On 24 Sep, 06:03, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I have gonedown that road also in the past. As one programmer stated
Antenna programs are not perfect and neither are you. They do not
adhere to Maxwells laws
because some have taken the libity to insert assumptions when things
don't work out.
Mathematicians usually find a constant to insert if they are not sure
of mathematical difference
or their mods don't work. You can do that with a theory because it has
not been confirmed but an electrical LAW
stands alone as being correct as it stands. Just imagine using Ohms
law with a fudge factor inserted where you have to insert a fuse to
take care of it! Even when dealing with superconductors there are
numurous provisos with respect to an ifnittessimle length that are
"solved with mathematical technics. With my amateur thesis that is on
plus other letters and attillas I wrote down the tears
that the head of the nuclear industry in Russia stated with the
reliance on the computors ability to do multiple equations every
minuite of the dayin the hope that one answer fits the bill or at
least it will if you add constants where it deviates from what you
want!
However the assumptions used in this case finally worked out for 100
years and where it doesn't work
in the present computor era then you didn't follow the restrictions
that come with adding assumptions

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?

Cecil:

My statement was a little bold; I take it back. Not all here are stuck
in the same rut. It is just sometimes I feel I am in a room full of
children, you have to shout now and then just to get some order to the
dominant personalities.

You realize, I am sure, my bark is much worse than the bite ...

Sorry. :-(

Regards,
JS

On 24 Sep, 08:08, John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?

Cecil:

My statement was a little bold; I take it back. Not all here are stuck
in the same rut. It is just sometimes I feel I am in a room full of
children, you have to shout now and then just to get some order to the
dominant personalities.

You realize, I am sure, my bark is much worse than the bite ...

Sorry. :-(

Regards,
JS

John you are preaching to the converted! Cecil is known for standing
his ground
on technical matters despite the howls and catcalling. His posts
easily exceed a hundred or so
because he rarely get a reasonable technical response in this group.
That ofcourse takes a lot of tenaccity and visits to the texas
university library and I could never do that because the group would
attack the library contents. I prefer to hammer on the same subject a
bit over time for several years as you can see in the archives on
Gaussian antenna, this seasons you to laughing at the comments instead
of taking it personal because it becomes obvious what the technical
level is of the poster. No problem hobbiest having thought and
theories and stories of magnificent performance of a wire that rests
in a gutter and then drops to the ground so that they are part of ham
radio that produces statement that "my antenna is best because every
thing I hear I can work" Or "every thing is known about antennas"! or"
we already have good antennas so why do we need to know how they
work". But when they take on a technical mantle without the require
engineering regimen it can be very very funny.
Regards
Art

art wrote:

...
work". But when they take on a technical mantle without the require
engineering regimen it can be very very funny.
Regards
Art

Art:

Far too many times, I have been present during discussions where a
"newbie" (one not well schooled in the amateur-antenna-religious-order)
discusses some weird idea(s) he proposes to set in aluminum/copper and
insulation. And, far too often I have seen him discouraged and "converted."

What the heck, let 'em try it, someone just may hit the lotto!--but
then, I have seen the "hidden errors" in current knowledge.

Frankly, I love the fact data/knowledge exists which has been so
explored as to let us, immediately, construct "canned antennas" with
excellent performance characteristics (or at least functional/usable
characteristics.)

Is it so difficult to allow some to explore less conventional designs,
methods, ideas, experiments? From what I have seen, most who explore
these "dark arts" have already explored commonly constructed antennas
and yearn for some diversion (or, perhaps wish something for a special
purpose--for example stealth!)

For those who walk to the beat of a different drummer--I'll keep the
light on for 'ya, 'ya all hear? Just have the fortitude to take the
slings and arrows ...

Regards,
JS

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 24 Sep, 04:15, "Richard Fry" wrote:
You will have more credibility and respect if you post your mathematical
proof so that others can investigate your beliefs using scientific
methods,
rather than persisting in your challenges for others to prove you wrong
based only on your prose.

RF

Already done all that on this newsgroup. Sweep for Gauss or gaussian
and it will get you up to date.
___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF

Richard Fry wrote:

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF


"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein

From he

http://www.humboldt1.com/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html

You act as if math is the oracle which tells no lies--has no false
visions ...

Uncounted times, math is reshuffled to come into line with present
knowledge--the reverse has NEVER happened--at least not to my knowledge.

Regards,
JS

And, Art, you haven't posted the mathematics to prove or even illustrate
what you believe about this -- which would be valuable to you, as your
beliefs are so different from antenna engineering practice and field
experience.

You will have more credibility and respect if you post your mathematical
proof so that others can investigate your beliefs using scientific
methods,
rather than persisting in your challenges for others to prove you wrong
based only on your prose.

RF

Already done all that on this newsgroup. Sweep for Gauss or gaussian
and it will get you up to date
Regards
Art

Can you provide the exact link? The first 20 pages of Google cannot
find the reference.

Regards,

Frank

John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF


"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein


So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna, but facts that only make for almost
impossible to read text in a Usenet group?

It doesn't define one as close minded to note that extraordinary claims
require proof at the same level.

wouldn't simple proof be a lot easier than declaring all who disagree as
enemies of one sort or another?

Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

Proof would shut us close minded ones up would it not? Then the antenna
will become status quo, and we will rush to defend it.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On 24 Sep, 10:04, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein

So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna,

SNIP
I would go with that one if I were you so you keep apace of your
knoweledge level.
You could look in the archives for this year and look up the "Davis"
mathematical
solutions contribution once in a while so that you can upgrade in the
future
You can work everything that you hear now so hang around until
somebody makes the one I suggested
but then they may be competition minded and not tell you of the work
they have done for themselves!
Art

On 24 Sep, 08:54, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com... On 24 Sep, 04:15, "Richard Fry" wrote:
You will have more credibility and respect if you post your mathematical
proof so that others can investigate your beliefs using scientific
methods,
rather than persisting in your challenges for others to prove you wrong
based only on your prose.

RF

Already done all that on this newsgroup. Sweep for Gauss or gaussian
and it will get you up to date.

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF

Sorry to hear that Dr Davis must have removed his comments and data
after the group teed him off
one too many times. They are in my ongoing patent requests so sooner
or later they will
come to light again. I think I may have reproduced it on the
pages but I am not sure.
Ofcourse I did have some of my work overchecked on this by professor
with a P.E. who did it via NEC 4 before I placed my first patent
request since each request at the PTO is around $500 and that is only
the beginning costs
so it pays to have the basics reviewed without your presence so you
are not throwing money away' especially if you have a series of
patents going thru based on the original discovery.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
Art