K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 11, 5:52 pm, Jim Lux wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 8/10/2010 5:39 PM, wrote:
-
source
158 KB
VEMSA3D_source_11.zip
http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMSA3D_source_11.zip
exe standalone
971 KB
VEMSA3D_exe_standalone_11.zip
http://rga.googlecode.com/files/VEMS...ndalone_11.zip
vemsa3d all downloads:
http://code.google.com/p/rga/downloads/list
A FLOSS Visual EM Simulator for 3D Antennas
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0031
The RGA project:
http://code.google.com/p/rga/
Petros SV7BAX
Antennas Research Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU
-Not-for-Profit-
Well, that certainly allows "the little guy" to view the code and
extract the important parameters, math and formulas so that they can
construct their own specialized tools! Just a bit of understanding how
math is defined by a computer language and you are good-to-go.
Regards,
JS
One wonders why they converted Richmond's older code rather than NEC2.
Both are available as FORTRAN source. Even NEC4 source is readily
available these days, although not for free (so it wouldn't necessarily
meet their FLOSS objective.. I'm not sure.. they wouldn't be copying it,
they'd be converting it, by hand, to C++, and I think that would break
the "proprietary" link)

Maybe Richmond's code does insulation? or wires in a conductive medium?

the proprietaryness(is that a word?) or the copyright status may not
be broken by changing language if the algorithms are claimed as the
actual intellectual property...

I don't think that's what's claimed by Lawrence Livermore Lab.. the code
is copyrighted, and the license agreement (I don't have it here in front
of me, so I'm working off memory) basically says you can't redistribute
the code. The algorithms have all been described elsewhere.


the code is just an implementation of
it, no matter what the language. There would be no need to convert
the fortran anyway, there are still fortran compilers available and
you could call the fortran computations from any language gui front
end. i'm doing a project like that now that calls old fortran, c, c+
+, or pascal computation modules from a new c# front end.

I did wonder why the authors bothered to convert from FORTRAN to C++...
but I think they did that as a separate activity, previously, for other
reasons. There's a comment in their paper about not using automated
translators, too (presumably to avoid any sort of claim that the output
of the translator is somehow contaminated with the proprietaryness of
the translator? Kind of like Intel copyrighting the assembler
instruction mnemonics for the 8080, so Zilog had to use different ones)

Probably it's just a historical artifact.. when they started their
development a while ago, they happened to start with the Richmond code,
as opposed to the Burke and Poggio code.