Re: GUT ( Grand unification theory)


"art" <aunwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4cd79339-4b92-425c-93c6-83d46dce3ce0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 8 Dec, 18:17, "Mike Kaliski" <michael.kali...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" <w...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:13lmheqfc1ttv7f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





> Mike Kaliski wrote:
>> . . .
>> NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy
>> grail in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or
>> configurations. They can accurately predict 'established' antenna >> design
>> performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what
>> properties a new and previously untried design might have. . .

> They are used daily by a very large number of people to predict, with
> excellent accuracy, how new and untried antenna designs will work.

>> The programs are, of necessity, constrained by the accuracy of the
>> physical measurements and formulae used in writing the original >> program.

> That's not quite correct. The "formulae" used are very fundamental
> electromagnetic equations. The "physical measurements" used are
> fundamental constants such as the speed of light and permittivity and
> permeability of free space, all of which are known to much greater
> accuracy than antenna performance measurements are capable of > delivering.
> So neither constitutes any real constraint on program accuracy. The > main
> constraints are the inability to model all physical structures. For
> example, NEC has no provision for including a slab of dielectric, > making
> microstrip antennas impossible to model accurately (except the rare > ones
> with air dielectric). There are many such constraints, of which the > user
> has to be acutely aware. The programs are very accurate if, and only > if,
> the model is indeed representative of the physical antenna.

My point entirely - It is impossible to take into account absolutely every
factor that someone might want to model. It is either so esoteric as to be a
'one off', or someone wishes to work outside of the constraints of accepted
design principles.





>> I do not consider the challenge to Newton's Laws to be valid. Just
>> because there is no true vacuum anywhere in the universe, as far as >> can
>> be established, then all objects will eventually come to rest due to
>> friction. This does not invalidate the premis that in the absence of
>> friction or any other external influence, an object would continue in
>> motion along a straight path forever.

> This would be funny if it weren't sad. This newsgroup is one of the few
> places I can think of where the silly statement I posted about moving
> bodies and friction would be taken seriously. But it's really no > surprise,
> since it's much less unreasonable than the imaginative alternative
> theories which are seriously presented, and just as seriously argued, > here
> daily.

> My postulate about objects in motion was a parody of Cecil's rejection > of
> theoretical cases on the basis that they can't exist in practice, my
> intent being to show how such a rejection leads to incorrect results. > But
> I see it's drawing the same serious response as Cecil's and Art's
> postings. All that's missing is one of Richard's quotes from Terman and
> support from Derek.

Well I felt I had to comment in case someone was taking your remark
seriously. As you rightly say there have been plenty of arguments over many
less obvious tongue in cheek remarks.





>> Ultimately whatever predictions are made by computer modelling >> programs
>> or theory, the only measure of success is by physical measurement in >> the
>> real world.

> That's almost true. It's important also to know that even moderately
> accurate antenna measurements are extremely difficult and exacting to
> make. Consequently, there are often cases where model results are a > better
> indicator of an antenna's performance than measured ones. Antennas and
> models follow the same physical laws. So to the extent that the model
> imitates reality, the results are the same.

> This philosophy isn't restricted to antenna modeling. Circuit designers
> use programs to model circuits which can't be measured. I've designed
> circuitry which operates from a few GHz to several tens of GHz, which > is
> still in production. It's simply impossible to measure voltages and
> currents in such circuits, so modeling is heavily used. Often, every PC
> board or hybrid circuit pad and trace has to be included as a > transmission
> line model; I've even had to build a transmission line model of a
> capacitor which was 80 mils long. That the overall performance matched > the
> models' predictions is evidence that the models matched the physical
> circuits. IC designers rely entirely on models to predict the > performance
> of circuits which can be measured only after huge financial investments > to
> commit the model results to physical reality. The principles are > exactly
> the same for antenna modeling as for circuit modeling.

> Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I think we are in agreement Roy that the doubts cast on computer modelling
are generally raised by those who have an incomplete understanding of the
problem they are trying to model. While it may be fun to chuck in some
random figures to see what happens, the results are unlikely to be of use
without a thorough understanding of the basics. That only comes through a
lot of hard work and experience.

Regards

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike let me put things into perspective. I use the programs a lot
and trust them. At the same time there is an article in a compendium
that relates the difficulties they have had with calculations meeting
empirical solutions.They then added a condition which infers that
the time varient used is that of the current.But when I used the
computor
by following Gauss and the terms of equilibrium the result is a tank
circuit which contradicts the added condition. So in a sense the
program corroberates my work despite the imposed condition which
the program itself describes as erronious.
When I read of the difficulties associated with antenna programs
and how they were adjusted especially with an erronious condition
which is not allowable in mathematics then the corroberation of
my work is seriously strained to what appears as the correct results
for the wrong reasons. A specific case is where using magnetic and
electrical standards one can use vectors in a known direction
the summation of which is not parallel to the axis of the radiator.
The paradox is that the computor results are in line with Maxwells
laws
when one is confined to a situation of equilibrium demanded by Gauss.
Thus the question is how can this be if the program itself has
imposed
a condition around the laws of Maxwell whereas the program itself
overrules the validity of that same condition.
This obviously leaves the computor analysis in a precarious position.
For myself I would like to know how the programmers implemented this
condition they imposed and how it affected derived results.If this
inconsistency is not resolved to my satisfaction then the thesis
is tenacious at best and subject to serious question.
Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk)

Art

I wasn't having a go at you or your use of computer modelling. The problem is that computer models can only simulate what might be happening in the real world. They cannot take into account every possible situation. Mathematics itself is riddled with logical inconsistancies and we have learned to work around them. Some methods work better than others for solving specific problems.

Cheers

Mike G0ULI

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GUT ( Grand unification theory)
    ... accurate antenna measurements are extremely difficult and exacting to ... This philosophy isn't restricted to antenna modeling. ... Circuit designers ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: GUT ( Grand unification theory)
    ... They can accurately predict 'established' antenna design ... properties a new and previously untried design might have. ... physical measurements and formulae used in writing the original program. ... use programs to model circuits which can't be measured. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: GUT ( Grand unification theory)
    ... NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy grail in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or configurations. ... They can accurately predict 'established' antenna design performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what properties a new and previously untried design might have. ... The "physical measurements" used are fundamental constants such as the speed of light and permittivity and permeability of free space, all of which are known to much greater accuracy than antenna performance measurements are capable of delivering. ... It's simply impossible to measure voltages and currents in such circuits, ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: GUT ( Grand unification theory)
    ... NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy grail in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or configurations. ... They can accurately predict 'established' antenna design performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what properties a new and previously untried design might have. ... The "physical measurements" used are fundamental constants such as the speed of light and permittivity and permeability of free space, all of which are known to much greater accuracy than antenna performance measurements are capable of delivering. ... It's simply impossible to measure voltages and currents in such circuits, ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: Thanks to all - well most...
    ... I have taken measurements that are almost identical. ... The first LED video screen I worked on had a circuit that measured the LED forward voltage. ... the problem turned out to be easy to fix, and was inherent on the design of the voltage sensing circuit, which I duly modified. ... Funnily enough, they had a huge problem with contrast (black isnt very black when all the LEDs are glowing faintly), and had to do another PCB respin. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)