On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:43:38 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:12:51 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

of the NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to),
it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science", IMHO ...

In your Hyper-inflated Opinion. As with many of your opunions, none
are supported in accomplishment and I dare say you cannot recite a
block of labeled code that conforms to your supposed humility.

Download the code and locate it yourself!

Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you
say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate
your homework?

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you
say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate
your homework?

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Due to the insane nature ALL of your postings have taken (and yes, I
have noted you have refrained from using quotes from Shakespeare to
validate your arguments), all that is left is to point out your insanity.

Restating what has been restated has lost all hope of getting though to
you ... a shrink would be required now ... perhaps a family intervention?

You can prove my time carrying on any discussions with you is valid, if
only you can download the source to the Numerical Electromagnetic Code,
compile and link it, and feeding it a problem containing a defined
gamma, and observing it though a debugger ... if you can't, all you are
is a waste of time to me ... indeed, to any of consequence in this debate.

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you
say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate
your homework?

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

However, you no longer remind of the poor fool drowning in the proof he
demands ...

You know remind me of this poor dummy:

http://www.degendesigns.com/Downloads/TheEasyWay.PDF

Talking about "stuff" he has no business discussing ...

Regards,
JS

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:40:38 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you
say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate
your homework?

all that is left is to point out

Plenty of wheezing, but not a whisper of support for your own
statement.

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Plenty of wheezing, but not a whisper of support for your own
statement.

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

HEY! Are you guys making fun of my antenna again?!

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:40:38 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you
say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate
your homework?

all that is left is to point out

Plenty of wheezing, but not a whisper of support for your own
statement.

WHACK-A-TROLL!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In this instance, I said what I meant, and meant what I said, and
ABSOLUTELY--stand behind it ... if you are pre-Alzheimer's, you already
know that ... your real problem is that real men have went underground
.... don't count on that as a condition which will alway exist ... fools
with no mind and no extrapolative powers bore us (and, you will note, me
especially!,) and, if you think I am a bad-A$$, what until you see my
son ... ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

JB wrote:


HEY! Are you guys making fun of my antenna again?!

Huh?

Did you join forces with Art? grin

Regards,
JS

"NM5K" wrote in message ...
Art Unwin wrote:

if it was possible they would
already have done it.

And he is right. They have only had about 100 years to work
on it.

Yes. In the 1950's the USAF studied small antennas for the "new" Boeing
707's that they were buying as C-135/KC-135. I remember reading about it in
one of the magazines of the time. They apparently were not entirely happy
with the antenna that projected forward from the top of the stabilizer.
They continued to employ a belly-mount trailing wire on some aircraft at
least into the 1980's. (Good info hard to find.)

If all the money the Air Force could throw at a problem didn't come up with
some magic, do we have a lot of hope???

Sal M. Onella wrote:
"NM5K" wrote in message ...
Art Unwin wrote:

if it was possible they would
already have done it.
And he is right. They have only had about 100 years to work
on it.

Yes. In the 1950's the USAF studied small antennas for the "new" Boeing
707's that they were buying as C-135/KC-135. I remember reading about it in
one of the magazines of the time. They apparently were not entirely happy
with the antenna that projected forward from the top of the stabilizer.
They continued to employ a belly-mount trailing wire on some aircraft at
least into the 1980's. (Good info hard to find.)

If all the money the Air Force could throw at a problem didn't come up with
some magic, do we have a lot of hope???

Hope for what? Magic? The tradeoffs inherent in electrically small
antennas are well known, and each design requires intelligent
application of that knowledge to come up with an antenna that's
acceptable in size, form factor, and performance for that particular
use. Many, many antennas now being designed and ones in common use are
electrically small -- the ones in your car's remote control key fob,
your Bluetooth USB dongle or cell phone earpiece, and embedded in RFID
tags are just a very few examples. With the increasing use of wireless
devices, the need for electrically small antennas has grown rapidly, and
there are a number of good texts devoted to that specific topic. These
texts contain a good treatment of the tradeoffs involved and useful
ideas for designs using currently available technology and materials,
but no new fundamental theory.

Advancements in the art will continue to come with intelligent and
clever application of established theory by people who understand the
theory and how to apply it, not from tinkerers who lack this knowledge
and conjure their miracles by vague hand-waving and bad measurement.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Sal M. Onella wrote:

...
If all the money the Air Force could throw at a problem didn't come up with
some magic, do we have a lot of hope???



Kinda like, "Look at those pyramids, if we can't build 'em let wrap it
up and go home?"

Good argument, you go, I'll stay ...

Regards,
JS