The most basic of all programs for antennas come from Roy
They do nothing but number crunching like a calculator and
will give you an answer close to what other programs provide
but not the same. The program does NOT help the user in any
way other than give you an answer regarding the performance
of what you provide. It does NOT give you any help as to where
you could benefit in any way. When you move beyond the most
basic of antenna programes you can obtain help fr4om the
programs in that you don't have to specify actual dimensions
which may be useles because you can alow those dimensions
to be variable to allow the computor to guide you in the right
direction
to meet your desires. The cost of these type programs are similar
to eznec but can go up as high as a couple of thousand dollars
tho most amateurs should be satisfied with the cheapest versions
Some programs are designed around the yagi only for simplification.
These ofcourse need to be avoided since they are based on the
yagi being unbeatable. So if a choice has to be made then programs
with variable dimension abilities together with a sufficient large
number of pulses are by far superior toi any other computor program.
None of these programs agree with each other because of built in
errors
but if you are looking for something that you would like to agree
with
then anything will do as long as it provides a big number that you are
looking for.
As a side point some programs provide errors because the user
doesn't understand the thinking behind garbage in and garbage out
because there is no oversight with respect to programmers error.
Another point to note with programs that allow variable dimensions
where
if you allow the computor total control when persuing gain e.t.c.
it will produce arrays that reflect the combination of static and
electro
magnetic laws which by consensus is totally unacceptable to experts
So care must be taken with all computor programs since like all of us
they make mistakes too. On the other hand if you wish to explore
outside the box and not be controlled by the programmer by all means
purchase the program that is built to help the user. Who knows you
may find an array that experts avoid which may well be to your
liking.
After all if it works well and fits your needs then to heck with the
experts
who say it is impossible, build it and use it but keep quiet about it
otherwise the super experts will bear down upon you till you take it
down.
All is not lost, I have filed a patent request based on my own
findings
even tho experts are adamant that it is just hand waving so hang on
and we will wait to see how the patent office handles it together with
industries
that are not bound by suedo experts. Remember do not purchase high
profiled computor pragrams that are just number crunchers, buy the
programs that have variable number abilities that supply help for
your
money other than a broken down calculator that just gets you close.
Have fun and get a program that helps you to learn about antennas as
it is way cheaper in the long run
Art

art wrote:
a huge pile of rambling nonsense

Out of curiosity, are you drunk, on drugs, suffering from the early
stages of dementia, a troll, or just an idiot?

snip rambling nonsense

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 8 Mar, 18:45, wrote:
art wrote:

a huge pile of rambling nonsense

Out of curiosity, are you drunk, on drugs, suffering from the early
stages of dementia, a troll, or just an idiot?

snip rambling nonsense

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim, Time will tell wether it is you or I. Either way you have lots of
company on your side. AS YET NOBODY BUT NOBODY HAS PROVED BY ANALYSIS
AS INCORRECT. sSo why not be a hero and prove to all that the gaussian
antenna as I have described and explained for many, many months
possibly a year is an impossibility. Or conversley explain how
computor programs cannot possibly react in a way I state,or conversley
explain to all why Art was in fact correct in that computor programs
can react as he states AND IN ADDITION he is correct in his analysis
of the connection between statics and
electro magnetics. Bear in mind that Roy was one of those who
ridicules the idea and thus the lemmings followed. Not one, not one of
those has provided any sort of technical analysis but continue to pile
on nonsense or twisting the events to suit their bluster. But remember
sooner or later the real truth will dribble out and the naysayers will
slink away, or stand with ,I thought, I misread, it isn't in the
books,all is known about antennas e.t.c.
Even if Americans refuse to acknoweledge the truth there is a whole
wide World that is listening and watching and will make their own
descisions as to whether to seek the truth, despite American scowls
and bluster to the contrary. Again, you can't stop the advance of
science just with bluster or piles of sand, sooner or later one has to
decide what is the truth otherwise they are doomed to fall behind. No
one has provided a scientific response to what I state, nor is any one
willing to prove to himself what happens when the computor program is
actually tested and what should be done about it. Why put yourself in
the midst of such company who feel that derision is a good enough
response to the advance of science?
Art XG

art wrote:
On 8 Mar, 18:45, wrote:
art wrote:

a huge pile of rambling nonsense

Out of curiosity, are you drunk, on drugs, suffering from the early
stages of dementia, a troll, or just an idiot?

snip rambling nonsense

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim, Time will tell wether it is you or I.

You or I what?

Either way you have lots of
company on your side. AS YET NOBODY BUT NOBODY HAS PROVED BY ANALYSIS
AS INCORRECT.

Analysis of what as incorrect?

So why not be a hero and prove to all that the gaussian
antenna as I have described and explained for many, many months
possibly a year is an impossibility.

Post some equations that define a gaussian antenna. All I've seen
is rambling nonsense.

Or conversley explain how
computor programs cannot possibly react in a way I state,or conversley
explain to all why Art was in fact correct in that computor programs
can react as he states AND IN ADDITION he is correct in his analysis
of the connection between statics and
electro magnetics.

I haven't seen you post anything about the way computer programs react
that can be analyzed by a rational person.

Bear in mind that Roy was one of those who
ridicules the idea and thus the lemmings followed.

So, everyone is out of step except you? And what idea might that be?

Not one, not one of
those has provided any sort of technical analysis but continue to pile
on nonsense or twisting the events to suit their bluster.

I've noticed technical responses, but the only bluster I've seen is from
you.

But remember
sooner or later the real truth will dribble out and the naysayers will
slink away, or stand with ,I thought, I misread, it isn't in the
books,all is known about antennas e.t.c.

Is that supposed to mean something?

The best I make of it is that you believe you have the one, true "Truth",
whatever the hell that is.

Even if Americans refuse to acknoweledge the truth there is a whole
wide World that is listening and watching and will make their own
descisions as to whether to seek the truth, despite American scowls
and bluster to the contrary.

What do Americans have to do with it?

From what I've seen there are at least some Canadians, plus a few others
that think you are a gibbering idiot.

Again, you can't stop the advance of
science just with bluster or piles of sand, sooner or later one has to
decide what is the truth otherwise they are doomed to fall behind.

Raving nonsense.

Fall behind what?

What piles of sand?

No
one has provided a scientific response to what I state, nor is any one
willing to prove to himself what happens when the computor program is
actually tested and what should be done about it.

Maybe because you don't state anything, just ramble on, mostly incoherently.

I haven't the foggiest clue what your ramblings about computor (sic)
programs means.

Why put yourself in
the midst of such company who feel that derision is a good enough
response to the advance of science?

What company, those that have very patiently, and several times, explained
what Gauss is all about?

Your ramblings remind me of my mother-in-law as she slipped into
dementia.

If that is your problem, I am truely sorry for you.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 8 Mar, 20:25, wrote:
art wrote:
On 8 Mar, 18:45, wrote:
art wrote:

a huge pile of rambling nonsense

Out of curiosity, are you drunk, on drugs, suffering from the early
stages of dementia, a troll, or just an idiot?

snip rambling nonsense

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Jim, Time will tell wether it is you or I.

You or I what?

Either way you have lots of
company on your side. AS YET NOBODY BUT NOBODY HAS PROVED BY ANALYSIS
AS INCORRECT.

Analysis of what as incorrect?

So why not be a hero and prove to all that the gaussian
antenna as I have described and explained for many, many months
possibly a year is an impossibility.

Post some equations that define a gaussian antenna. All I've seen
is rambling nonsense.

Or conversley explain how
computor programs cannot possibly react in a way I state,or conversley
explain to all why Art was in fact correct in that computor programs
can react as he states AND IN ADDITION he is correct in his analysis
of the connection between statics and
electro magnetics.

I haven't seen you post anything about the way computer programs react
that can be analyzed by a rational person.

Bear in mind that Roy was one of those who
ridicules the idea and thus the lemmings followed.

So, everyone is out of step except you? And what idea might that be?

Not one, not one of
those has provided any sort of technical analysis but continue to pile
on nonsense or twisting the events to suit their bluster.

I've noticed technical responses, but the only bluster I've seen is from
you.

But remember
sooner or later the real truth will dribble out and the naysayers will
slink away, or stand with ,I thought, I misread, it isn't in the
books,all is known about antennas e.t.c.

Is that supposed to mean something?

The best I make of it is that you believe you have the one, true "Truth",
whatever the hell that is.

Even if Americans refuse to acknoweledge the truth there is a whole
wide World that is listening and watching and will make their own
descisions as to whether to seek the truth, despite American scowls
and bluster to the contrary.

What do Americans have to do with it?

From what I've seen there are at least some Canadians, plus a few others
that think you are a gibbering idiot.

Again, you can't stop the advance of
science just with bluster or piles of sand, sooner or later one has to
decide what is the truth otherwise they are doomed to fall behind.

Raving nonsense.

Fall behind what?

What piles of sand?

No
one has provided a scientific response to what I state, nor is any one
willing to prove to himself what happens when the computor program is
actually tested and what should be done about it.

Maybe because you don't state anything, just ramble on, mostly incoherently.

I haven't the foggiest clue what your ramblings about computor (sic)
programs means.

Why put yourself in
the midst of such company who feel that derision is a good enough
response to the advance of science?

What company, those that have very patiently, and several times, explained
what Gauss is all about?

Your ramblings remind me of my mother-in-law as she slipped into
dementia.

If that is your problem, I am truely sorry for you.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim, I can't make you read what has been said so you can get upto
speed
IK ahve no wish to argue with you if you are not willing to give
effort.
Don't bother about being sorry for me
Art

On 8 Mar 2007 17:50:39 -0800, "art" wrote:

The most basic of all programs for antennas come from Roy
They do nothing but number crunching like a calculator and
will give you an answer close to what other programs provide
but not the same. The program does NOT help the user in any
way other than give you an answer regarding the performance
of what you provide. It does NOT give you any help as to where
you could benefit in any way.

EZNEC works for me! It is an easy to use interface to NEC2.

I made my choice for the ARRL Antenna Course. Cebik does a good job of
teaching the pro's and con's of antenna modeling there.

EZNEC does not install an engineer or a genie in your PC but it does
provide a tool set that will save a lot of time and money with
realistic answers.

If you have something specific you feel a modeling package should do
please share it!

John Ferrell W8CCW
"Life is easier if you plow around the stumps"!

On Mar 8, 7:50 pm, "art" wrote:
The most basic of all programs for antennas come from Roy

No, I think not... I get the impression that you will not like
any program that does not automatically spit out whatever it is
that you want it to.
BTW, I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc..
MMANA has one fer instance, and it's freeware.
In many cases, I can manually churn out a better design
by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few churn out
some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need
the program to hold my hand while using it.
MK

On 8 Mar, 19:39, wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:50 pm, "art" wrote:

The most basic of all programs for antennas come from Roy

No, I think not... I get the impression that you will not like
any program that does not automatically spit out whatever it is
that you want it to.
BTW, I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc..
MMANA has one fer instance, and it's freeware.
In many cases, I can manually churn out a better design
by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few churn out
some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need
the program to hold my hand while using it.
MK

Well you know as well as I do that the majority state there is no
connection
between statics and electro magnetics and now we find out that some
programs are churning out what you call funky designs so what shall we
do about it. I am all ears
Art

Just out of curiosity, but can anybody inform me what's the problem
between Art and Roy. In every posting of Art, Roy's name (or EZnec)
shows up. Why not mention NecWin+ or Supernec or others ?

I don't know Roy, but when reading his postings I sure think he is a
nice guy. When supplying answers on questions posted in this group,
it's expectable he does some EZnec advertising, because it's a
commercial product. Mostly he also takes the time to tell that there
are other productys around with similar capabilities...

It's a pitty I was not aware of EZnec first few months after I
stumbled over the Nec2 program.

:-(

Arie.

On 9 Mar, 01:10, "4nec2" wrote:
Just out of curiosity, but can anybody inform me what's the problem
between Art and Roy. In every posting of Art, Roy's name (or EZnec)
shows up. Why not mention NecWin+ or Supernec or others ?

I don't know Roy, but when reading his postings I sure think he is a
nice guy. When supplying answers on questions posted in this group,
it's expectable he does some EZnec advertising, because it's a
commercial product. Mostly he also takes the time to tell that there
are other productys around with similar capabilities...

It's a pitty I was not aware of EZnec first few months after I
stumbled over the Nec2 program.

:-(

Arie.

Why no answer to what your program produces when allowed to run
freely. I was willing and did as you asked and gave you what AO
supplied?
Art