[Antennaware] Antennaware On Topic

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

For what it's worth, I'm the moderator.

I think the "expansion" scope that Gary refers to has been here all along.

The banner on the subscription page reads "Antennaware -- Antenna Modeling,
Programs, and Theory."  Perhaps if it said "Antennaware -- Antenna Theory,
Antenna Modeling, and Antenna Programs?  That's from my algebraic
interpretation: Antenna(Modeling+Programs+Theory).  So I've always thought
of this reflector as regarding antenna theory, antenna modeling software,
the convergence of theory and actual measurement, use of the various
programs for dealing with antennas, not only modeling programs per se, and
as regarding all the irritating issues in getting theory and modeling to
match up with reality, including but not restricted to using program tools.

It has never been my style to measure posts on an OT micrometer to decide
whether they belong here or not.  On the other hand noone has started a
TowerTalk "Due North" or "Rivet" thread here to tempt me, nor do we have
TowerTalk traffic volumes.  I have axed threads soliciting illegal copies of
commercial copyrighted software.

>From observation, much discussion of reality-side issues directly or
indirectly related to modeling occurs in the context of purely practical
posts on how to set dimensions for or get an antenna working, as heard on
TopBand and elsewhere.  I do not observe, nor have I ever asked for, such
traffic being moved here because it includes the word "model".

The actual theory or how-to-model-something post, in the abstract, does not
seem to occur that much, anywhere.  Some don't want to hear about the theory
behind something.  They just want to know what to do.  That's neither
complaint nor sigh of relief on my part, just an observation.  I think
that's why it's quiet here.  Personally, I don't take a quiet reflector as
bad per se.

It probably takes an individual getting into a project that captures folks'
imagination to get a busy thread here going long term, and then if that
finishes, traffic will likely ramp down again.  I have some topics I would
like to shepherd including active research, but that takes time, and until
later on this year that pesky involvement with one of those indispensable
day jobs will prevent it.

Thus far the fairly infrequent hardware question that wanders here either
politely gets answered or redirected elsewhere.  I hope that kind and gently
obliging atmosphere persists. And if something does get out of hand, I will
be the one to deal with it. Please, no vigilante moderators.

I'm not sure where else one goes based on reflector names, to get AY loop
questions answered by the master himself.  Though I have wondered  a couple
times whether the questioner made the connection between the post by K9AY
and the design they were asking about.  :>)

And I agree that here, the question of did you model that can be raised with
impunity.  It is Antennaware, after all.

All the best, folks, & 73,
Guy K2AV

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "K9AY" <k9ay at k9ay.com>
To: <antennaware at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Antennaware] Antennaware Digest


> There is far too little traffic on this reflector. What some members see
> as
> an expansion of its scope may be a good thing. When someone like Tony asks
> for advice, the appropriate response is to discuss modeling as a route to
> the answer, not complain about the propriety of the question. (Glad to see
> some of that happen...)
>
> I find it completely consistent for this reflector to include the use of
> modeling programs in the process of actually building, testing and
> operating
> real antennas -- to compare them with their virtual counterparts and help
> understand how they work.
>
> Does my opinion count for anything? That's up to each of you ... I have
> been
> an Antennaware subscriber since its inception, a beta tester of EZNEC and
> an
> alpha tester of EZW. And I've designed a few antennas.
>
> 73, Gary
> K9AY