On 27 Apr, 12:18, wrote:
I've been 'googling' for a MININEC-based antenna modeling program (or
programs) and I've decided a guy could get old and grey before he was
through looking at all the offerings. I've kind of (based on web page
descriptions) compiled a short list of candidates as follows:

MMANA by JH3HHT
EZNEC by W7EL
NEC-Win Pro by Nitanny Scientific

Is anyone here using any of those, especially NEC-Win Plus? Can
anyone recommend one that they KNOW is better than the ones on my
list? I have $450 budgeted for this but I might consider something a
little costlier if it were overwhelmingly better.

73, RDW

Interesting question. I use AO program by Brian Beazely which is
Minninec based but Brian
has not supported that program in years. Based on that info I suspect
that could be classed now as freeware so a Google search may well
supply a user that is willing to provide a copy. Ofcourse you would
have to pursue the subject of legality for yourself before purchasing
tho I do not know how you would do that. I personally would love to
have the basic program
with all details to see if it could be remodelled but I have not heard
of anybody pursueing that avenue.
Art

In message .com,
writes
On Apr 27, 8:11 pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:


EZNECand NEC-Win products are not MININEC based.


Point taken. Should have said NEC-based. I had a brain-fart. Shame
on me.

4NEC2 - free !

http://home.ict.nl/~arivoors/

Arie will be along in a minute to tell you anyway ;-p

73 Brian GM4DIJ
--
Brian Howie

On 28 Apr 2007 11:18:14 -0700, art wrote:

AO program by Brian Beazely which is
Minninec based but Brian
has not supported that program in years. Based on that info I suspect
that could be classed now as freeware so a Google search may well
supply a user that is willing to provide a copy.

This would be a clear case of piracy and the violation of copyright
held by the owner. Any attempts of others to provide "free" or "paid"
copies are violating that law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 28 Apr, 13:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 11:18:14 -0700, art wrote:

AO program by Brian Beazely which is
Minninec based but Brian
has not supported that program in years. Based on that info I suspect
that could be classed now as freeware so a Google search may well
supply a user that is willing to provide a copy.

This would be a clear case of piracy and the violation of copyright
held by the owner. Any attempts of others to provide "free" or "paid"
copies are violating that law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Nothing is "clear" with respect to copyright. As with patents there
are rules that must be followed and the particulars of the particular
copyright has to be clear and approved which may not apply to the
subject as a whole. Even music moguls are finding it hard to control
copying and on top of that there are several exemptions with respect
to educational and libraries neither of which have been specifically
defined in changes by Congress in the latter part of the last century.
The antenna programmers also suffer from the fact that the general
routines were supplied by the government for general use which also
apply restrictions as to what specifically can be copyrighted. I
believe also that if a transfer is made via public E mail
can allow further reductions as to what is termed infringment. For
antenna programs I would assume that such a thing as an algorithm can
be copy righted but to try and cover all screen representations could
possibly be a nightmare. The bottom line is of course is that you are
copying something that was put together in some sort of ingenious way
then it is not yours to copy but people use the copy machines with
abandon so attorneys would have a field day with respect to expenses
in areas so murkey as copyright laws which is presently crippling the
music industry since infringment is enourmous and recompense for
violation is ridiculously small on a case by case basis. If a library
owns a copy and then makes another copy for patrons use you again get
into another murky area because that involves a exception area that is
not clear in substance.
Art

On 28 Apr 2007 17:20:40 -0700, art wrote:

On 28 Apr, 13:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 11:18:14 -0700, art wrote:

AO program by Brian Beazely which is
Minninec based but Brian
has not supported that program in years. Based on that info I suspect
that could be classed now as freeware so a Google search may well
supply a user that is willing to provide a copy.

This would be a clear case of piracy and the violation of copyright
held by the owner. Any attempts of others to provide "free" or "paid"
copies are violating that law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Nothing is "clear" with respect to copyright.

I am quite sure that Brian Beazely "clearly" marked his product with
the necessary marks of intellectual property ownership.

If a library owns a copy and then makes another copy for patrons use

That never happens in any reputable Library. They have absolutely no
interest in supporting piracy.

you again get
into another murky area because that involves a exception area that is
not clear in substance.

There is nothing murky about copying Brian Beazely's product and
distributing it. You are not going to get a pirated copy from any
Library.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On 28 Apr 2007 17:20:40 -0700, art wrote:


Nothing is "clear" with respect to copyright.


I am quite sure that Brian Beazely "clearly" marked his product with
the necessary marks of intellectual property ownership.

snip

There is nothing murky about copying Brian Beazely's product and
distributing it. You are not going to get a pirated copy from any
Library.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Brian no longer sells antenna software to Amateur Radio customers for
precisely Art's enlightened attitude. I alpha tested much of his
software, and I am quite sure that even I couldn't get a copy of
anything from him anymore. Nor would I try. He was royally screwed by
our community. I don't blame him a bit for pulling out of our market.

I am also very thankful that we have Roy sticking around with an
excellent product, and putting up with the slings and arrows and BS.

tom
K0TAR

On 28 Apr, 18:06, Richard Clark wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 17:20:40 -0700, art wrote:





On 28 Apr, 13:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 11:18:14 -0700, art wrote:

AO program by Brian Beazely which is
Minninec based but Brian
has not supported that program in years. Based on that info I suspect
that could be classed now as freeware so a Google search may well
supply a user that is willing to provide a copy.

This would be a clear case of piracy and the violation of copyright
held by the owner. Any attempts of others to provide "free" or "paid"
copies are violating that law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Nothing is "clear" with respect to copyright.

I am quite sure that Brian Beazely "clearly" marked his product with
the necessary marks of intellectual property ownership.

If a library owns a copy and then makes another copy for patrons use

That never happens in any reputable Library. They have absolutely no
interest in supporting piracy.

you again get
into another murky area because that involves a exception area that is
not clear in substance.

There is nothing murky about copying Brian Beazely's product and
distributing it. You are not going to get a pirated copy from any
Library.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Libraries have a specific exemption with respect to copyright laws and
most libraries now have a CD library for its patrons. Same goes for
enterprises that lease movies e.t.c..
Same goes for educational facilities and their faculty and pupils and
as far as educational facilities go, even a ham radio club would
qualify for that!. With all that being said I am not advocating piracy
per se, I was ENQUIRING (not advocating) on the legitimacy of copying
when a product is abandoned which in the case of a patent is done when
a holder does not pay the regular maintenance fee required.and that
include software patents.
On the other side of the coin one must remember we are talking about
federal law which is an entity to itself in what laws it decides it
wants to honor as well as the finances to do the job.. From a morality
point of view piracy is wrong, from a reality point of view if a law
cannot be enforced then it is a bad law because it is an example of
laws that are seen that can be defied. I agree that Brians absence is
a huge loss for the ham community but I am not fully aware of all the
reasons tho I have heard rumours, but I remind you again I was
enquiring about a properties standing in LAW when it was not only
abandoned but also not for sale, plus the underlying principles being
of the freeware type i.e. supplied by the Government free of charge.
Art

"John Ferrell" wrote in message
...
On 27 Apr 2007 13:37:26 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 27, 8:31 pm, John Ferrell wrote:


EZNEChas a free demo. I compared that against what I could glean from
the advertising info of the other candidates.EZNECallows me to think
about antennas while I am using it rather than think about
programming.

EZNEChas saved me a lot of labor with my "antenna habit". EZNECand
Nittany Scientific products are used in the ARRL antenna course. That
course is a good value as well.


Thanks. I'll have a look at that ARRL course.

73, RDW


I should also add that the ARRL Course was pretty tough on my ego. I
did not know nearly as much as I thought I did going into the course.

The up side is that it renewed my interest in antennas in general.
A humbling experience is sometimes a very good thing!

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

I ve found there is a lot of disinformation on antennas and if you have
pretty much learned it on your own without very much interaction with others
you will be very much surprised about what you dont know. Probably true
about a lot of subjects.

Jimmie

IF you read Brian's material, you will find out WHY
he no longer supports it-- too many pirated copies
includeing some of the "Ham SHAREWARE" and Freeware"
disks! Cant say I can blame him- Those his bread
and butter- NOT for free! Jim


Richard Clark wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 17:20:40 -0700, art wrote:

On 28 Apr, 13:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 11:18:14 -0700, art wrote:

AO program by Brian Beazely which is
Minninec based but Brian
has not supported that program in years. Based on that info I suspect
that could be classed now as freeware so a Google search may well
supply a user that is willing to provide a copy.
This would be a clear case of piracy and the violation of copyright
held by the owner. Any attempts of others to provide "free" or "paid"
copies are violating that law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Nothing is "clear" with respect to copyright.

I am quite sure that Brian Beazely "clearly" marked his product with
the necessary marks of intellectual property ownership.

If a library owns a copy and then makes another copy for patrons use

That never happens in any reputable Library. They have absolutely no
interest in supporting piracy.

you again get
into another murky area because that involves a exception area that is
not clear in substance.

There is nothing murky about copying Brian Beazely's product and
distributing it. You are not going to get a pirated copy from any
Library.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 29 Apr, 14:05, Jim - NN7K wrote:
IF you read Brian's material, you will find out WHY
he no longer supports it-- too many pirated copies
includeing some of the "Ham SHAREWARE" and Freeware"
disks! Cant say I can blame him- Those his bread
and butter- NOT for free! Jim



Richard Clark wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 17:20:40 -0700, art wrote:

On 28 Apr, 13:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 11:18:14 -0700, art wrote:

AO program by Brian Beazely which is
Minninec based but Brian
has not supported that program in years. Based on that info I suspect
that could be classed now as freeware so a Google search may well
supply a user that is willing to provide a copy.
This would be a clear case of piracy and the violation of copyright
held by the owner. Any attempts of others to provide "free" or "paid"
copies are violating that law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Nothing is "clear" with respect to copyright.

I am quite sure that Brian Beazely "clearly" marked his product with
the necessary marks of intellectual property ownership.

If a library owns a copy and then makes another copy for patrons use

That never happens in any reputable Library. They have absolutely no
interest in supporting piracy.

you again get
into another murky area because that involves a exception area that is
not clear in substance.

There is nothing murky about copying Brian Beazely's product and
distributing it. You are not going to get a pirated copy from any
Library.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very interesting Jim, I hadn't heard that. The rumor that I heard was
that his computor was hacked which I thought was strange. None the
less I see the law as being unenforceable because copying is difficult
to prove and as the music industry has found out the fed courts are
not interested in individual prosecutions. Another point that is murky
with respect to a copyright is that the complaintant has to illustrate
how the offence marred his ability to collect money on his ownership
and if there is evidence that financial reward is no longer being
pursued the copyright can easily be declared withdrawn. This action
can also be taken if a patent is not actively pursued. In both patent
and copyright laws the "intent" is to encourage declaration of ones
ingenuety for the benefit of all in exchange for the sole right
to reap rewards that are being actively sort. During the last decade
Congress have acted in the areas of patent law and copyright law which
benefitted the former but weakened the latter. Either way the law does
provide a method of compensation if the offender has resources, if he
hasn't prosecution becomes moot. Morally I see it as wrong to copy
what does not belong to you but to enforce moral behavior is a very
dicy exercise.
Art