED

Hi Bill,

Strange as it may seem, yes you would be in violation.

Copyright is the author's total monopoly to insure his revenue from
his creation. If you disrupt that revenue flow you are breaking the
law. You said it yourself, he doesn't market to amateurs - rather
professionals who will pay for the LICENSE to use it professionally.
If they choose to do someone a favor, and drop their fee, that is
their hit, not his. He granted them the right, by LICENSE and at a
cost, to lose money if they wish.



There are two additional issues here.

First, a registered copyright is valid for 55 years, it transcends death and
becomes part of the copyright holder's estate. It can be renewed under specified
conditions. So, going out of or changing business does not void the copyright.
By law, the legal penalties begin at $100,000 per violation.

Second, the principle of REASONABLE USAGE is applicable to copyrighted material.
Example: I buy a Copyrighted CD for my personal usage. I am allowed to install
an additional copy on my computer for my personal usage. I am allowed to install
an additional copy on my MP3 player for my personal usage. All subject to the
condition that only one copy will be used at any one time. This does not violate
the copyright law and applicable precedents.

Libraries are allowed to makes partial copies of copyrighted material. It is the
REASONABLE PRESUMPTION that libraries provide data. Universities can make
partial copies of copyrighted material for academic classroom and research
usage. Etc.

The legal burden for proof of REASONABLE USAGE rests with the individual or
institution who purchases the license.

Roy Lewallen wrote:

I can't speak for Brian, but any output you produce from EZNEC is yours,
and you can sell it or give it away as you wish. I think this is typical
of software license agreements.

I agree Roy. The **software** is licensed...not its output. Brian's
license agreement says absolutely nothing about output.

Am I correct about Brian going into the audio business? Thought you
might know.

73, Bill W4ZV

Does this also include ALL Public Libraries
(includeing the Library of Congress)??
Especially those that have Copying Machines?

If so, then DON'T support them, BAN'em!!
A thought-- Jim NN7K


Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Is this lawyertwist's interpretation?
Like it is not COPYright it is REVENUEright?
Don't you anybody ask to read my copyrighted magazine issue! You will
disrupt the revenue flow of the publisher/authors. Oh, and don't read any
magazines in your dentist's office while you are shaking for the treatment.

wrote:

Am I correct about Brian going into the audio business? Thought you
might know.

Quick Google search resulted in the following. Not sure how Brian is
making money on this but his head is clearly not into ham radio any
longer. :-(

http://users.tns.net/~bb/index.html

73, Bill W4ZV

Back to antenna optimization, modeling software is a great tool and can save
a lot of tinkering with hardware in the freezing nights, but has to be taken
with a grain of salt. I treat it as a "bring me into the ballpark" tool,
rather than "gospel".

K6STI did great job with his YO and AO and W4ZV used it to optimize his KLM
stacks very closely.

I tried it on my 3 el. Quad design, which was originally designed on the 2m
antenna test range and then scaled to HF bands, which worked quite well,
within 50 kHz in resonant frequencies. When I tried to make it better by
sticking it into optimization software, the software made it better, on
paper. When I readjusted the dimensions accordingly, thing was off and worse
than before. Maybe software did not capture the color of spreaders. There
are still some parameters that modeling does not capture 100% and I am
always taking the modeling results with grain of salt.

There is whole "industry" of antenna "designers" doing it on models and
proclaiming as gospel. Reality is sometimes cruel and doesn't care what the
model says, especially when considering the environment in which antennas
are to operate. Just caution not believe 100% blindly what the model says,
as we saw in case of loading coils. I love the free space designs :-)

YO, AO, MMANA, 4NEC2 are great tools and to see how good they are, just let
them optimize the same design and see how close they get within each other.

Sorry to see Brian, K6STI quit producing ham stuff, but I do not blame him.
I was in the similar situation, developed Cyrillic languages support for
desktop publishing, sold few dozen copies, only to find that there were
hundreds if not thousands in use from Praha to Vladivostok. I can see my
stamp in the fonts files all over the world. So I quit producing the
software and let the Microsoft carry on, now it is built into Windoze.

73 Yuri, K3BU


"Jim - NN7K" wrote in message
.net...
Does this also include ALL Public Libraries (includeing the Library of
Congress)??
Especially those that have Copying Machines?

If so, then DON'T support them, BAN'em!!
A thought-- Jim NN7K


Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Is this lawyertwist's interpretation?
Like it is not COPYright it is REVENUEright?
Don't you anybody ask to read my copyrighted magazine issue! You will
disrupt the revenue flow of the publisher/authors. Oh, and don't read any
magazines in your dentist's office while you are shaking for the
treatment.

Richard Clark wrote:


I've read many agreements, but not this one. If you have a means to
render it faithfully here, then perhaps so; otherwise those others
I've read inform me better.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, searching the documemtation of version 6.04, I can find only this
in YO.DOC

Copyright 1995 by Brian Beezley, K6STI
All Rights Reserved

Version 5.0 is not quite the same, this is from READ.ME, nothing in
YO.DOC, or any other file

Copyright and License


This software is copyrighted. It is licensed for use by
the purchaser only. Copies may not be sold, rented, leased,
loaned, given away, or otherwise distributed. This copy is
licensed for amateur use only.


That's all there is in either version of YO that contains the
"copyright" in any form, case insensitive. I am ignoring the companion
programs. Interestingly, the .EXE files do not include a copyright
notice internal to the program, at least in plain text. The only thing
that shows when running the program (v6.x) is "Copyright 1995 by Brian
Beezley, K6STI All Rights Reserved" at the top line on the files menu.
I am writing the last from memory since it's a DOS program, so I might
not have it perfect.

tom
K0TAR