Hello,

We would like to thank you all very much for your kind attention
you paid on our work; especially, since the appearance of
vemsa3d 1.1 announcement is still delayed for 5th day, as we
will like to reveal, in some other e-mailing ham antenna lists
commercially moderated outside the USENET. Well, we tried to
collect all of your remarks which are strictly related to
vemsa3d, and here are our due answers:

1
The reason for which the code was translated from FORTRAN to C++
was to establish a uniform language environment, most
appropriate to be a graphics oriented one, from the scratch.

2
The reason for which the transform was made line-by-line was to
fully control the reliability of this transformation.

3
The reason for which we used RichWire -that is our fully
analysed and then revised Richmond's FORTRAN code- beyond those
reasons mentioned in our page limited paper, as it is already
pointed out by Jim Lux, was that NASA does not put any
restriction in its public domain code on the number of modeling
current modes, that is on its modelling capabilities.

4
The reason for which we focused and concluded with that
particular horn comparison example between 4nec2 and vemsa3d was
to emphasize that very important restriction on the limited
modelling capabilities even with physically short
electromagnetic objects like that horn for which we exceeded the
maximum number of 4NEC2 permitted dipole mode currents by a
factor of about 4, that is up to almost 5,500+ dipole current
modes.

5
Finally, the reason for which we carried out this overall
tedious, much time-consuming, work was to stop discouraging "the
little men" like us -not only the guys of John Smith but the
dolls too- from being involved with the electromagnetics
modeling interiors, on which, some other people, had been
artificiallly put knowledge barriers. From now on, as we hope,
there is no self-excuse for no one to hesitate in trying his/her
forces on this, most demanding, most challenging,
multi-discipline field.

Well, after the above clarifications, we don't see any other,
either straight or impled, question among your very welcomed
indeed comments, which is strictly related with vemsa3d and
remains unanswered. Anyway, if there is indeed any point that
was missed our attention and you are really interested to be
cleared, please definitely put that to try to answer it too.

Petros, SV7BAX, on behalf of -Not-for-Profit- Antennas Research
Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU

On 8/14/2010 9:31 PM, wrote:
Hello,

We would like to thank you all very much for your kind attention
you paid on our work; especially, since the appearance of
vemsa3d 1.1 announcement is still delayed for 5th day, as we
will like to reveal, in some other e-mailing ham antenna lists
commercially moderated outside the USENET. Well, we tried to
collect all of your remarks which are strictly related to
vemsa3d, and here are our due answers:

1
The reason for which the code was translated from FORTRAN to C++
was to establish a uniform language environment, most
appropriate to be a graphics oriented one, from the scratch.

2
The reason for which the transform was made line-by-line was to
fully control the reliability of this transformation.

3
The reason for which we used RichWire -that is our fully
analysed and then revised Richmond's FORTRAN code- beyond those
reasons mentioned in our page limited paper, as it is already
pointed out by Jim Lux, was that NASA does not put any
restriction in its public domain code on the number of modeling
current modes, that is on its modelling capabilities.

4
The reason for which we focused and concluded with that
particular horn comparison example between 4nec2 and vemsa3d was
to emphasize that very important restriction on the limited
modelling capabilities even with physically short
electromagnetic objects like that horn for which we exceeded the
maximum number of 4NEC2 permitted dipole mode currents by a
factor of about 4, that is up to almost 5,500+ dipole current
modes.

5
Finally, the reason for which we carried out this overall
tedious, much time-consuming, work was to stop discouraging "the
little men" like us -not only the guys of John Smith but the
dolls too- from being involved with the electromagnetics
modeling interiors, on which, some other people, had been
artificiallly put knowledge barriers. From now on, as we hope,
there is no self-excuse for no one to hesitate in trying his/her
forces on this, most demanding, most challenging,
multi-discipline field.

Well, after the above clarifications, we don't see any other,
either straight or impled, question among your very welcomed
indeed comments, which is strictly related with vemsa3d and
remains unanswered. Anyway, if there is indeed any point that
was missed our attention and you are really interested to be
cleared, please definitely put that to try to answer it too.

Petros, SV7BAX, on behalf of -Not-for-Profit- Antennas Research
Group, Palaia Morsini, Xanthi, Thrace, Hellas, EU




Thanks for your points and information. Sorry about "the little display
here." As you can probably guess, a lot of the BS is over old and past
threads and exchanges. I hope you don't feel anything I said was pointed
at you or your information, it was not--I assure you, other than to note
I considered it a worthwhile addition to the "toolshed."

Thanks for your time and patience,
JS

| "John Smith" wrote in message
| ...
|
| On 8/14/2010 9:31 PM, wrote:
|
| Thanks for your points and information. Sorry about "the little display
| here." As you can probably guess, a lot of the BS is over old and past
| threads and exchanges. I hope you don't feel anything I said was pointed
| at you or your information, it was not--I assure you, other than to note
| I considered it a worthwhile addition to the "toolshed."
|
| Thanks for your time and patience,
| JS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Well, I see now that I have to confess that "the little dolls",
in particular, had to be mentioned, as to be directly
connected with the second author: Mrs. yin, SV7DMC.

Thank you for your comments,

pez