-
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-

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

On Aug 11, 1:10*pm, 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

DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!! a 'bit of understanding' in this case could
lead to totally incorrect results. be sure you thoroughly understand
the limitations of the 'thin polygonal wire' model and any earth model
they are using. it is likely this will have lots of undocumented
limitations. also i worry about their claim of comparing to other
freeware results, do they only build models for comparison that are
well represented in both tools? and do they understand the
limitations of what they are comparing to?

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?

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... 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.

On 8/11/2010 9:03 AM, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:10 pm, John 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

DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!! a 'bit of understanding' in this case could
lead to totally incorrect results. be sure you thoroughly understand
the limitations of the 'thin polygonal wire' model and any earth model
they are using. it is likely this will have lots of undocumented
limitations. also i worry about their claim of comparing to other
freeware results, do they only build models for comparison that are
well represented in both tools? and do they understand the
limitations of what they are comparing to?


LOL! Yeah, well, a lot of people wonder and worry about the light in
the refrigerator, to--if it goes out when you shut the door!

Regards,
JS

On 8/11/2010 11:53 AM, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 11, 5:52 pm, Jim 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... 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 would be really surprised if you could patent math formulas,
equations, etc. The software which uses them can, obviously, be
patented. Something with is "self-intuitive" or a law of nature just
can't be patented!

Regards,
JS

On Aug 11, 7:20*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 8/11/2010 11:53 AM, K1TTT wrote:



On Aug 11, 5:52 pm, Jim *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... 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 would be really surprised if you could patent math formulas,
equations, etc. *The software which uses them can, obviously, be
patented. Something with is "self-intuitive" or a law of nature just
can't be patented!

Regards,
JS

what is intuitive to you is a patented or copyrighted work from a
lawyer's point of view. while you can't patent or copyright maxwell's
equations you can patent or copyright a method of applying them to
come up with solutions to practical problems. these are common things
now in the software and business world, though some countries have
stopped issuing software patents and others are considering that move
also. but the copyright process is well ingrained in the software
world. So much so that there are specific copyright notices you can
use to specify that you DON'T want to stop anyone from using your
code, just so you don't get bothered by people asking all the time.

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.

On 8/11/2010 12:43 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On Aug 11, 7:20 pm, John wrote:
On 8/11/2010 11:53 AM, K1TTT wrote:


what is intuitive to you is a patented or copyrighted work from a
lawyer's point of view. while you can't patent or copyright maxwell's
equations you can patent or copyright a method of applying them to
come up with solutions to practical problems. these are common things
now in the software and business world, though some countries have
stopped issuing software patents and others are considering that move
also. but the copyright process is well ingrained in the software
world. So much so that there are specific copyright notices you can
use to specify that you DON'T want to stop anyone from using your
code, just so you don't get bothered by people asking all the time.


I never seen this as a problem or a road block. You are simply a matter
of all the knowledge you have picked up from others along the way, most
likely, a large portion of this came from copyrighted materials.
Indeed, if I read a copyrighted book, then turn around and write a book,
containing all I have read, I have done no wrong; If I copied the work,
I am.

When it comes to math, removed from other works, it is exactly the same.
You would have to be an idiot to do it in such a way as to cause problems.

This is all so self-apparent, it always puzzles me when I am brought to
putting the concept(s) to text, or even spoken speech!

Regards,
JS