Tom Ring wrote:

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.

Under current U.S. law, a copyright notice isn't required in order to
secure a copyright; the copyright automatically exists as soon as the
work is created. Adding a copyright notice does bring some advantages
if a lawsuit is filed, however.

Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:


Under current U.S. law, a copyright notice isn't required in order to
secure a copyright; the copyright automatically exists as soon as the
work is created. Adding a copyright notice does bring some advantages
if a lawsuit is filed, however.

Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I am only passing along what I have found. I have no dog in this fight,
hihi.

tom
K0TAR

Tom Ring wrote:
(snip)
I have no dog in this fight, hihi.

Tom, please define "hihi" in this context. Thank you.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:37:11 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

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.

Hi Tom,

Pretty unsophisticated, certainly. This redoubles my experience with
other licensing as being far more exclusive.

However, with five patents of my own, I can certainly attest that
these scraps offer protection that have all the muscle of paper. These
ego certificates allow you to get past a lawyer's secretary and spend
money trying to convince judges with the technically savvy of
troglodytes.

Franklin was right about these matters.

As for automated optimization, NASA spent huge bucks on this stuff to
design twisted paper clips to replace Walt's work of 30 years ago. I
can well bet that license runs pages. If the testimonials to Beezley
are any indicator, the utility of the software is in inverse
proportion to the length of its license.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

John Popelish wrote:

Tom Ring wrote:
(snip)
I have no dog in this fight, hihi.

Tom, please define "hihi" in this context. Thank you.


hihi, CW for laughter. Lots of dits in a row. Meant I am amused by the
whole thing.

Do you need more explanation, or was that adequate?

tom
K0TAR

Tom Ring wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

Tom Ring wrote:
(snip)
I have no dog in this fight, hihi.

Tom, please define "hihi" in this context. Thank you.


hihi, CW for laughter. Lots of dits in a row. Meant I am amused by the
whole thing.

Do you need more explanation, or was that adequate?

Perfectly adequate. Thank you.

I have seen this a lot, lately, and didn't know its meaning.

Richard Clark wrote:

As for automated optimization, NASA spent huge bucks on this stuff to
design twisted paper clips to replace Walt's work of 30 years ago. I
can well bet that license runs pages. If the testimonials to Beezley
are any indicator, the utility of the software is in inverse
proportion to the length of its license.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

However some of it does work very well. YO, when used correctly can
just barely beat K1FO's designs, which were done on a PDP11, using a
special version of BASIC, as I remember from conversations with him long
ago.

He got the designs as right as possible, using an EME'rs version of
right. He hit max gain for boomlength within less than 1dB, pattern is
wonderful, SWR BW is astonishing, and pattern and gain are all fairly
constant across the usable SWR BW. Input impedance is not too low, at
about 20-25 ohms, and efficient match can be had with a T-match. And it
handles ice and rain detuning perfectly. Build sensitivity is nice; you
can skew the design by induced errors of +-2mm element length and +-5mm
vertical off the boom and +-2mm element position on the boom with no
significant change. Gain not off by .1dB, pattern not off by 2dB,
normally less. I ran a lot of tests. And I could be misremembering a
bit, but probably by too high rather than too low.

And YO could beat K1FO by only hudredths of a dB. If he'd had more CPU
power to do more runs per day...

tom
K0TAR

Richard Clark wrote:

As for automated optimization, NASA spent huge bucks on this stuff to
design twisted paper clips to replace Walt's work of 30 years ago. I
can well bet that license runs pages. If the testimonials to Beezley
are any indicator, the utility of the software is in inverse
proportion to the length of its license.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I forgot to mention that the K1FO designs referred to were at 432.

tom
K0TAR

John Popelish wrote:



Perfectly adequate. Thank you.

I have seen this a lot, lately, and didn't know its meaning.

As a Syrius Cybernetics construct would say "Glad to be of service!"

tom
K0TAR

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:16:29 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

He got the designs as right as possible, using an EME'rs version of
right. He hit max gain for boomlength within less than 1dB, pattern is
wonderful, SWR BW is astonishing, and pattern and gain are all fairly
constant across the usable SWR BW. Input impedance is not too low, at
about 20-25 ohms, and efficient match can be had with a T-match. And it
handles ice and rain detuning perfectly. Build sensitivity is nice; you
can skew the design by induced errors of +-2mm element length and +-5mm
vertical off the boom and +-2mm element position on the boom with no
significant change. Gain not off by .1dB, pattern not off by 2dB,
normally less. I ran a lot of tests. And I could be misremembering a
bit, but probably by too high rather than too low.

Hi Tom,

This is all pretty significant stuff. Its success probably ties in
with what Reggie had to say about the quality of automated software
being tied to the competence of the user/designer (Reggie may wish to
distance himself from my paraphrase however).

As a negative example, some half decade or more ago we had a fractal
designer who threw as much computational horsepower at this as his
budget would allow in hiring eager, bright faced graduates building
parallel processors. They perhaps knew Genetic Algorithms (the hot
topic in academia whose bloom had long faded in cut-throat industry),
but certainly nothing about the bajillion degrees of freedom in
antenna design. Well, that stack of computers was more a marketing
paper weight than a design producer - I've never seen an independent
headline announcing the dawn of a new age of fractals in Boston. In
fact, it would seem that same NASA program stole their thunder - and
it is still a yawn.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC