These “PCs for AP” columns, later called “PCs for AP

and Other EM Reflections,” were published in the IEEE

Antennas and Propagation Newsletter and its transition
to the APS Magazine from 1984 through 2000.

Topics covered ranged from personal computers to

mainframes and associated software and hardware
over that time. While that information has become
dated it does show the enormous advances made
over those years and so could be useful for reference
purposes.

Other material covered included book reviews,

accounts of meetings and symposia, reader input and
in various later columns accounts of some of my own
research activities. Nearly all of those included here
were scanned from the Magazine. For a few that were
missed, the manuscripts originally submitted are used
instead. In some cases the scanned columns are
incomplete, but as I no longer have hard copies of the
publication, replacements are not available to me.

I appreciated the latitude given to me by Ross Stone,

Editor of the Newsletter and Magazine, in the range of
topics covered, and the space he made available to
me.
 Edmund K. Mlller
Ohio Unkersity
Department of Electrical andComputer Engineering
3 3 1 Stocker Center
Athens. OH 45701
(614) 593-1603
(614) 5934037 (FAX)
emiiier@bobcat.ent.ohlou.edu (email)

800-628-8686. Intel has stated that a replacement will be shipped

T opics covered in this column are mostly furnished courtesy of
others. First, G J. Burke,ofLawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, no stranger to this column, reportssome interesting
timing results for his new Macintosh 8100 PowerPC.It’s been
observed that PCs lag mainframe performance by15 or 20 years,
something that Jerry’s results show may be too pessimistic. Jerry’s
data shows that the new-generation PCs are real “work horses,”
being able to solve problems of impressive size. No longer is the
fact that a moment-method code can be run on an Apple I1 or the
original IBM PC only a novelty; industrial-strength problems are
now within reach The other topic is a contribution from C. C.Lin,
of Germany, that provides an analytical discussion and FORTRAN
program for determining the effective width of a waveguide from
its resonance frequencies First, however, I thought that a brief dis-
cussion of the design flaw discovered in the Intel Pentium micro-
processor is appropriate.
Problems for the Intel Pentium
Many of you might have heard, by now, ofthe design flaw
recentlv found in the Intel Pentium microprocessor, their top-of-
the-line chip that forms the brains of a large percentage of new PCs.
The problem is that for certain kinds Of divide Operands, the
Pentium will return awrong result. If you’re using a Pentium-
equipped PC and want to test for this flaw, you can try the follow-
ing operation (as publicized by Infoworld)
which, of course, should yield 4,195,835. If the Pentium returns
4,195,579asthe answer, you’ll confirm that your PC is equipped
with the flawed chip.
without requiring justification on the part of the user (but with a
credit card number taken as a guarantee for return of the flawed
chip, after the replacement is received). WRS]
It’s interesting to note that the original Intel 8088 ran at about
0.5 MIPS, when introduced in 1979 or thereabouts, while a 100-
MIPs Pentium was released in March of 1994, a speed increase of
200 times in 15 years. This is close to the approximate “times 10”
increase in mainframe performance every five years that has
occurred since the LNIVAC-I was introduced, in 1953. Assuming
that this growth continues, we should expect to see a CRAY-1 on a
chip about the year 2,000, or a little sooner. Accompanying this
speed increase is the growing volume of PC sales in the US.
According to the November 28, 1994, Business Week cover story,
the 1991 rate of 3.9 million units per year is growing by about one
million per year, so the projected sales for 1995 are 7 . 7 million.
New results for moment-method modeling on PCs and
workstations
Inputfrom G. J. Burke, L156, LawrenceLivermore
NationalLaboratory, (510) 422-8414, In a recent telephone con-
versation, Jeny Burke mentioned some timing results for running
MZC-2 on his Quadra Macintosh, which has been upgraded to an
8100PowerPC. When Jerry revealed that he could run a 300-
unknown problem in less than 10 sec, I realized that this perform-
ance significantly exceeded that of the CDC-7600 computer, which
was our state-of-art mainframe about 20 years ago, at LLNL The
basic runningtime for an integral-equation model is givenapproxi-
mately by

This problem has spawned a lot of humor at Intel’s expense. T = A N 2 +BN3,

One of the better i s (I think), “Why didn’t Intel call their new chip
the 586 as a logical successor to the 486, rather than the Pentium?” where A accounts for matrix-fill time, and B for matrix-solution
“Because when they added 486 and 100 they got 585.99998305.” time. Considering this, we find from Jerry’s data, for the Mac 8100
single-precision computation, that A and B are
Actually, it might have been hoped that Intel’s response to this
problem would have been somewhat more positive. Apparently
their position is that wrong results would so rarely result from using
the Pentium that it isn’t a big deal I suppose not, unless it does
contaminate your calculations, in which case you then apparently and
have to convince Intel that you deserve a replacement. I wonder if
any of our readers have encountered this problem? [Editor’s note:
Since Ed wrote these words, Intel has finally altered their position,
in response to a tremendous outcry from their customers and the
user community, in general According to Intel’s press releases, where an “0”sign rather than an “=” sign is used, because chang-
those seeking a replacement for a “flawed” Pentium should call ing the problem’s parameters can change the values for A and B.

E € € Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37,No. 1, February 1995 a5

For comparison, these two coefficients for the CDC-7600 computer8100,Mac SDK -0, 784. 74.1
are single precision 1200X1200
Mac 8100, SDK -0, 934. 82.2
3x sec double precision 12OOX1200
DEC Alpha 3000/400, 32.0
4I5
and single prec. 600x600
DEC Alpha 3000/400, 31.9
15.4
double prec. 600x600”
B , is ~I x IO“
~ sec.
It can be seen that the 600- and 1,200-unknown problems don’t
The size of matrix that a given computer can LU factor in one hour scale from 300 unknowns according to Equation (1). Rather than
is a useful measure of comparison For the Mac 8100, and assuming -
scaled totals of 49 and 292 sec, the times are, instead, -104 and
that the times scale simply with problem size as N 2 and N 3 , 858 sec, respectively, or afactor of approximately 2to3 times
respectively, this works out to be about 3,100 unknowns, which I higher. Evidently, this increase is due to the cache memory not
found to be a staggering number. Actually, when I first talked to being as effective for the larger problems This effect reduces the
Jerry about this, I made a mistake in the one-hour time estimate, actual one-hour LU factorization time to about 2,150 unknowns,
and had initially obtained 1,300 unknowns, a number that I never- still an impressive number for a desktop PC.
the-less found extremely impressive. For comparison, the 8 100 one-
hour number is not too much less than what the CRAY-I can han- As Jeny observes, “The Alpha is definitely a fast computer,
dle. Considering that a new 1 I O - M H z Power PC chip is now avail- and probably not too expensive. Of course the software, compilers,
able, the one-hour solution frequency will be about 10% higher, etc. would run it up
since Jerry’s 8100 operates at 80 M H z .
“The Mac PPC code was compiled with the Absofl Corpora-
Of course, in order to achieve these times, it’s necessary to tion FORTRAN 7 7 SDK compiler [at least Jerry thinks that is the
avoid out-of-core computation and, possibly, to fblly exploit what- name by which it’s known]. A l l of their compilers are becoming
ever caching system the PC employs. A 3,000-complex-unknown ‘SDKs’ (Software Development Kits), and in ...talking to the Absofi
matrix requires on the order of 72 MBytes of memory in single support person, we refer to it as the SDK compiler.
precision, which is now within thescope of available memory
Some of the new systems will handle up to 256 MBytes. Thus, that “MF II is the Absoft MacFORTRAN II, version 3 2 compiler,
desktop computer has actually moved to the vicinity of the main- and -N40requestscode optimized for the 68040 SDK is the
frames of only 10 years ago. Now to Jerry’s input. Absoft compiler for the Power PC. The second, slower, time for
single precision was with the code set for ‘frequent command-.
“So far, I have tried running NEC-2 on the Power PC. The checks.’ This slows it down, since it is checking foran interrupt,
times, in seconds, for a 300-segment problem were [for compari- but it makes it possible to run itin the background in System 7 or
son, Jerry includes results for a number of computers and configu- MulriFinder, while you are doing something like editing with
rations. E M ] another program. I think the double-precision SDK code was also
compiled for frequent command-checks.
Computer/configuration Fill Factor
Quadra
650, MT I1 compiler 33.9
37.5 “The compiler produces code for the PPC and it will not run
-N40, double precision on 68K Macs. However, the compiler runs in Macintosh Program-
Quadra 650 withPDS PPC 90 4.8 mers Workshop (MPW), which is still running in emulation on the
card, SDK, single precision Power PC. Apple will have to come u p with a new MPW for the
Mac 8100, SDK -0, 2.92 37 6 PPC. Perhaps partly for this reason, the SDK compiler is fairly
single precision slow. It takes 30 minutes to compile “V‘EC-2 on my Quadra 650
Mac 8100, SDK -0, 3.53 6.90 with PPC card (66 h4Hz), as compared with I O minutes to compile
single precision, command checks in MucFORTRAN ZI, v 3 2, on the Quadra 650, and 54 seconds
Mac 8100, SDK -0, 6.80 5.85 with the old MacFURTRA~020compiler on the Quadra 650. The
double precision 020 compiler was originally written by Absofl for the 128K Macs,
IBM RS/6000 Model 550, 6.5 8.0 so it had to be small and fast. At least the SDK compiler has a good
-0 opt., double precision ‘make file’ builder, so you can build a make file and then it will only
DEC Alpha 3000/400. 2.53 4.23 recompile subroutines that have been changed since the last compi-
single prec. lation. The Absoft support person said that they are working on
DEC
2.58Alpha
4.24
3000/400, speeding up the SDKcompiler, and I sent them a copy of NEC-2 to
double prec ” use as a test. At least it seemed fairly free of bugs, as NEC-2 com-
piles OK. The older v3.2 compiler for 68K had a bug in optimiza-
Jerry then proceeded to do problems of 600 and 1,200 unknowns, tion that required some work-around for NEC-2, but that is fixed in
to determine whether the expected scaling law would be verified. SDK. The only thing that I have found was that if you use a file-
When he did this for the Mac 8100 and DEC Alpha PCs, he opening dialogue box and click CANCEL, the program hangs. That
obtained the following results (with the matrix size indicated for was a surprise to Absoft, and they said that it may not be easy to
each entry). fix. There is another, harder, way to get the dialogue box that
works OK, however.
Computer/configuration Fill Factor
“Mac 8100, SDK -0, 23 4 80.8
single precision 600X600 “Lately, I have been trying to get both the v 3 2 and SDK
Mac 8100, SDK -0, 248 91 2 compilers installed in the same MPW on my Mac. Absofl had said
double precision 600X600 that it was easy, but after several attempts failed, they realized that

86 IEEE Anfennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 1, February 1995
it was not so easy. The said that they would figure out how to do it
and send me an e-mail, but I have had no word from them yet.”
Accuracy and publication
I hope that you read the new policy regarding quantitative
accuracy statements, which are to be required in future articles
appearing in the AP-S Maguzine, which was published in the Octo-
ber, 1994, issue on page 39. This statement should not be viewed as
the “last word” on the subject, but as an initial attempt to evolve a
final, working policy Over the last few decades, our community
has gotten away from routinely providing objective accuracy state-
ments in written and oral presentations that could be rigorously
justified according to accepted practice and standards. Instead, they
have been replaced with subjective and fuzzy claims, such as “good
agreement” and “agree closely,” whose acceptance, like beauty,
most often lies in the eye of the beholder.
There are at least two ways by which this unfortunate trend
might be reversed One would be to carefully develop a complete,
rigorous, formal policy that would be put in placeat some future
time, with the expectation that it would remain in effect indefinitely.
It can be appreciated that following this approach would take much
effort, and likely entail long delay. The other, chosen by the Magu-
rine to realize a more-immediate change, would be to develop a
policy incrementally This can be done by beginning with a modest
first step, designed to achieve real improvement without generating
untoward resistance, and permitting revision as experience dictates.
This is the approach that has been chosen. Any comments and sug-
gestions that you mighthave concerning this new policy are wel-
come.
This same policy is being considered by ACES for its publica-
tions. Also, there w i l l also be a special session at the ACES 1995
meeting, in Monterey, California, being held during the week March
20-24, on the topic of software and model validation. If this is a
topic of particular interest to you, information about the meeting
can be obtained from the Symposium Administrator, Dr. R. W.
Adler, ECE DepartmendCode ECAB, Naval Postgraduate School,
Room 437, Monterey, CA 93943-5121. Dr. Adler’s telephone and
Fax numbers are (408) 646-1 11 1 and (408) 649-0300, respectively,
and his e-mail address is 5541304@mcimail.com.
Contributions solicited for IEEE Polenfink
As an IEEE member, you may be aware of the student maga-
zine Potentials, now published six times per year, and for which I
have the privilege of being the present Editor. (Past AP-S President
Allan Love is one of our Associate Editors.) This magazine, which
has a circulation of about 50,000, and which is available to non-
student members for S15.00 per year, covers topics of interest to
students, including education, career development, and technical
areas. We continueto seek prospective articles from practicing
engineers on any topics that mightbe appropriatefora student
audience. Submitted articles are reviewed by a panel of student
readers and editorial-board members Should yoube interested in
writing an article for the magazine, it would be welcomed. If you
would like an authors’ kit or to discuss a tentative article topic with
me, I would welcome your contacting me
A FURTRANsubroutine for determining the
effective width of
a waveguide by measuring its resonance frequencies
/€.€E Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37,No. 1 , February
87 1995
Contribution by C. C. Lin,Dornier GMBH, Deutsche
Aerospace,AppliedResearchDivision, POBox 1420, D-7990
Friedrichshafen 1, Germany.The following contribution was
originally sent to Hal Shrank for his “Antenna Designer’sNote-
book,” but he felt that it might be somewhat more appropriate for
“PCs for A p , ” given the topic and approach described. 1 agreed to
include it in a future column; unfortunately, a great deal of time has
elapsed (almost matching the time between submittal and publica-
tion in the Transactions!)because of Hal’s and my travels, which
resulted in our misplacing the manuscript, for which we apologize
to the author.
1. Abstract
A FORTRAN subroutine is presented, which accurately
determines the effective width of a waveguide and its length, by
measuring the resonance frequencies of the cavity made of the same
waveguide. This measurement method only necessitates a scalar
network analyzer and standard waveguide components.
2. Effective width of a waveguide
An accurate knowledge of the wavelength within a waveguide
is a necessary requirement for a phase-error-free design of slotted-
waveguide antennas In principle, this can be achieved by a precise
measurement of the waveguide cross section, including the radius
of the rounded corner. This is, however, a tedious task, necessitat-
ing special instruments, which are often not available in one’s labo-
ratory Even if the cross section was known, the correction formula
involving the comer radius [ I ] would be only first-order accurate
An alternative, and simpler but accurate way, to determine the
wavelength or the effective width is to measure the resonance fre-
quencies of a cavity made of a short section of the waveguide to be
characterized In the following, a FORTRAN subroutine is pre-
sented, which iteratively calculates the effective width and
waveguide length by matching the eigenfrequencies of the cavity to
the measured ones. This method is especially useful when one
wishes to characterize waveguides for applications in extreme tem-
peratures (high-temperature or cryogenic applications).
3. Eigenfrequencies of waveguide cavity
Figure 1 shows the measurement setup of the waveguide cav-
ity. The cavity, formed by the waveguide section and thetwo
screens at both ends, is weakly coupled to the coax-to-waveguide
transitions, through a small hole at the center of each of the screens.
As a rule of thumb, a maximum transmission level of between -40
to -30 dB, within the frequency range of interest, is most adequate
for the resonance-frequency measurement.
Assuming the fundamental Hlo mode within the waveguide,
the eigenfrequencies of the cavity are given by
‘b
TO network
mhlzsr A
n
m*
To nework
- l
Caaxiwa*eguide
m m n
Screen whh
\
- Waveguldero w mewred
i-;
Sclsen whh
Cwhavegu#de
VWC3KioT
coupling apenure couplirg apenure
Figure 1. Measurement setup for waveguide cavity.
 f r 0 ( l ; ) =2C / ( al ) ’ + ( $ ) ’ ,

where I, is the number of half wavelengths at the i-th resonance

frequency, a is the effective width of the waveguide, and d is the
cavity length. Those eigenfrequencies must be compared to the
measured resonance frequencies, in a least-square sense:

where E’ is the measure of the error in the L, sense, n is the num-

ber of chosen resonance frequencies, and f,“’is the measured I-th a22 =-x[”*]
A1 ;=I (I.) ,
resonance frequency

I t must be noted that the f,“’s are not the directly measurable
resonance frequencies, but those of a lossless cavity. The measured
resonance frequencies, in fact, include the effects ofthe ohmic
losses in the cavity walls, as well as the coupling losses towards the
exterior. They are given by The convergence criterion is satisfied if

where fJi) and f’) are the measured upper and lower -3 dB fre-
quency points. The desired resonance frequencies (of the lossless where E, is the relative convergence criterion (e+., E, = IOd).
cavity) are related to f,””by [2]

5. Example

The following set of resonance frequencies has been measured

where on asection of Ku-band waveguide:

f y

QP=

is the loaded-quality factor at the i-th resonance frequency

4. Gradient least-square method

An iterative solution to the minimization of the error, defined

by Equation (3), converges towards a best combination of a and d,
i.e., the eigenfrequencies according to Equation (2) must closely
match the measured resonance frequencies given by Equation (5).
The iterative formulas for a and d a r e given by [3] In this particular case, only odd numbers of /,s have been used. The
initial values for a and d are

a, = 15.799 [mm]

and

do = 2 15.0 [mm]

After iteration, with E, = IO6,

where
a = 15.758 [mm]

and

d = 215.07 [mm].
88 IEEE Antennas and Propagation
Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 1 , February 1995
6. References DO 20 L=L-START,L-END
A1 l=Al I+DFRODD(A,D,LMODE(L))**2
1, W. B W . Alison, Handbookfor the htecha)mxl irolera)?cingo j
& DFRODD(A,D,LMODE(LL))
Wavegurde Conrportenrs, London, Artech House, 1987. 20 A22=A22-A22DFRODA(A,D,LMODE(L))**2
DELTA-A1 1 *A22-A12**2
2 M. Sucher and J. Fox, Hmdhook ofM/cronJaveMeaslrrernents, IF (ABS(DELTAj.LE.0.0 THEN
Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Microwave Research Institute, PRINT 100
Contract DA-36-039 sc-73166, Brooklyn, NY, 1963 100 FORMATi' *** DETERMINANT=O DETECTED IN
& SUBROUTINE
EFFDIM!')
RETURU
3. K Arbenz and A Wohlhauser, Ana/yse Numerique, Lausanne, END IF
Switzerland, Presses Polytechniques Romandes, 1980. AI I=Al IlDELTA
A12=AIZfDELTA
A22=AZ?DELTA
P
c
7. Program C CALCULATE RESONANCE FREOL'ENCY
~

C DEVIATIONS
C**************************************~************
DO 30 L=L-START,L-END
C SUBROUTINE EFFDIM(A.D.FRO.LMODE. 30 DELFRO(L)=FRE(LI-0.5*C*
CL-START,L-END.EPSR) & SQRT(At*i-2)+(LMODE(L)ID)**2
C***************************************************
C
,c. C CALCULATECORRECTEDDIMENSIONS,EQS. (6)
C FUNCTION: ESTIMATION OF CAVITY DIMENSIONS "A" C AND 171
C AND "D"FOR A GIVEKSET OF RESONANCE DELA=O.O'
C FREOLENCIES "FRO" DELD=O.O
c PARPIMETERS: DO 40 L=L START.L END
C A--EFFECTIVEWIDTH OF WAVEGUIDE (MM) [INITIAL & DELA=DELA+DELFRO(L)*
c VALUE AS I N P U T , FINAL
VALUE AS OWPUT] & (DFRODA(A,D,LMODE(Lj)*All
C D--LENGTH OFWAVEGUIDE CAVITY (MM) [INITIAL & +DFRODD(A.D.LMODEfLL\)*A12)
~,~ ,~~-~ ~ \ ~ ~ , ,
c VALUE AS INPUT.. FINAL
~ VALUE AS OUTP~l 40
I~

DELD=DEL%DELFRO(L)*
~ ~ ~~~

6
~ ~~ ~ ~~

FRO--ARRAY CONTAINING MEASURED RESONANCE & (DFRODD(A,D,LMODE(L))*A22

c FREQUENCIES OF
LOSSLESS CAVITY
IGHZ) & +DFRODA(A.D.LMODE(LI)*Al2)
. . . . ,,
C LMODE-ARRAY CO?JTAINING NUMBERS OF HALF-
I

A=A-DELA
C WAVELENGTHS (CORRESPONDING TO "FRO") D=D-DELD
C L-START-IKDEX SPECIFYINGTHESTARTING OF C
C THE FREQUENCYSUBSET TO BE USED CTESTOFCOhVERGENCE, EQ. (14)
C L-END--INDEX SPECIFYISG THE END OF THE IF (ABS(DELNA).LE.EPSR .AND. ABS(DELDD)
c FREQUENCY SUBSET TO BE USED (L-END - .LE.EPSR THEN RETURN
c L-START C > 2) END IF
C EPSR-RELATIVE COSVERGEKCECRlTERlON (E.G. IF(N.GT.100) THEN PRIST200
C I .E-6) 200 FORMAT(' *** CONVERGENCE PROBLEM IN
C & SUBROUTINE
EFFDIM!)
CREMARK: END IF
c --"A". ' n
-" . - - ''FRO" ARE IN DOUBLE PRECISION
AND ~ ~ ~
C
C --"L-START> AND ''L-END- ALLOW A SUBSET OF N=N+1
C ALL
AVAILABLE RESONANCE
FREQUENCIES
IN GO TO 10
c THE ARRAY TO BE USEDFOR THE ESTIMATION C
C iAT LEAST RESONANCE
3 FREQUEKCIES) END
c C***************************************************
C' AUTHOR:
c c. C'. LIN DOUBLE PRECISION FUNCTION
C DORh-IERGMBH,DEUTSCHEAEROSPACE
C APPLIED RESEARCHDIVISION
C PO
BOX 1420
C D-7990 FRIEDRICHSHAFEN 1 C PARTIAL DERIVATIVE OF EIGENFREQLJENCY WITH
C GERMAW C RESPECT TO ..A',EQ. (8)
r
C TEL. t49-7545-83914 L

c
h C***************************************************
r
C DATE:
SEPT. 30, 1992 c
C DOUBLE PRECISION C,A,D
.................................................... PARAMETER (C~299.7925)
c C
DOUBLE PRECISIOS C.A,D.FRO(ZO,EPSR, DFRODA=-O,S*C!(A**3*SQRT(A**(-2)
& DFRODA,DFRODD,DELFRO(20),DELTA,AI 1,A12, & +ILMODEIDI**2))
& ,422,DELA.DELD C
DIMENSION LMODE(2O) RETURV
PARAMETER iC=290.7925) EhD
C
N=O
10 CONTISLY DOUBLE PRCISION FUNCTION
c & DFRODD(A,D,LMODEI
C CALCULATE SC3fMATIONS OF PARTIAL ....................................................
C DERIVATIVES. EQS. (101, ( I I ) , (12) AND (13) f-
L
A 1 I =0.0 C PARTIAL DERIVATIVE OF EIGENFREQUENCY WITH
A12-0.0 C RESPECT TO "D". EQ. (9)
A22=0.0 C

IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 1, Februlary 1995 89

C network. More than a score of them have sprung up, under the
DOUBLE PRECISION C,A,D
PARAMETER (C=299.7925)
C ants’ networks are organized around geographic regions. Because
DFRODD=-0.5*CtLMODE**2/(D**3
& *SQRT(A**(-2)+(LMDEtD)**2))
C 100 individuals, they are often unable to refer a potential client to
RETURK
END
A call for uarticipation
Microwave Consultants’
Network Forms
Jim L‘ssailis
Another consultants’ network has evolved. In June, 1994,
Steve Maas ofNonlinear Technologies, Inc., convinced the AdCom
of the IEEE hlicrowave Theory and Techniques (MTT) Society to
support this network. Steve has become the de-facto leader, while I
volunteered to be the holder of the database, and the contact point
to theoutsideworld. We are currently aliveand well, with 23
members So far, I have not been overwhelmed with calls from
potential clients. This is undoubtedly not due to a lack of enthusi-
asm, but is probably due to a lack of marketing and a small mem-
bership.
We are seeking new members Anyone who has a connection
with RF or microwave consulting is encouraged to join. This
includes antenna, propagation, radar, Ehfl,etc., specialists. Both
f u l l - and part-time consultants are welcome. The purpose ofthe
group is to network, share leads, and spread the word about our-
selves and our profession. Presently, there are no dues or fees.
We do receive some support from MTT In the next few
months, we plan to use that support to market ourselves within the
IEEE fraternity. As we grow in fame, we plan to begin to advertise
in the trade journals At that time, we will propose an appropriate
dues structure, for vote by the membership
Those of you that have undertaken the full-time consulting
route realize the value of marketing. One cannot open a business
and wait for clients. You must getthe word out A consultants’
network is one relativity inexpensive marketing tool Andit is
effective: Over sixty percent of my income during 1994 was attrib-
utable to my listing with the Boston Section Consultants’ Network.
111111111111111111IIIIII11111111111111111111lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
90
You may wonder if the world needs another consultants’
auspices ofthe IEEE, overthe past several years. Computer-
software consultants dominate these networks.Most IEEE consult-
these networks cover a broad range of disciplines, with fewer than
an appropriate consultant ThehlTT network is the only IEEE
network organized around a technical area; thus, it should be more
successful at matching the consultant to needs of the client.
On the non-IEEE side, thereare many other consultant
groups.These consist of several types of “shops” They are the
traditional consultant businesses, job-shop houses, private clearing
houses, and other independent networks The first twooffer
employment, payable under W2 tax rules, while the latter offer
contracts for a percentage fee These organizations often specialize
in civil, construction, power plant, and other “heavy” engineering
trades Microwave engineering is not related to their work. For all
they know, we fix ovens or install satellite dishes.
RF and microwave engineers have not played in these tradi-
tional consulting roles. Typically. we work for a company that
originally hired us to solve a specific set of problems. We are then
retained to put out the occasional “fire.” In the interim, many of us
are thrust into program management. A microwave consultant
should be a natural fit for the needs of many of the smaller and
medium-sized firms. The recent military downsizing has only
increased the need for microwave consultants. Many businesses
cannot afford to keep hll-time microwave engineers on their staff,
This same downsizing has also increased the ranks of consultants.
All that is required, to serve both groups, is a network to align con-
sultant with client.
Don’t be a voice in the wind; be a voice that directs this
effort. Become part of thegroup that represents only RF and
microwave engineers. There is no formal application. Simply send
your name, affiliation, telephone number, Fax number, ofice, and
email addresses, together with a 20-word or less statement describ-
ing your specialties, to the MTT Consultants’ Network at either of
the addresses below. Also, include a list of no more than 20 key-
words, related to your specialty. A DOS-format disk, with comma
delimiters, is appreciated, but not necessary You may direct any
questions to Steve Maas or myself
Steve Mass Jim Ussailis
Nonlinear Technologies, Inc. Ussailis Engineering
238 E. San Antonio Drive 24 O’Donnell Drive
Long Beach, CA 90807 Florence, M A 01060
Tel: (310)426-1639 Tel: (413) 586-5111
Fax: (310) 426-1639 Fax.
(413) 585-8645
s.maas@ieee.org ussaiIis@forum.phast.umass.edu
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 1, February 1995
 Edmund K. Miller
Ohio UniversHy
Deportment of Electrical and Computer Engineering
331 Stocker Center
Athens, OH 45701
(614) 593-1603
(614) 59343X7 (FAX)
emiller8bobcot.ent.ohiou.edu (ernail)

Some Comments on Research and

Publication Practices and Ethics

W hile visitingStellenboschUniversity, in South Africa, in

1994, Professor John Cloete, my hostthere,askedme
give a talk to a regular meeting of graduate students and faculty.
to
The talk was on professional ethics, specifically as related to pro-
motionand tenure (P&T), whichwasdiscussed in two previous
columns(August,1993,andJune, 1994), and the concomitant
issues of researchandpublication. He had a particularreason,
related to research, for suggesting this topic, which is the appar-
ently growing practice of reporting results that, while of academic
interest, are purported to have near-term practical utility when, in
fact, that is not demonstrably the case. He also intended that stu-
dents in thedepartmenthearabout some aspects of professional
behaviorandP&Trequirementsin another country, at least on a
one-samplebasis.Oneunanticipatedreaction to my talkwas the
listeners finding that the system and rules which govern academic
personnel in South Africa may not be as harsh as those living there
mighthave thought. The facultywereheartened,admittedly in a
perverse sort of way, to learn that perhaps the route to academic
success at US schoolsmightactuallybelessattractivethantheir
own.
The ethicscomponent of thistalkwasalsorelevant to my
nearly-10-yearassociation
with ZEEE Potelltinls, the student
magazine, as I had solicited articles on ethics for it as well, some-
thing which also prompted me to include the IEEE Code of Ethics
in a previouscolumn(February,1993).Like others, I had also
becomeconcerned,overmanyyears of recruitingengineering
graduates for LLNL and LANL, that the concentration on technical
topics in engineering education had squeezed out of the curriculum
courses on topics such as communications, both written and oral, as
well as professionalism. Thus, I agreed to give a talk that was a lit-
tle moregeneralthanwhatProfessor Cloete originallyrequested,
the gist of whichfollows,below. I also plan onsubmittingthis
write-up, withmodification, to Poferlfinls.The topic alsoseems
appropriate at this time, as it’s related to an item mentioned in the
August, 1994, column, about questions concerning reviewing prac-
tices that arose from a presentation at the 1994 Seattle AP-S meet-
ing.
I should note that what follows is based on my own experi-
ences, working for 5 1/2 years in industry, 13 years in academia,
and 19 years in governmentlaboratories, and expresses my own
opinionsandperceptions. I believethat where what is discussed
here is covered by the IEEE Code ofEthics,they are in accord.
/€€E Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 2, April 1995
However, noteverythingincludedhereisofan”ethics” nature.
Hence, the word “practices” in the topic title. My comments were
initially intended for students and younger members of our profes-
sion. I would hope to find that those of us who have been in the
work force for a whilewould find nothingcontroversial here.
Instead, I wouldhopewewouldagreethatitcanbehelpful to
articulate issues related to professional behavior that are most-often
assumed, but hardly ever discussed, and about which there may be
wide variations, in practice. I would certainly welcome comments
and feedback, expressing agreement or differences of opinion. To
some extent, this discussion is more academically oriented than for
industry, where differentboundaryconditionsapply,butmost of
the issues are encountered, in one form or another, independent of
where one is employed.
1. Introductory remarks
It is my belief that P&T decisions in the US are increasingly
driven by money considerations. (Although P&T is a concern of a
relatively small number of our Society, finding funding via writing
proposals, or a market for our products, is a concern of nearly all of
us, in that all our jobs depend on financial resources, and so similar
considerations apply, in one way or another, to most of us. Actu-
ally,this is a problemfromwhichacademiawassupposed to be
immune, but this has obviously changed.) This beliefwas reinforced
by a book that I recently read, Impostors iu the Temple, by Martin
Anderson(Simon & Schuster,1992).Itis getting to thepoint
wheresome, if notmany,universities are making the amount of
research funding developed by an individual the most important-if
not effectively the only-consideration in awarding tenure. Teaching
effectivenessalonecertainlydoesn’tseem to beconsidered suffi-
cientanymore,andsometimesseems not even to be relevant.
Scholarly activity is a term that more and more often seems to be a
code wordthatmeasuresresearchdollarsbroughtin,morethan
anything else.
Whateverallthereasonsthatmightbecited,pressurehas
increased on engineering faculty to do more, including publishing,
i.e., the old saying, that “publish or perish” (P or P) is the golden
rule by which academicians live, is still alive and well. With all of
the “downsizing” going on in US industry and government labora-
tories, the pressure to do more is also being felt by those remaining.
The bottom line and declining budgets have assumed ever greater

___
importance, even if publishing per se is not so stressed. Wherever
one works, the pressure to publish is partly driven by funding in any
case, because successful proposalwritersaremore likely to be
those whose workis better known through theirpublications. Thus,
at least in engineering, the P or P rulehasbeenaugmented to
become “find hnding and publish, or perish,” i.e. not get promoted,
or notgettenure, or not keep your job. Publicationhas also
become more common as a “ticket” to the proliferating number of
meetings being held, where giving a paper is often the only way to
ensure attending a meeting.Finally, there are also more journals
being published and more pages per journal, for more publication
proliferation.
The result of these pressures has been an apparently substan-
tial increase in the amount of publication by those active in their
fields. It has possibly also created a number of associated problems
with regard to publication ethics and related issues. Because of its
length, this column is the first of two parts, addressed to thegeneral
topic of research and publication practices, andethics.
2. Information dissemination, i.e., publishing
There are numerousdimensions to being a practicing member
of the engineering profession, one of the more prominentbeing
information dissemination, or publishing. First, it should be noted
thattheterminologyof publishing can be confusing. Theterm
“article”is reserved here for items that are publishedinarchival
journals, for which the term “manuscript” or “draft” is used for the
original version submitted by an author. A “paper,” on the other
hand, is used to denote something that is verbally presented at a
conference,meeting, or symposium. Thewrittendescriptionthat
accompanies that papermay be an abstract of afew hundred words,
a summary of possibly a couple of thousand words, or a more
complete write-up that could run to several thousand words. The
latterare publishedin whatare usuallycalled proceedings or
digests.
2.1 Publishing: why bother?
Professionalassignments,wherewriting is partof thejob,
include not only some basiccommonissues,butalso some that
might differ for an individual working alone, as opposed to soma
one working as part of a team. These issueswill also vary depend-
ing on employer. Open publication is a job requirement for some
(academia), whereas it might even be proscribed by other employ-
ers, because of proprietary or security reasons, two categories that
are not considered in detail, here. Nevertheless, most of us whose
jobs require documenting our work will, atsometime or other,
confront questions likewhat, when, where, how and, perhaps most
importantly,why, to publish,Le., adocumentation decision. The
answers to thesequestionsare self-evident,when contractually
required documentation is needed,such as progress reports, etc.
The answers are not so clear, when the documentation is optional,
or peripheral to specific job needs but pursued because of personal
interest, or simply as partof a feltprofessionalresponsibility to
inform colleagues of information that might be of wider benefit.
Other reasons for optional publication are bringing credit to your
employer, or to provide sponsors of your work with tangible evi-
dence of its value.
Perhaps themost common aspect of reading journal articlesis
the reader’s expectation of finding accounts of successful research
anddevelopmentactivities. This is not surprising,since most
authors are more willing to share their successes with others than
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magarine, Vol. 37, No. 2, April 1995
their failures. But in many cases, finding out what doesn’t work can
be at least as valuable. Most research is not conducted in an unbro-
ken string of successes, but is, instead, a process of learning what
works and what doesn’t. To the extent that finding out what works
will be helphl to others, who can thus avoid the same mistakes,
publishing negativeresults should beat least tolerated, if not
encouraged. This is not something that most journal editors Seem
willing to do.
2.2 Publishing: meeting presentations
When open publication is chosen, a decision to publish nowa-
days is probably most often first made in connection with giving a
‘‘paper” at a meeting. Since meeting dates are out of the individ-
ual’s control, one can’talwayshaveneatly tied up a project to
coincide with them. Since due dates are often monthsahead of the
actual meeting, the presentationsgiven at these forums havegrown
more to resemble a series of ongoing progress reports, ratherthan
presenting a final description of some concludedwork. There is
nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but we should all understand
what the “rules” of this kind of publishing are. For example, ifthere
are three or four meetings, having overlapping themes, during the
course of the year for which the work in question is relevant, and
we want to make a presentation ateach meeting, is itappropriate to
speak on the same general topic at each, and are there any guide-
lines that apply to thissituation?Most of us would agreethat
sending identical abstracts to each of these meetings would not be
right, but further questions arise:
If identical abstractsare not acceptable, howdifferentshould
these abstractsbe?
Would an abstract at one meeting, a summary at another, and a
full article at the third, all on the same topic and having the same
results be acceptable?
As an alternative, would it be all right for each presentation to
report different results, obtained using the same procedure?
How different need those resultsbe?
Can the procedureitself be reported onmore than once?
Fundamentally,how much newmaterial is requiredbeforeit is
appropriate to give another presentation?
For presentations given at successive (e.g., yearly) meetings, how
much overlap betweenthem is proper?
If the meetings involve essentially disjoint attendance, does that
change anything?
I don’t know what would be regarded as reasonable answers
to these questions, nor am I sure that we would all wen agree on
just what constitutes “new” material. The “bottom line” concerning
meeting presentations is that they are generally intended to be a
different kind of forum,usuallynotarchival.While the rules
governingthem are consequently less rigid,rulesstillapply,and
they possibly need to be enunciated more clearly.
2.3 Publishing: journal articles
Archivalpublications areconsidered important, for at least
two reasons, by those interested in them. One is the value such
79
publications have to those who need such information for theirown
work, Researching the literatureis especially important when a per-
son first becomes involved in a field of study, obviously to avoid
repeating work already done, and also to get an idea of what prob-
lems are considered important in the field. The other is that the
archival literature isdefined by the fact that it contains only
“reviewed” or “refereed” articles, thus ensuring that some quality
control is exercised over what is published. A subsidiary, and com-
mensurate, attribute to those in academia is that it is their reviewed
publications that are given most weight in that component of PLT
decisions. Reviewinghas twooppositeaspects, dependingon
whether you’re the onebeing reviewed or performing the review.
When thework to be reported ismore“mature” or has
reached a natural reporting point, then instead of-or in addition to-
a meeting presentation, it should probably be written as an article,
for submittal to ajournalor some otherappropriate forum for
archival purposes. Then, as in selecting a meeting to at which to
present, it is necessary to select a journalin which to publish. If we
have any past relevant experience, choice of a journal will probably
be basedon the samekinds of considerationsthatdictatewhat
meeting to attend: who attends the meeting, versus what audience
does the journal reach? Certainly, additional factors, such as how
long the reviewing cycle is likely to take, how the editor(s) handle
disagreements, whether there are page charges,what page length is
acceptable, etc., also will be considered. The anticipated fairness of
the entire process, from reviewing through the editor’s decision-
making, can be an important consideration, which raises the issues
of reviewer’s responsibilities that are touchedon fbrther, below.
It’s worth noting that an editor may welcome suggestions, by an
author, for reviewers, although the editor is also likely to select at
least one otherreviewer beyond those suggestions.
3. The review and publishing
As with many aspects of life, therearetwo sides tothe
“reviewing equation:” being reviewed or performing reviews. Each
of these activitiesis consideredbelow.
3.1 Being reviewed
One of the inescapable facts of publishing is the need to sub-
ject one’s work to the scrutiny and evaluation of others, known as
“referees” or reviewers. To some of us, this can be an ego-threaten-
ing and intimidating experience, not something for the faint-hearted
or thin-skinned. I have colleagues who, though gifted and capable,
have deliberately chosen not to publish, because they don’t wantto
deal with possible rejection. It’s hard not to take negative reviews
personally,evenwhen the reviewisdiplomaticand constructive;
when the review is blunt and negative, it’sall the more difficult. My
personal experience has been that it’s almost always possible to get
one’s work published if one is convinced of its value, and is not
willing to take no for an answer. But this takes persistence and
commitment. Furthermore, the reviewing process is not all bad, by
any means: it should be recognized that well-done reviews can be
extremely valuable to improving material submitted for publication,
andit’s to an author’s advantage to begin the process with this
expectation as an “initial condition.”
After the reviews have been received with the editor’s deci-
sion, there are usually three good or acceptable possibilities, from
the author’s perspective. First, the editor
might decide that articleis
acceptable for publication without any changes. This sounds ideal,
but since I knowpersonally that my writingcanalways be
80
IEEE Antennas and
improved, it might not be the bestreview to get, since itcould
signify that the reviewers have not done a careful job. Second, and
perhapsthe bestdecision,is one where theeditor recommends
publication as submitted, but with only minor changes. This means
that the author has specific guidelines, to help clarify points and
improve the discussion, by taking advantage of the comments and
suggestions in the reviews. Third, less desirable but still positive, is
an editorialdecisionthat says the article is acceptable only with
major revisions, and after subsequent review. It’s really advisableto
read the reviewsmostcarefullythen, as sometimes whatare
regarded as major needed changes are ratherminor, once an author
understands the reviewers’ suggestions. For both of the latter two
editorial responses, it’s also highly advisable to include a letter to
the editor, with the revised manuscript, that describesin detail what
changes have been made, or an explanation of why they have not
been made, when anauthor feels this course is justified.
Finally, the fourth, least-desirable, editorial decision, concern-
ing one’s paper, isthat it’s rejected outright. Although this outcome
may be most discouraging, the reviews should again be carefully
considered. It may rarely happen that a reviewer and/or the editor
have made an outright mistake that, when pointed out diplomati-
cally, will change the decision. Most often, however, this will not be
a feasible response. Instead, the original manuscript, suitably modi-
fied, might be submitted to another journal.It’s probably not advis-
able, at this point, to mention that the article waspreviously submit-
ted elsewhere. However, it’s also highly advisable to take advan-
tage of the originalreviews in modifying the paper, rather than
resubmitting it without change. Keep inmind that ours is a rela-
tively small community, and it could happen that your manuscript
will be sent to one of its original reviewers, with predictable conse-
quences if it hasn’t been revised.
3.2 Performing reviews
The flip side of being reviewed is reviewing the work of oth-
ers. There are some obligations of reviewing which a reviewer who
accepts an article agrees to honor, implicitly if not explicitly. One of
the more obvious is acknowledging to the sending editor whether
any colleagues have participated in the review process. Another is
that in accepting a paper, the reviewer is implicitly indicating some
appropriate degree of expertise in the subject matter, a question
that is sometimes made part of the review form that accompanies
the article. Still a third is avoiding any conflict of interest in per-
forming the review.
The latter is probably one of themore commonly encountered
dilemmas for a reviewer. Naturally, papers are sent to reviewers
known to have some knowledge in the subjectaddressed in the
paper. This also means that the author will probably be known to
the reviewer, and both author and reviewer can be, in some sense,
competitors, either forfunding, recognition, to be the first to report
on a significant new results, etc. This may make it difficult for a
reviewer to be appropriately objective, and possibly result in a bias
that the reviewer isn’t even aware of A good reviewer is aware of
this possibility, andtakes careto avoid it.
Perhaps the key issue concerning reviewing isjust what is the
review supposed to accomplish? Reviews and reviewers are sought
by editors for quality control, and to ensure that their publication
maintains thestandardsintended. Thus,reviewers are asked to
consider such questions as whether the submitted material is appro-
priate for the publication; whether it reports on work that is new
andoriginal; whethertheresults it reports are significant;and
whether its referencesare complete.Also, the reviewerwill be
Propagation
Magazine,
Vol. 37,No. 2, April 1995
asked to consider whether reducing the length of the submittal is
recommended, or if some aspects need more elaboration. Finally, an
overall rating of the submittal is usually requested of the reviewer-
say, ranging from poor to excellent-and a bottom-line recommen-
dation that can range from “publish as is” to “reject outright.”
In my opinion, a good review is not one that consists simply
of checked-off boxes on a review form, without %rther comment.
This kind of review is not very usefU to an editor, nor to an author.
If the article is recommended for rejection, it doesn’t provide the
author any substantive reason why, nor any suggestions for improv-
ing it. A one-sentence comment, such as “This paper contains no
new material and isn’t worth publishing,” is hardly any more useful,
as it gives no explicit evidence for why the reviewer can make this
claim. Even a positive review, with the comment “This is the best
paper this reviewer has seen on this topic,” is not all that helpfbl to
an editor. Some additional elaboration is needed, if only to show
the editor thatthe reviewer has at least read the paper.
A negative review that demonstrates an objective and carehl
reading of the submittal, andmakeshelpful suggestions, is obvi-
ously much more valued by an author than a negative review that is
gratuitously insulting which, unfortunately, some reviews are. The
best reviewis one that provides constructive commentary, and
shows theauthor how the article mightbeimproved from the
reviewer’s perspective. For a reviewer to achieve the latter requires
ANTENNA OPTIMIZERS
/E€€
Pmpagation
Magazine,
Antennas
and Vol. 37, No. 2, April 1995
some work and time, but this is what one should strive for, when
agreeing to doa review in the first place.
Finally, one last reviewer responsibility deserves discussion:
protecting the “property rights” of the author. Material sent by an
author to an editor, and thence to a reviewer, is “privileged” infor-
mation. This means that it cannot be referenced, or otherwise used
by anyone in the review chain, without explicit permission by the
author (my interpretation). That aspect of the publication process
would be generally agreed to by all parties.
However, it may sometimes happen that a reviewer or editor
finds the submitted material helpful in their own work and, being
eager to check this out, contacts the author, to receive permission
to do so. Even if the author agrees, it’s fair to ask whether this is
permissible. M e r all, there may be many others who would be
similarly benefited, but not become aware of the workuntil it’s sub-
sequent publication. Once the material is in the publication cycle, it
would seem that the author is no longer in a position to give per-
mission to anyone to use that material who comes across it in that
process. Whether the author gives the material to others, independ-
ent of the publication chain, for their prior use after submittal for
publication, is another story, the appropriateness ofwhich is not as
clear cut.
[To be concluded in the June issue.] i.2
XFDTD
The X-WindowGraphical User Interface that
provides interactive menu control of
Finite Difference Time Domain calculations
3 Interactively generate, mesh, and modify geometries
0 Use menus to set FDTD calculation parameters
0 Calculate transient near zone and far zone EM fields
0 Visualize transient fields using color intensity
0 Antenna impedancevs fkquency via FFT
0 Antenna Gain Patterns
0 AntennaEfficiency
0 Biological Effects including S A R
0 Microwave Ciarit Design
0 Electromagnetic Scattering
0 Electromagnetic Coupling and Shielding
For colorbrochure and pricing call or write:
REMCOM, Inc.
Calder Square
PO Box 10023
State College, PA 16805-0023
PhoneDax 814353-2986
email remwm@nctcom.com
81
 Edmund K. Miller
Department of Electricaland Computer Engineering
3 3 1 Stocker Center
Athens, OH 45701

(614) 593-7 (FAX)

emlllereDbobcot.ent.ohlou.edu
(ernall)

Part I1 of Comments on “Research and Publication Practices And Ethics”

T his column continues a theme begun in the April, 1995, col-
umn, on thetopic“Research and Publication Practicesand
Ethics.” I won’t repeat the reasons for having discussed this topic,
as they were included in that earlier column, but I do acknowledge
that this general discussion strays towardsthe“EMReflections”
end of the column’s name. I hope that most readers willfind this
discussion at least somewhat relevant to their own experiences, and
n,ould welcome any feedback that you’d like to share, positive or
negative.
presents one’s work, there are many factors to consider. I’ve cho-
sen here to discuss those that relate to ethics and professionalism,
rather than presentation style and design. First of all, it would be
widely agreed, I think, that one of the most important personal
professional attributes any of us has is our credibility and trustwor-
thiness Can what we be believed, or must it be “filtered,” because
of our known biases or past behavior? It takes a long time and a lot
of hard work to acquire a good reputation: it’s too valuable to risk
through inappropriate publicatlon activities.

To recapitulate, Part I of this column, in April, 1995,

addressed
topics
the immediately listed below 4.1 Maintaining
objectivity

1 Introductory remarks One of the most damaging traits to exhibit in publishing is

making exaggerated positive claims, or withholding negative infor-
2 Information dissemination, i e., publishing mation-errors of commission and omission, respectively- either of
2 1 Publishing. why bother? which are equally undesirable. Objectivity should be retained not
22 Publishing. meeting presentations only toward your own work, but toward others’ work, as well. The
23 Publishing. journal articles temptation to do this as a way to gain a competitive advantage is
probably greater when funding is more difficult to get. It should be
3 The review and publishing noted that language, which might be appropriate for research pro-
3.1 Being reviewed posals, is generally not acceptable for archival publication. Neither
3.2 Performing reviews should publications be thinly disguised advertisements. This is per-
haps one of the most difficult distinctions for an author to make, as
This column concludes with the following list of topics: it’s not wrong (it’s even advisable) to tell the reader what’s signifi-
cant about the work being reported, but overstatement should be
4. Publishing somedo’s and don’ts avoided like the plague.
4.1 Maintaining objectivity
4.2 Apox on plagiarism One aspect of being objective is including proper positive ref-
4.3 Referencing the work of others erencing to others’ work, relevant to your own The opposite side
4.4 Multiple publication and advertising of this coin is to refer only to other’s work in a critical vein. Early
inmy career, I received a manuscript written by a certain well-
5, Attending meetings known member of our Society, whose 15 or so references were all
I. 1 Meeting people to his own colleagues or students, except for a couple that were
52 Making a presentation negatively mentioned in the text. This is a situation that occurs all-
5.3 Chairing a session to-often, either through laziness or by intent. something that I
described in my review as “journalistically incestuous.” Even when
6. Collegial relations a reference to other work might need to point out an error, this
does not have tobedone in a denigrating manner; remember,
7. Financial issues can’t be avoided instead, the golden rule. Because referencing is such an important
topic, it’s discussed more hlly below.
4. Publishing: some do’s and don’ts
One thing that we can all probably agree on is that publishing
This could a long and varied list, depending onone’sown results known t o bewrong, or even worse, publishing fraudulent
perspective However and wherever onedocuments or otherwise results, is absolutely unacceptable. This kind of problem seems to

EEEAntennas and Propagation Magazjne, Vol. 37, No. 3,June 1995 61

occur more often in the “soft” sciences, where exactly reproducing
others’ results is not expected, because of the subject matter. For-
tunately, scientific and engineering data is fully subject to checking
by others, and data from different sources is wholly expected to
agree to within someone “experimental” error.
4.2 A pox on plnginrisrn
Anotherunacceptable publication practice is plagiarism, i.e.
using others’results without permission, attribution or credit,
and/or claiming others‘ work as one’s own The formal dictionary
definition of plagiarism is “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words
of another) as one’s own” [Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dic-
tionary, 19861 Examples of outright plagiarism, at least from my
own personal knowledge, are fortunately very rare I do have one
rather personal experience, which seems unequivocal in this regard,
however. It involves an article of mine that was published in the
AP-S Trnnsaclions in 1968, in which I discovered a rather unusual
error in one of the graphs, just about the time the article appeared
in print. The error was in the form of a distinctive dip in an other-
wise smoothcurve. I immediately sent in acorrectionfor that
graph, which was duly printed about six months later. I was sur-
prised subsequently to see another article, on essentially the same
topic and having many similar results and parameters to what I had
used, published in the AP-S Trartsaclians about six yearslater.
Most unusual, however, was the fact that one of graphs (although
poorly drawn) in this article included a close approximation of the
erroneous dip that appeared inmy graph prior to itscorrection
Aside from the hard-to-justify redundancy of the results themselves,
the similar error in that one graph is peculiar
More broadlv, however, plagiarism-related questions most
often fall in gray areas that aren’t so easily defined. Perhapsthe
most common example that can occur in academia, government,
and industry alike is the advisor, sponsor,or manager expecting
their names to be included in an author list, possibly even listed as
first author. I would argue that it’s always appropriate for a thesis
advisor to have their name included as aco-author when, as is
usually the case, they have defined the problem, provided guidance
for its solution by thestudent, and probably also obtained the
funding that has supported the work. On the other hand, if the stu-
dent has been pretty much self-guided in these areas, then whether
the advisor should be a co-author is not so clear. Similar observa-
tions can be made regarding sponsors and managers, Having been a
manager for many years myself, I know the difficulties and hard
work that getting funding can entail, and also how much an effec-
tive manager can contribute to a successful outcome. Unless spe-
cific, significant contributions have been made, however, I would
not expect a manager’s name to be listed as primary author.
4.3 Referencing and acknowledging the contributions o f others
It’s interesting to note that plagiarism is defined to include not
only taking the words of another, but also their ideas. What about
when such words or ideas are not in written form, but the result of
private, or even public, conversations? I would think that when
one’s own work has been influenced or assisted by the suggestions
of others, whatever the circumstances, an obligation arises on the
part of the recipient to make some appropriate acknowledgment of
that contribution. This can be done either explicitly, asa formal
written acknowledgment in a publication, or in the form of a refer-
ence to ‘ private communication ” whether experimental hardware or computersoftware.However,
The obligation to acknowledgeothers’work is otherwise
most often satisfied by referencing. Almost anything one does has
62 IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37,No. 3,June 1995
its origins in previous publications. One reason for referencing is in
order to avoid presenting redundant material, while also guiding the
reader t o background information, if needed. At least as important,
however, is recognizing the contributionspreviously made by other
workers to one’s own work, nowbeing reported. There is no hard-
and-fast rule for this, but it’s alsoadvisable to avoid “over-referenc-
ing” oneself. The percentages will, of course, vary, depending on
the kind of article, but if the number of self-references exceeds
lo“/., this might be considered excessive,
A final comment regarding referencing is to use the original
source of the material being referenced, whenever that is known.
Not to do so is likely to make it more difficult for a reader to find
thereferenced material, but it may also imply credit to another
author, who simply referenced itin his own work. Not using the
original source is probably most often amatter of laziness or
unconcern, by the newest author in a string of possibly numerous
intermediate referencing, beforetracing back to original. I have
been affected by this practice personally. Material that was attrib-
uted, by us, t o an original source, was used in a quite widely refer-
enced chapter that acolleague and I wrote, many years ago. In
some subsequent references to this work, only the editor of the
book in which that chapter appeared was mentioned, as the source
of several figures from that chapter. Had I not known the history of
the material, I could not have determined who did what originally.
This was especially unfair to the author, whose figures were prop-
erly attributed in our chapter.
4.4 Multiple publicntion and advertising
Another necessary decision is whether to writeone single,
comprehensive articleon given work, or to write it as two or more
shorter ones. When resumes and CVs are evaluated by their length
rather than quality, it’s natural to decide on the latter, and probably
easier, too. It’s also one way around page-length limits, imposed by
some journalson published articles. Probably one of the better ways
to handle this kind of problem is to report initial work in letters or
short articles, and to write a longerarticle to pull it all together. For
work that might extend over a Significant period of time, this means
that high points can be reported in a more timely fashion, while the
concluding summary provides the important aspects, all in one
place.
A particular problem that arises these days, probably because
of the ease of “cut-and-paste” computer-document preparation, is
the apparently increasing proliferation of multiply-published results.
Maybe it’s my imagination, but it seems to me that in the pre-
computer days, the average number of articles published by active
researchers must have been quite a bit less than now. When there
were no copy machines. either, making multiple copies of a submit-
tal required carbon copies or photographic processes, while revising
a document usually meant having the whole thing retyped. Perhaps
the sheer difficulty of preparing articles suppressed the number
submitted. Of course, there are also more journals being published
today, so perhapsthere’sa “chicken-and-egg“ question lurking
here.
Another issue, important and complex enough to justify sepa-
rate discussion, is that of scientific publication versus commercial
advertising. In reporting scientific results, it’s to be expected that
the tools used in getting those results are mentioned and described,
when one of those tools is proprietary and available to others only
for purchase, and not enough details are given in thereportfor
someoneelse to replicate that tool (assuming they have the
resources and inclination), then thereport may crossover the
boundary t o commercial advertising This is a perplexing problem,
to which there are noeasy answers.
5. Attending meetings
Meetings provide one of themost stimulating ways of keeping
up-to-date with work in one’s field, or getting an introduction to
new areas. Not all information exchange takes place in the formal
presentations, however. as hallway discussions are at least equally
valuable in this regard In order to get the most from attending a
meeting, some general “rules of etiquette” are worth considering.
5.1 Meeting people
During the early years of one’s career, it’slikely that very few
peopleata meeting will be personal acquaintances. Thus, unless
you accompany someone already well-established, if you’re to meet
others, it will probably be necessary to be reasonably outgoing, by
introducing yourself to others when thechancearises. This is
something that can be intimidating, when the person you want to
meet is the author of a text that was used in one of your classes I
remember how impressed 1 was when my major professor returned
from a meeting, and reported having a discussion with the justitia-
bly famous R. W. P King. My first meetings with many of the “big
names” in our business were also memorable events, in no small
measure because of how that individual reacted to my attempt to
talk with them. Most of these well-known persons were approach-
able and courteous One, in particular, deserves mention, because I
have observed him to demonstrate this trait in various ways over
the years. Upon recognizing my name on my badge, because of his
editorial activities in handling a paper I’d submitted (my first as first
author), Jim Wait introduced himself to me at a meeting many years
ago. I’ve never forgotten his kindness in making me feel welcome,
and it’s a trait I’ve tried to emulate myself.
This suggests a related point in meeting people. At one time
or another, anyone of us can be talking with one or more people
when someone approaches. making it fairly clear that they would
like to join in If that new person is know to you, then why not take
the time to introduce them to the others? If they already know each
other, no harm is done, and rf not, it’s just the right thing to do. On
the other hand, if you’re the one who’s approaching an individual,
hoping to have a word, and they Seem unwilling to talk, it may be
that it’s not a good time to get their attention, not necessarily that
they’re unwilling. You really need more than onedata point to
draw a conclusion
5.2 Making a presentation
The most stimulating event at meetings for presenters-at least
for their first 10 or 20 times it’s done-is probably in actually mak-
ing a presentation. Prior to the session, the chairman will want to
meet you, to confirm the presence of his session’s speakers, imd
who, for multi-author papers, will be presenting it. (The chairman
might also want to know how you want to be introduced. At a ses-
sion I once chaired, one of the presenters was a young woman. of
whom I inquired, “Do you want to be introduced as Miss, Ms., or
Mrs.?” to which she replied “Well, it’s Dr., actually.’‘ That was
really dumb on my part, but I learned a valuable lesson. Dr. Janice
Karty still talks to me, fortunately, as we recalled this event at the
recent ACES meeting ) Most presentations these days employ vis-
ual aids, such as vugraphs and, increasingly, videos. It’s important
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 3, June 1995
to plan a talk so that the material can be covered in the available
time, remembering thatsome fraction ofthetotal needs to be
reserved for questions (This is probably the place to acknowledge
that old saying, “Don’t do as I do but do as I say,” since I fre-
quently run out of time). It’s also important to ensure that the
visuals are legible to the audience, and that they not be too detailed
or cluttered. Properly designed visuals should take about a minute
each to cover, so knowing the presentation time in minutes con-
verts roughly to the number of visuals to be used. [Editor’s note:
Modified by your knowledge of how a particular meeting is usually
run, it really isn’t safe to assume that projection equipment other
than avugraphprojector (or overhead projector, as it is some-
timeserroneously-called) and a screen will be provided. If you
need anything else, including a slide projector,checkwiththe
meeting organizers well before the meeting Remember, too, that
extra equipment almost always means extra expense for the meet-
ing. In the US, vugraph projectors are typically $25 per day, slide
projectors are $35450 per day, and an LCD projection panel can
cost $350 per day! WRS]
Giving the presentation IS important, of course, but respond-
ing to questions are an integral part of this. Thoughtfid questions
are a delight to receive as a speaker, but not all questions will be
thus. Naive questions, or ones that show that the questioner has
missed an obvious point, nevertheless deserve appropriate attention
and considerate answers. Perhaps most difficult are those questions
that are argumentativeor overtly hostile. It’s wise not to respond in
kind. Sometimes the session chairman will help to defuse a prob-
lem, but a good way to handle this situation is to suggest discussing
the question outside the meeting room (not exactly the same thing
assuggesting stepping outside when receiving a challenge in a
drinking establishment, and hopehlly a better outcome!).
Of course, the roles can be reversed, and you might be the
questioner from the audience It’s not good form to ask questions
in such a way as to embarrass the presenter, to show how much
more you know than they, or to suggest that the work reported is
worthless and should never have been accepted for presentation.
These kinds ofquestionsare totally inexcusable, inmy opinion.
This is another case of the golden rule, i e., ask questions in the
same way that you’d like to be questioned. Again, if the speaker is
not able to satisfy you, it’s reasonable to suggest meeting later to
discuss the problem in private
5.3 Chairing a session
One responsibility that most of us eventually encounter is that
of chairing a session. Thismight even be regarded as a sign of hav-
ing achieved some degree of recognition in the community. But it’s
an assignment that carries a degree of responsibility. Chairmen who
believe that their job description only requires them to read the
name of the presentation and announce the authors are not doing
their job. (I believe that it’s st111optional to use “chairman” whether
a male or female chairs a session.) It’s very useful for the chairman
to make some comments about the session at its start, and possibly
a few words about each individual contribution on introducing the
speaker. (Starting at the 1988 Syracuse University joint AP-S/URSI
meeting, two chairmen were assigned to each session, an idea of
TapanSarkar’s, and one that has been used since. It means that
more people can have the opportunity of chairing sessions, and also
that a half-day o f time is not lost to an individual chairing a ses-
sion).
There are two additional, very important, responsibilities as
the chairman. One is to vigorously ensure that the session keeps to
63
its schedule. It may be hard to believe, but the scheduled programs
we’ve come to expect were not the rule years ago, and speakers
and audience alike had no accurate idea of when particular papers
might be given. The other comes at the end of the talk when the
chairman asks, “Are there any questions?’ It’s very discouraging to
most of 11swhen there’s a dead silence from the audience. In such
circumstances, a good chairman will have oneortwoquestions
ready to ask. This makesthespeaker feel much better, and also
very often begins some interactive audience participation. Chairmen
who don’tperform this function are one ofmy pet peeves.
6. Collegial relations
For most of us, good collegial relations are a rewarding and
stimulating part of our professional life. An important aspect of this,
for me, has been the friendships that come from meeting and main-
taining contact with others, with whom I share mutual interests.
Special satisfaction derives from having an opportunity to collabo-
rate with others, whether as professional colleagues or co-workers
Aside from the personal rewards that such opportunities provide,
another factor to consider is that the environment in which we work
is changing, not only in the United States but aroundtheworld,
from the norm oflifetime employment at one organization to having
multiple employers, and even multiple careers, over time. Thus, it’s
necessary tochange perspective from oneof no longer viewlng
what we do as just a job but, instead, recognizing our work as a
career or profession, something that is becoming ever more impor-
tant due to such changes
One of the most critical aspectsof changing employers or
careers is networking, Le.. developing professional contacts. From
amorepragmatic viewpoint, maintaining good collegial relations
makes common sense for that reason, alone, if no other. But just as
important is that good collegial relations contribute towards making
your ownworking environment more attractiveWorking with
people who areopen and willing to freely discuss their ideas, as
opposed to being secretive and proprietary, is much more appealing
to most of us. I think. .4major factor in establishing which kind of
environment prevails is thedegree of mutual trust that exists,
something that depends on how fairly people perceive they’re being
treated, especially with respect to salary, ofice space, and labora-
tory equipment, and receiving appropriate credit for their contribu-
tions. Unless in management, we don’t have much influence in the
formerareas, but we certainly can be committed to seeing that
credit is given where it’s due This includes authorship on written
documentation,theopportunity of giving meeting presentations,
participating in patent applications, etc.,as well as in everyday
interactions. Unwillingness to fairly credit co-workersfor their
contributions is not only wrong, but counter productive, while
claiming credit for others’ ideas i s intellectual thefi. A reasonable
personal philosophy in this context. it seems to me. is to err in the
direction of sharing authorship when there is some doubt, rather
than excluding it
7. Financial issues can’t be avoided
A l l of us have probably heard of the golden rule, one form of
which reads,“Hewho has thegold,rules.”[Editor’snotethe
golden rule to which has referred previously cn these columns is
often stated as, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.” W R S ] It’s impossible to escape the implications of this rule,
the financial consequences of which dog each one of us throughout
64 IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 3,June 1995
our careers, unless we’re fortunate enough to be financially inde-
pendent.Confrontation with financial reality, for most of us,
probably becomes more personal as we enter college, considering
the fact that in the United Sates, college costs have increased faster
than inflation overthepast 10 or 20 years. Certainly, going to
graduate school can make the problem more acute, as does finding
employment during periods like we’renow experiencing. Some
graduatestudentsarefortunateenough to find professorswho
provide a research position and financial support, but many may not
be so fortunate.
M e r graduation, whether with a BS, MS, or PhD, it’s possi-
ble again to be somewhat shielded from financial realities fora
while, assuming a job is found to begin with, as probably most
employers give new employees some acclimation period Sooner or
later, however, all of us will confront the necessity of having what-
ever we do be marketable, whether as tangible products sold by our
employer, or less-tangible intellectual property. products, and ideas,
Without successful marketing, an organization must eventually fail.
Scientists and engineers often object to the idea of having to “sell,”
but realistically that is what all of us must do
For those in research, selling most often takesthe form of
writing proposals and variations thereof, the success of which is
ultimately measured by the amount of funding that is captured.
Successful selling, in product-producing organizations, is measured
by raw sales and market penetration. In either case, it’s the per-
ceived value of what we have to sell to the potential customer,
compared with alternate choices they might make, that usually
determines whether the sale is made. In the information age that
we’re entering, there really is a “marketplace of ideas.”
Selling ideas also takes the form of presentations, one com-
mon setting being customer briefings, but realistically it must be
admitted, also asconferences and symposia presentations. While
meeting presentations might superficially be considered to be simply
for the exchange of information, in reality they also are a forum
where accomplishments, contributions, and ideas compete for rec-
ognition and acceptance, whether by colleagues engaged in similar
work or by potential sponsors having specific problems for which
they might be used.
The rules governing selling as a means of obtaining research
support, as opposed to rules of selling for gaining acceptance of
ideas, have some differences and similarities. In proposals,
approaches to problems usually not yet solved are put forth without
any guarantee that the proposed approaches will work. Selling of
accomplishments and ideas would usually be expected to deal with
work that is more “mature,” where speculation and promises are
replaced by concrete results. It does seem to me that it is becoming
increasingly difficult to tell these two different areasapart,espe-
clally as these days meeting presentations seem to exhibit more and
more proposal selling, and less accomplishment selling. Ultimately,
proposal selling requires balancing promises made against the risk
of‘ failure to make good on the promises. Organizations and indi-
viduals that consistently exist on either end of the promise-risk
spectrum themselves risk the possibility of being unable to deliver
promised accomplishments, on the one hand. to winning few pro-
posals, on the other. When promises of performance include out-
right prevarication, that obviously is wrong On the other hand, it is
not unreasonable to anticipate developing a solution to some prob-
lem. without knowing exactly how that can be done at the time a
proposal is written.
8. Concluding
comments
As I mentioned to Ross Stone, in discussing with him the
suitability of the topics addressed in these last two columns forthe
AP-S Muguzine, I didn’t want them to sound“preachy,” But never
having, t o my recollection, seen a comprehensive discussion of the conduct. If you
topicsthese columns havecovered, and having heard numerous
colleagues mention some of these same issues over the past few
AP-S Membership Database Availableon Disk
A membership database for the IEEE Antennas and Propaga-
tion Society is now available on disk, to Society members only The
disk was made available in the registration area of the Seattle AP-S
International Symposium, m d can now be ordered by mail
The membership database was constructed by producing and
formatting an ASCII file from the data provided by the IEEE
Technical Activities Department as part of its Membership Data
Diskette Program The data were updated through March 31, 1994.
The file was then compressed using the LHA (LH Arc) compres-
sion program. It is available in a high-density, 3.5 inch DOS-format
disk (only) When expanded onto the user’s hard disk drive. the
data occupy approximatelv 2 8 hIB Although each member’s rec-
ord is in a fixed, prescribec! format, the records are not in alphabeti-
cal order. However, the format is such that the database can easily
be loaded into a database or word-processing program, and
searched using simple teut-searching tools It can also be printed in
a readable format
The following data items are provided for each member,
where available the [EEE membership grade; the mailing address; a
list of IEEE societies to tvhich the member belongs; the telephone
number, and the ZIP or postal code.
The data in the membership database on the diskI-emairi the
property of the IEEI., and are provided for the use of AP-S mem-
bers for approved purposes, in accordance with the IEEE’s Condi-
tions of Availability for such data. These data are made available
only for 111k~171171use ofthe IEEE and the Society, for communicat-
ing directly with their members These data may not be sold n3r in
any other way or form furnished to non-members of the Society
They are not to be used by members or non-members for any com-
mercial purposes,other t ! m officially-approved purposes of the
Society Any use for “mass” mailings must be in accordance with
the IEEE Polrorr o m / J ’ I . o L L ~ / I ~ L ‘ . s , particularly those sections
dealing with mailmas. the use of’ labels, and electioneering prac-
/€€EAntennas and Propagation Magazine,Val. 37, No. 3, June 1995
years, I submitted
shorter
rougha draft to Ross,
encouraged
who
me to continue withthis theme. Perhaps we might have some ongo-
ing discussion aboutthese issues, if not forthe benefit ofthoseof
us already set in our ways, then for those who are newer to the
profession, and whoarelookingfor guidelines about professional
have any comments about what I have said, please
let me hearfrom you. :i$
tices. A copy of the current IEEE P o l i u c . ~m u / Procedrrws can be
obtained from the IEEE Senice Center. Technical Activities, 445
Hoes Lane, PO Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331 USA, Tel
(908) 981-0060, Fax. (908) 981-0027 h1embc.r-to-member contact
and membership development (e.p., &\:ation of grade) are encour-
aged uses of the data
Creation, final data formatting, and distribtion of the disk was
organized by Ross Stone. JetTrey Young and Christi Eixenberger, of
the University of Idaho, extracted the datafrom the IEEE database,
and provided the basic ASCII file from which the disk was created.
-------s,--....-..-...-.---.--.--.- &------
Order Form
A P - S Membership Database on Disk
, f o r , AP-S nlerrrher:r otdy
Send this form, filled out, with a check drawn against a US bank for
USrS5.00 (USrSlO.00 for shipment outside North America) to cover
costs of duplication, shipping, and handling to IEEE AP-S hlem-
bership Disk, AccuDisk, Incorporated,6969CorteSanta Fe, San
Diego, CA 92121 USA. Allow four weeks from mailing of form for
delivery (in US) Call Nick DeFilippis at (619) 457-3000 for prob-
lems with ordersNote that thedata remain the property ofthe
IEEE AP-S, and that the use of the data is subject to restrictions,
by which a member agrees t o abide by the act of orderingthe disk.
Enclosed is a check for US$ drawn against a US bank
Please send one copy of theIEEE 4P-S Membership Database
Disk to
M;liling Lmbel: Print Clearly
Name
Address
~~~
-
65
 PCs for AP
&
Other EM Reflections
August 1995
E. K. Miller

This column includes input from others as well as some additional commentary by yours truly.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Magazine you will find a feature article on MININEC Pro, a new,
and improved version of what has become a widely used antenna model, MININEC, that first
appeared in Basic for the Apple II computer. I think that you will find this new edition of
MININEC to be a very attractive one, about which a few more comments appears elsewhere in
this column. Related to MININEC is the Visual ElectroMagnetics (VEM) example that follows
below, courtesy of the MININEC Pro authors plus L. Russell. Also included here are some
comments on teaching electromagnetics based on my recent experience at Ohio University as
instigated by some observations due to Professor Brian Austin of the United Kingdom.

Concerning MININEC Pro, I had hoped to be able to include a personal review based on
running it under SoftWindows on my Macintosh 7100. Unfortunately, neither I nor the authors
were able to get this brand new MININEC program operating in the Mac-SoftWindows
environment. I was able to experiment with the graphical interface, which did look very
attractive, but was unable to execute any models once the input data had been prepared. If this
situation is fixed at a later date, Ill then provide a review. If anyone else would like to perform a
guest review running MININEC Pro on a PC platform, I would be glad to include it in this
column. Mathematica CEM model.

SHIPBOARD ANTENNA PATTERN VISUALIZATION--L. Russell, J. Logan, J.

Rockway, Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division,
San Diego, CA 92152-5000
The description that follows is based on the authors presentation at the 1995 ACES (Applied
Computational Electromagnetics Society) meeting held in March at the Naval Postgraduate.
Knowing of their work in VEM, I had been pestering these folks for quite a while for an example
or two for my column. I am grateful for their contribution.

New visualization tools are being developed to aid in interpreting the output from computational
codes and measurements used in the design and analysis of the electromagnetic topsides of Navy
ships. One of the principal outputs of interest is the radiation pattern of shipboard antenna
systems (e.g., communication, electronic warfare, surveillance, ...). The radiation patterns are
used as part of an evaluation of the link performance of the individual antenna system.

Both computational electromagnetic codes and measurement can generate a large quantity of
pattern data. Fast and efficient analysis of this large amount of data requires sophisticated
visualization techniques. A user friendly interface improves utilization of the entire visualization
capability. The SGI IRIS Inventor is being used to provide user friendly scene interaction for a
suite of electromagnetic visualization programs. Inventor is a C++-callable library of functions
which allows simplified development of GL-based scene building and scene interaction.
PCs for AP, August 1995, page 1
A three dimensional surface can be used for displaying three dimensional pattern data. The
radiation pattern is complex (i.e., magnitude and phase) data which is a function of theta and phi.
The theta angle is defined from the z-axis toward the x-y plane. The phi is defined from the x-
axis in the x-y plane. The radiation pattern also has two components in the theta and phi
directions, respectively. For a given component the pattern can be displayed as a colorful three
dimensional surface. The distance from a point on the surface to the origin is proportional to the
log of the magnitude of the data at that point. There are several options for the coding of the
color. The color can be coded to magnitude. This helps to emphasize magnitude. Other
options include coding the color to phase, zenith angle and azimuth angle. These four types of
3D pattern visualization are depicted in Figure 1 (no longer available). The top, left-hand figure
shows the color coding of magnitude. The top, right-hand figure shows the color coding of
phase. The bottom, left-hand figure shows the color coding of zenith angle. Finally, the bottom,
right-hand figure shows the color coding of azimuth angle. The color coding of phase appears to
give the most colorful of the presentations. All of these displays can be rendered as a solid or as
a wire grid. in addition the displays can be rotated to allow it be viewed from any direction.

The three dimensional radiation pattern display provides wonderful qualitative information
regarding the performance of an antenna system, but often what is needed is quantitative
information. As a result a three dimensional thresholding technique has been developed using a
semitransparent thresholding grid. This allows a reference antenna such as a quarter wave
monopole to be overlaid with the original display. The reference antenna provides a threshold
for the pattern. The reference can be stepped in 1 decibel step sizes. This allows a quick
interpretation of the antenna performance for a given pattern at a particular theta and phi value.
An example of this display is shown on Figure 2 (no longer available). The top figure displays a
3D pattern with no thresholding. The bottom figure shows a thresholding at 3 dB below a
quarter wave monopole. The portion of the radiation pattern above the threshold is quite
apparent.

A measure of performance of a given visualization of a radiation pattern is its value in guiding an

engineer to an optimal design. High performance visualization enhances an engineer's
appreciation for some of the design criteria utilized in antenna design.

For additional information concerning the above pattern displays and MININEC Pro, see the
feature article in this issue or contact one of the authors at 619-553-5688 or 619-553-3780.

SOME COMMENTS REGARDING TEACHING EM TO UNDERGRADUATE NON-

EMers, Introduction by Dr Brian Austin, Department of Electrical Engineering & Electronics,
University of Liverpool, P.O.Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, U.K., Tel. 051 794 4520 (W); 051
625 6741 (H); Fax 051 794 4540.
In the December 1994 column, I included some comments regarding the text and course
structure at Ohio University concerning undergraduate EM requirements. That column
generated a response from Professor Brian Austin of the University of Liverpool in the the
United Kingdom. Professor Austin is no stranger to this column, having provided some
previous responses concerning promotion and tenure practices and using computers for teaching
EM. At any rate, he made some observations which follow immediately below, after which I
offer a few additional observations of my own.

Yes, it's quite a challenge teaching the subject (i.e., electromagnetics, EKM), and like you, I find
PCs for AP, August 1995, page 2
real basic stuff just as demanding as the more esoteric! Particularly now that entry standards are
dropping so alarmingly. (We have a saying here which will have a very different meaning in the
States: our policy on admissions is determined solely, so it seems, by the need to get as many
"BUMS ON SEATS" as possible!.. posteriors and not vagrants - yet!).

On that score I was intrigued to read that your junior fields course, which I take to mean your
first-year students, actually spend five days per week on EM and manage to cover the whole of
Sadiku's book. Here, and not without some arguing with colleagues, we give then one lecture
per week for 24 weeks in the first year followed by the same in the second year. Whereas I'm no
longer teaching either of those courses I did a while back and used Kraus as the textbook, but
really just as background reading for those who could afford to buy it or who were prepared to
use the library. It's a sorry tale. I'd be most interested, as will my few EM colleagues, to get your
comments on the calibre of your students and how the rest of the EE course is structured so that
we can compare it with ours, which is typical of all UK universities.

My Response and Observations

At some universities, students are becoming a less-plentiful, even scarce,
resource. Within the engineering colleges/schools/departments, the situation is not uniform, with
some areas, environmental engineering, for example, registering increased enrollments, but
others experiencing declines. The situation within departments is also uneven, as in the Electrical
and Computer Engineering Department (or whatever it is called), more students are choosing
computer-related fields over areas such as electromagnetics. One result of these changes is that
the number of EM courses actually taught can be in decline as well.

At many institutions, fields have literally disappeared from the undergraduate curriculum, at least
as a requirement. This has two related consequences. One is that those students who do actually
elect to take fields will be more interested in the topic, not a bad outcome in and of itself. The
other, less attractive result from an EMers perspective is that fewer fields courses are needed, at
both the graduate and undergraduate levels. At places like Ohio University where a substantial
EM requirement remains, a requirement unfortunately becoming rarer these days, 10 quarter
hours of fields are given in two 5 classes/week doses. Since 217 quarter hours are required for
graduation at Ohio University, this also means that most of the students regard fields as just
another requirement to get by in somewhat the same way that students of my day regarded
kinematics, hydraulics, mechanical drawing and shop. Its hard not to sympathize with them in
the circumstances as some students in my courses reported having a load of 24 credit hours or
more.

Another trend can also be identified, somewhat related to the first, in that many students now
seem to feel that the main purpose of an education is to fill in the blanks on a transcript rather
than actually to acquire the knowledge theyre paying so much to acquire. Maybe this was also
the case when I was an undergraduate, and I just have a bad memory. Stated in different terms,
given a choice between having higher grades and less knowledge as one outcome compared with
the converse, many students actually say that they would choose the former. In these
circumstances, its not surprising that none of the students in either of the two undergraduate
fields course of that two-quarter sequence that I taught answered in the affirmative when I asked
how many would take fields courses if they werent required. Fields courses have the reputation,
not unfairly, of being very difficult and mathematically intensive, besides which their relevance to
what most EE students expect to be doing on the job, most likely involving computers, is not at
all clear. Teaching in such a circumstance can become somewhat like an endurance test for the
PCs for AP, August 1995, page 3
class and professor alike.

It wasnt until the second term of fields, when we had finally ventured into electrodynamics as
opposed to the statics to which the first term was limited, that I had a flash of insight about one
cause for this situation and how an improvement might be effected. It happened by my
discovering that none of the students were able to state verbally in class (mostly juniors with a
few seniors), in response to a direct question, the boundary condition that applies to the electric
field at the surface of a perfect electric conductor, although this was a topic covered in the first
term. Probing further, none of the students seemed even able to say just what a boundary
condition is. Yet, they were able (most of them) to evaluate numerically the electric or magnetic
field near some simple charge or current distribution or solve similar kinds of problems.
Apparently, given an algorithmic-type question whose structure provides a clue about which
formula to use, they were able to plug and chug (the students terminology) to a numerical result
without necessarily understanding why that formula is relevant or what it means from a physical
perspective.

Being able to select the correct formula and obtain answers to standardized questions may
represent an acceptable entry-level understanding in some circumstances, but it also shouldnt be
surprising that if thats how a course is designed or thats all thats expected of the students, then
thats the goal to which most students will aspire. But a formula-based goal to learning doesnt
seem likely to lead to the conceptual knowledge that, to me, represents a more fundamental
understanding of a subject and something more worthwhile to students whose only exposure to
the subject matter is limited to that one particular course. Thus, a relevant question to consider is
how best to promote conceptual understanding for students who have no motivation in doing so
in subjects they dislike.

Ive concluded that teaching electromagnetics to non-EM majors using an approach appropriate
for students intending to specialize in electromagnetics is not the best way to go for the former. I
base this conclusion partly on my own, admittedly limited, time in the trenches as well as the
much more extensive experience of Carol and Robert Ash in teaching calculus to non-
mathematics majors. They produced The Calculus Tutoring Book, published by the IEEE Press
in 1986 and one of its all-time best-sellers, because they were motivated by the realization that
the mathematics needed by engineers is not the same as the mathematics used by working
mathematicians. As noted in a second tutoring book, The Probability Tutoring Book by Carol
Ash, also published by IEEE Press, mathematicians and consumers of mathematics (such as
engineers) seem to disagree as to what mathematics actually is. To a mathematician, its
important to distinguish between rigor and informal thinking. To an engineer, intuitive thinking,
geometric reasoning, and physical argument are all valid if they illuminate a problem, and a
formal proof is often unnecessary or counterproductive.

Continuing from the preface, The typical mathematics text includes applications and examples,
but its dominant feature is formalism. Theorems and definitions are stated precisely, and many
results are proved at a level of rigor that is acceptable to a working mathematician. This is bad.
After teaching many undergraduates, most quite competent and some, in fact, blindingly bright,
it seems entirely clear to me that most are not ready for an abstract presentation. At best, they
will have a classroom teacher who can translate the formalism into ordinary English (what this
really means is ...). At worst, they will give up. Most will simply learn to read around the
abstractions so that the textbook at least becomes useful as a source of examples.

By changing a few of the key words, the above observations might just as well be made about
PCs for AP, August 1995, page 4
teaching electromagnetics as a required course to non-EM majors. It would be better if the likely
uses of electromagnetics that these students might eventually make were acknowledged to be
different from that of EM specialists. Thus, rather than concentrate on derivations, mathematical
detail and formalism, the emphasis could be placed on physical principles and practical examples
that illustrate where these principles are encountered.

As a result of reaching this conclusion, I altered the way I approached the subject about halfway
through the term devoted to electrodynamics. Rather than exclusively following the derivation
path, we instead spent more time on interpreting the mathematics and concentrating on a few,
key principles that I felt the students should take away from the course, using some computer
movies and other visual aids. Of the 16 problems on the final exam, 8 required no formula
evaluation at all, but instead could be answered by referring to some physical principle or key
relationship. I had told the students that anyone who didnt know the condition on the electrical
field at the surface of a perfect conductor would not pass the corse. I was pleasantly surprised
that 21 of 22 students did give acceptable answers to this question, which was simply to explain
why the electric field is normal at the surface of the conductor. The one remaining student
answered a wholly different question than the one asked, and otherwise doing barely acceptable
work, was given a grade of D- (Im a softy at heart).

There is one other conclusion that I also reached concerning teaching undergraduate
electromagnetics to all students. It seems that the almost-universal approach remains, as it was
when I was introduced to fields, to begin with statics followed by time-harmonic dynamics.
Possibly some numerical methods may also be added towards the end of the course. Were I to
design a course from scratch, I would reverse this order, starting with the time-domain wave
equation and numerical methods as a means of developing solutions to interesting problems,
while also making use of visual electromagnetics to illustrate the beauty of the results and their
physical interpretability. By showing students that numerical models provide access to
interesting physics and make possible the solution of practical problems, I believe that they would
be more turned on to the subject and more willingly confront the abstract mathematics needed
to transform theoretical formulations into useful results. It seems to me this is where the payoff
from activities like CAEME could be realized.

Obviously, I have not accumulated the teaching experience to have reached any truly
generalizable conclusions. However, I am quite convinced that using a one-size-fits-all approach
to teaching electromagnetics can be counterproductive to the majority of students who will take
only the EM courses required of them. If the purpose of these courses is to give such students
some appreciation of electromagnetics and how fields arise literally in every area of electrical
engineering, then turning them off to the topic by focusing mostly on mathematical rigor doesnt
seem the way to go. Id like to receive any comments, pro or con, that youd like to offer.

FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1. Four types of 3D pattern visualization are depicted here. The top, left-hand quadrant
shows the color coding of magnitude while the top, right-hand quadrant shows the color coding
of phase. The bottom, left-hand figure shows the color coding of zenith angle. Finally, the
bottom, right-hand figure shows the color coding of azimuth angle.

Figure 2. Two types of pattern thresholding are shown here. The top half displays a 3D pattern
with no thresholding, while the bottom figure shows a thresholding at 3 dB below a quarter
wave monopole. The portion of the radiation pattern above the threshold is quite apparent.
PCs for AP, August 1995, page 5
 Edmund K. Miller
Ohio University
Department of Electrical and Cornpuier Engineering
331 Stocker Center
Athens, OH 45701
(614) 593-1603
(614)593-0007 (FAX)
emlllerQbobcat.ent.ohiou.edu(email)
erhaps this hotsummer, in the United States at least,has
causedcomputerproblemsforthoseofyounotfortunate
enough to work in an air-conditioned environment Here in Santa
Fe,at 7,000- feetelevation, hardlyany privatehomes are air-
conditioned(ours is not), asthetemperaturedoesn’tthatoften
reach 90 deg F or more,andtherelative humidity is usually no
higher than 20 per cent or so. I don’t know whether I can blame
some of the problems that I’ve had lately on the weather, bad luck,
incompetence or ignorance: take your pick. Since theymay origi-
nate from a source common to may PC users, I’ll discuss some of
my problems belom, and would welcome any suggestions for fixing
same.Other topics to be coveredincludereaderfeedback, a new
archival-storage technology, and CEM software.
SCSP chains: asset or liability?
SCSI (small computer system interface, pronounced “scuzzi”)
chains provide a means of connecting various peripherals to your
PC In the Macintosh world, at least. they offer a high-speed con-
nection between a PC and up to seven peripheral devices (eight can
be on the chain, but the CPU itself takes one slot), such as scanners.
hard drives. printers. etc. Transferring a 5 MByte, six-document file
between two SCSI hard drives, one internal and the other external,
requires about 12 seconds Transferring the same files between two
PCs viaan AppieTdk local-area network requires about 485 sec-
onds. a speed ratio that favors the SCSI arrangement by a factor of
about 40.
So. a SCSI chain is obviously to be preferred over e LAN for
whatever exqernal devices that can be connected that way. Right7
One would think that, until getting into the actual implementation
of a SCSI chain. which is when the :‘fun’’ starts. .4ccor&ng to the
directionsprovided by A P S Technologieswiththeir SCSI Sentry
activeterminatorthatpromises“the end ofSCSI nightmares,”
SCSI termination is often complex and confusing; some users have
rightfully called it a “black art,” suggesting there’s more “Voodoo”
than science involved. If1 hadn‘t already subscribed to that view-
point, I would certainlv have as a result of my recent, and continu-
ing, painful experience in contending with this voodoo
Up toabout July 1, I hadfive devicesconnected to my
Mac IIsi via a SCSI chain. an standard hard drive, two removable-
media hard drives, a CD drive, and a printer, which, together with
the internalhard driveandcomputer, itself constituteda chain of
seven devices all together. This combination had been in operation
a month or so, and was working reasonably well: by which I mean
that the computer would hoot up 95+% of the time without any
additional coaxing.On occasion,
fortunately rare, the system
wouldn’t boot.
58 IEEE Plnrennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 5, October 1995
On a Mac, this can take various forms, one being that when
power is turned on and tire start key is depressed. rhe computer
monitor lights up and somethtng begins to happen: but then it “stalls
out.” Wien this happens, if you’re lucky; it can be enough to just
reset by turning the computer off and back on, after which the sys-
temworksasnormallyas it ever does. Another.more-traumatic
instance of the computer’sintransigence is that, rather than emitting
a single chime when the startkey is pushed, a chime chord is played
and the monitor displays the ugly Mac “face.” something that has
begun to substantiallyraise my bloodpressureEncounteringthis
combination, which can occur immediately or sometimes later in the
startup sequence, has usually meant that more than simply turning
off and back on will be required.
Myproblems startedwhen I got anew,external, 1.06 GB
hard drive to add to my system. I wasn‘t too surprised when the
computer would no longer boot with the new drive added into the
chain, but this began a series of domino events ending in my internal
driveeventuallyhaving to bereformatted,amongotherthings.
Anyone who has used a SCSI chain knows that each device in the
chain needs a unique number, running from “0” to “7” (the internal
drive is “0”). so that the computer can tell them apart I carehlly
rechecked thatthe ID numbers were all different, and I also
removedandreattachedseveral of the SCSI cables,having first
turned off the system power. h o t h e r requirement is that changes
in the SCSI chain should only be made when power is OEother-
wise all sorts of nasty things can happen. I also checked to confirm
that only the lastdevice in the chain was terminated, i.e. hada
matched load, but more about this below. Finally. I used the short-
est series of cables that I could manage, since the total length must
not exceed 6 m
The system continued to refuse to boot with all the original
devices connected, so I thenbeganremovingvarious of them,
beginningwirh theprinter and the CD drive. Finally, the system
began tobootmost of the time. though it continued to exhibit
problems.Evenafterhooting,otherproblemsbegan to occur,
among them being that my 270 M a p Syquest removable would
not always accept file transfers. Upon replacing the problem car-
tridge with another. the same kind of problem began with the new
cartridge,a while laterThen thecomputer’sinternaldrivebegan
melfimctioning. Indesperation, I called A P S Technologies, who
claim to have a fix for SCSI problems in the form of their SCSI
Sentry device. whichprovidesmorefunctionalitythan a simple
matched loadat the end ofthe chain.The SCSI connection is
achieved via a number of transmission lines; bundled into a common
cable,and unlesspropertermination is provided atboth ends,
reflections occur, and the data signals can be corrupted. The A P S
active terminator is intended to provide power on the transmission
line if the computer is unable to handle all of the devices connected,
and to adjust termination power and impedance cn all of the data
and handshaking lines of the SCSI bus.
Prior to receiving the SCSI Sentry, the internal drive died, but
was able to be resurrected using a disk utility for the Mac called
Lido,and is back in operation, after being reformatted. The remov-
able 270 MByte cartridges initially lookedirreparable.but were
later brought back to life, partially at least, using an AI’S disk utility
called Alliance Power 7001s. Although neither cartridge could be
formatted or initialized when I first attempted this, a “blind-luck”
work-around did the trick. which involved putting one partition on
each cartridge, upon which initialization was successlid Apparently
these problems came from a forgotten internal terminator in one of
the drives I had inmy original setup, but which, not being at the
end of the chain, should not have worked that way. Eventually, I
was able to get a three-external-device SCSI chain working, with
two external drives and the printer with the A P S ;Sentry at the end
of the chain. I am not sure at this point whether the Sentry makes
any real difference, as I still get “ugly Macs” regularly on the first
try at booting the computer, but it usually works on the second or
third try
This, however, was not the totality of problems that seem to
havecome out of theSCSIadventures. I also discovered thatI
could no longer use my external modem. getting a previously-not-
encountered error messagethat said themodemportwas busy
whenever I tried to dial out. None of the usual sources I contacted
wasable to help me withthisproblem and. finally,again in des-
peration, I called Apple for help, the first time ever The first person
I talked to wasn’t veryhelpful,but my second call provided the
solution. to reset all of theinternalcomputervariables to their
default values. This is done on the Mac by, after hitting the start
key. holdingdown the option, command, P, andl R keysprior to
getting the startup chime. Although once might work. I was advised
to continueholdingdown these keysthroughfivesuccessive
chimes, and to then release them. Magically, my modem problems
disappeared. A few days later, I saw this trick described in a com-
puter column in the local paper.
So, what’s the bottom line? First of all. I have come to really
detestthe SCSI system. To befair,mostpeopleI’vetalked to
about this say that connecting more than two or three devices is
probably asking for trouble. That seems to be a pretty limiting solu-
tion;since it meansthatyoucan’thang on all of the various
peripherals that you’d like to have simultaneous access to at one
time,andwhich theSCSI arrangementtheoreticallypermitsI
should think that one solution might be to add new instructions to
the computer ROM, so that if the external SCSI chain doesn’t look
right, the computer will block it out until it has booted, and then is
able to perform some diagnostics. At least at that point, it might be
possible to find outwhichdevicesandcablest:lecomputercan
examine, and to obtain clues about what the problems are. I sup-
pose that the issue is one of cost, as this might require RF hard-
ware
Second, a lesson I’ve burnedinto my corsciousness previ-
ously, is to back up everything. preferably twice. 1 lost some of my
backups and originals during these perambulations,, and am thankful
for being so conservative. In addition, it’s a goodl idea if the back-
ups are independent in terms of media or devices, so that a single-
point failure can’t cause the loss of all of them at one time. One
thing that I haven’t done yet is to store backups ‘outside my home,
something that I hope I don’t have cause to regret
IEEE Antennas and Propagation
Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 5,October 1995
I’mcuriouswhether any ofyou haveexperienced SCSI
problems Are there any solutions to the kinds of problems that I’ve
encountered?Mustusing aSCSI chain boil down to cut-and-try
experimentation to tryfinding a combinationthat works? There
must be a better way
Future data-storage technology?
(Excerpted from an article, in the June 30, 1995, issue of the Los
Alamos National Laboratory News Bulletin, by Jim Danneskiold)
Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory have devel-
oped a prototype of what could become the archival storage tech-
nology of the hture. Theirapproachusesneithermagnetic nor
opticalstorage.butinstead is based on anapproach. infinitely
refined, somewhat comparable to the punch cards used in the old
days If successfully developed, four sets of encyclopedias could fit
onto a single inch-long steel pin. According to Roger Stutz. one of
the developers of this technology (along withBruce Lamartine), the
storage density currently is as high as 23 gigabitslsq inch!
The technique. designated as High-Density Read-only Mem-
ory (HD-ROM), uses an ion beam to inscribe information on pins of
metal, such as stainless steel, iridium or similar materials The HD-
ROM uses a specially modified. focused-ion beam mlcromill, devel-
oped by Lamartine, with the writing process achieved via a process
called sputteretching. The etching process removesmaterial by
atomic collisions in the region of the ion beam. The key to making
this process practical is the high-vacuum environment in which the
ion beam doesitswriting, as collisions of the ionswithambient
molecules disperses them spatially, and limits the size of the small-
est feature that can be “written.” The actual writing is controlled by
a computer, with the data encoded in binary format. or as analog
letters, numbers, and graphical images. The device routinely writes
features as narrow as 150 billionths of a meter, about 560 atoms in
width.
While writing in a vacuum makes high-density storage possi-
ble, reading can be done in air, using a “souped-up“ version of a
commerciallyavailableatomic-forcemicroscope. In comparison
withmagneticrecording, the HD-ROM requires no bit-stream
interpreter, or embeddedprotocolthattellshow todecodethe
read-backsignalInstead, for binary data,the HD-ROM can
include. in a human-readable format. the encoding scheme used for
writing the subsequent data records For ASCII-type and graphics
data, the records can be visually decoded.
Itis anticipatedthatmagnetic-storagetechnology will con-
tinue to improve, so that in 10 years,perhaps a densityof
5 gigabitsisq inch will be possible The already-demonstrated HD-
ROM technology is nearly 5 times that, and densities of 400,000
gigabitdsq inch are projected in the near term, or 80.000 times the
densitythat may befeasiblewithfuturemagneticstorage. Aside
from the storage density, an especiallyimportantadditional prop-
erty of HD-ROM storage is that it is virtual impervious to degrada-
tion due to thermal or mechanical shock, or from electromagnetic
fields that can degrade magnetic and optical media. Potential users
might firstincludeorganizations having a need for a low-cost,
highly durable,data-storagemedium,suchas the US Library of
Congress, the FederalBureauofInvestigation. and (ugh’)the
Internal Revenue Service
Stutz and Lamartine have applied for patents covering various
aspectsoftheir work.They havealsoprepared an article fora
h t u r e issue of Scientijic American, and are actively seeking com-
mercial partners. Further information can be obtained by contacting
59
the developers at Los Alamos National Laboratory, PO Box 1663,
Lox .Names, h3I 87548, Tel (508) 665-561.5.
Reader feedback
I received some commentsfromthe
two columns
on
.‘Research andPublication Practices and Ethics” that appeared in
the April and June, 1995, issues of the A P - S Maguzim 1 have not
included each individual’s name, to protect their privacy
Among the comments I received was a letter from Jim Wait, who
said. “I w-ell remember my interactions with notable personages in
the earlv part of my career. They came in all flavours I can single
outHaroldBarlow,Balth van derPol,HendricusBrernmer, Joe
Keller. KennethBudden.George Sinclair andChen To Tai as
examples of ‘courteousandapproachable’ individuals. That‘san
impressive list of important contributorsto electromagnetics
.Onequestionconcernedhow to respond to an editor, whenan
article has been under review for a period approaching an unrea-
sonahle length of time.in this case, nearly a year. The individual
raising this question considered the fo1lov;ing two possibilities most
likely: .‘( 1) the paper has been lost somehow, or (2) the most feared
unlucky case:oneormore reviewers are trying to “modify” the
work, and to then submit the article to the same or a different jour-
nal ’’ Of course. neither of these possibilities should occur. but the
first, inexcusable as it is, at least has the merit of being accidental.
The latter would never happen in the ideal world, but seems to be
something that cannot always be ruled out.
I replied “It‘stoo bad; but withdrawing thepaper and
resubmitting it to another journal may be an appropriate course of
actlon at this point. There’s no ideal solution to this problem, unfor-
tunately. Of course, you have the new journal’s review to contend
with then, which means more delay. Before I made that decision. I
would try to talk with the -4ssociate Editor handling the paper or to
the Editor. if you haven’t already done so, to see if they can expe-
dite things.~’After rereading it; however. this answer doesn‘t seem
really adequate tome. I’d beinterested to hear fromauthors
who‘veexperienced similarproblems. or &om Editors/Associate
Editors who’ve seen them from the other side, to learn how either
have handled problems like this, and what would be the most-effec-
tive approach
[Editor’s comment: ‘4s much for information purposes as to
help shed any ’-light”on the subject. I will comment on the situation
forthehfugazimWedo haveinstances in which anarticle’s
reviews are delayed too long Usually,this is due to a slow
response from a reviewer. However, we had one recent instance in
which the request for review had been lost in the mail. This was
discovered aRer a follow-up six weeks later, and the missing review
wasobtainedsuch that we got the comments back to the author
less than 10 weeks after submission: not good, but not too horrible
The way to avoid this is to ha1.e the reviewers send back acknowl-
edgments, or to call them before sending out the request We usu-
ally do the latter, but the system didn’t work in this case A more-
common situation is anunresponsivereviewer I usually am
pressuring our Editors to get reviews of articles in the queue com-
pleted, because I need the material for a specific issue. However,
such sltuations are also brought to light by the author asking for a
statusreportThat’s really the bestapproach: find out what the
average reviewcycle time is for the publication, and follo\v up with
the Editor or Associate Editor after that time. For the Magazine. if
you haven’t heard anything six weeks after receipt of the article is
acknowledged. you should send me a note I must add that the rea-
60 Propagation
IEEE Antennas
Magazine,
and
son we have few problems with articles in the Magazine-in addition
to the excellent cooperation from those we ask to do reviews-is
because of the constant care and vigilance of our Editors. Ahmed
Kishk and Jeff Young. WRS]
.hother questionconcernedtheissueofauthor listing. anda
particular problem that I had not considered. The comment states’
”In the past two weeks I have had to deal with publishing ethics
questions. I have been a faculty technical associate for three years.
Inthatcapacity,Ihadspokenwith a facultymemberdiscussing
boundaryconditions in his researchSeveralmonthslater, that
faculty member attempted to put my name on some journal articles.
to ‘show support within the organization.’ I declined. as I felt I did
not give si&cant input to the research. In addition, the research
was outside my field.
“The reason I tell you this story is that it sparked a discussion
onethics Onegroup has theattitudethat researchersputtheir
names on each others’ work, even if their involvement is not sub-
stantial, because they are judged on thenumber of papers they pub-
lish. Most of these people seem to feel it’s not strictly right, but
everybody does it. everybody knows this, it’s a fact of lifc if one
wishes to sunive. and therefore it is ethically acceptable. The other
groupconsidersthis to be alun to paddingone’sresume. I have
relatives at two other universities, and similar divisions seem to be
prevalent at those places, as well.”
I replied that my concern was the problem of “exclusion”
rather than “inclusion.” While the former practice can cheat those
who have contributed to work being published, the other diminishes
appropriate credit conversely. I guess that I regard the former as
the more-serious problem, probably partly because I haven’t come
across thelatter, except through the manageriadvisor problem that I
did consider. I wonder how many articles are published with author
lists “seeded” by non-contributors to the work7 Is this a real prob-
lem in the IEEE and A p - S , or is it more likely to found in other
areas medical researchcomes to mind. where lengthy author lists
seem to be more common?
This same reader raised another interesting question that I feel
also deserves some discussion, which is. “If you would have time, I
would greatly appreciate it if you could answer a question for me. I
have asked several faculty here, and have gotten slightly different
answers.Ihavetakentheopportunity of earning a PhDdegree
while I have worked here; and I will he writing my thesis and pub-
lishingmy findings soon To enhance the clarity ofthe literature
review, I u,ish to reproduce some graphs, etc from published work.
.4ssumingany reproducedgraphicsareproperlyreferenced, my
questionsis: Do I need the original author’s permission’? (Iam
more concerned with the moral question rather than the legal one,)
Is the answer for an article different than that for a thesis? What if
the author is deceased?”
The above is an interesting question, one that I happen to feel
strongly about. Whileat theNewportBeach M - S meeting, I
casually picked up the second edition of a popular book, and was
somewhat surprised to find some familiar-appearing figures. These
had come from a book chapter Andy Poggio and I published more
than 20 years ago. and the only reference I could find to our work
was in the mast reference list at the back of the book. Nowhere in
the figure captions or accompanying text could I find an acknowl-
edgment of that fact. At the very least, this is a questionable and
objectionable practice, but beyond that it seems to fit the definition
of plagiarism. In talking with some others at the meeting. the basic
responseseemed to bethat, “It’snotright,but it happensand
there’snot much you can do aboutit.”That certainly doesn’t
Vol. 37, No. 5,October 1995
excuse the practice. I feel, morally, if not always legally, the source
of graphs, tables, etc. MUST be properly credited. This should be
done in the caption, rather than only in the text If a publisher says
this is not their practice, I would actively try to change their posi-
tion. To use others’ work without appropriate endeasilyfound
acknowledgment is simply wrong.
As toauthor’s permission, I don’t believethat is needed,
although if use of that author’s figures or material!; I S from a nega-
tive or criticalviewpoint,itwouldcertainlybe courteousto let
themknowOncetheirmaterialappears in the public domain, I
don’t perceive thathrther authorapproval is, really needed,
although I believe that books sometimes will include phrases like
“. .used with permission of ....”
[Editor’s comment’ Phil Virga, our resident intellectual-
property expert, should comment on this. However, lacking time to
get his immediate comment, readers should note that in almost all
cases,formalpermission to reproducefigures 1s legally required.
With the possible exception of a dissertation-which may fall under
the “fair use” doctrine; I do not know if it does under current law-
reproduction of a figure from a copyrighted work requires permis-
sion from the copyrightowner to avoidcommittingcopyright
infringement Furthermore,
undercurrent US ;and international
copyright lavn-as I, a lay person and not an attorney, understand it-
a copyright exists when a “copyrightable” work is created In short.
crediting the source with a “used with permission o f . .’ statement
usually isn’t just good ethics, it’s a statement that vou have received
the express permission of the copyright holder to use the material as
you are using it, and you therefore arenot breaking the law1 WRS]
Anotherreaderinputconcerned my report abouttheSeattle
meeting in 1994. The reader said. “First, regarding your column in
the A P S Magazine, specifically the presentation given in Seattle. In
other fields this might be called insider trading, a practice regarded
asnot only unethicalbutillegal.”Thereaderthenfollowedwith
another question concerning publishing the same item in a meeting
publication, and then in a regular journal. After re:ceiving my reply,
he had the following additional observations: .‘Firmlly, I was possi-
bly a little flippant in describing the reviewer’suse of as-yet-unpub-
lished work as insider trading The situation is not that simple I’m
sure that reviewers are often inspired by the work they review: they
can’t help but be. Unfortunately, the research world is very com-
petitive,and to use thisinformationbeforepublicationhas to be
seen as unfair competition (in this respect, insider trading). On the
other hand; how do you stopan inquiring mind. or for how long do
youwithholdinformation(after all, the ideaofpublication is to
freely disseminate findings. isthere a responsibility to publish?)?”
Available software: Wriedt’s Code Listing
A code listing, developed by Dr. Thomas Wriedt (Institut h e r
Werkstofftechnik, Badgasteiner Str 3, D-28359 €3remen, Germany.
Tel. +49-421-218-2507, Fax +49-421-218-5378,
E-mail
thw@iwt.uni-bremen.de) was included in the Demmber, 1994, col-
umn Dr. Wriedthasrecentlysent me followingmessage: “The
scattering-codes list [can now be] found [on] a WWW sewer Its
URL is givenbelow.Ithas been extendedand updated. Listof
electromagnetic-scattering programmes:
http.//imperator.cip-iwl.uni-bremen.de/fgOl/cod~s2.ht1nl”
NEC-Win Basic interactive demo
provided by Joseph Finnerty, jdfll2@psu.edu, Paragon
Technology (home of the NEC-win family)
EE E Magazine,
Propagation
Antennas
and ‘Val.37, No. 5,October 1995
I received the following announcement from Joseph Finnerty
that might be of interest to NEC users. You can expect to find a
longerdescription of AEC-Win Basic in oneofJohnVolakis’
upcoming columns in the A4agazine.
“A demo version of,VEC-Wzn Basic has been uploaded to the
following FTP sites:
Rp.netcom.com/pub/ra/rander/NEC
and
emclab,ee.umr.edu/pub/aces/NEC
(emclab is a mirror of netcorn, but is easier to access).
Thenameofthedemo-programarchive is “necwin.zip.”It is
approximately 1.3 MB in size
“Althoughonecannotactuallyrun NEC or save any files
using the demo version, the interactive data-analysis and visualiza-
tion tools are fully finctional Sample data from six sample antenna
problems are included so that one can evaluate these features
“NEC-Wzr!Baszc supports 500 segments; a 1500 segment
version is available. While NEC-Win Basic does not fully support
all of the ,IrEC2 command cards, such as near fields, patches. and
reflection. ,VEC-Win Pro will support all of the NEC2 commands.
plus have many other features. NEC-Win Basic is hlly compatible
with Windows 95.
“Paragon is currentlyworkingonotherantenna-support
packagesfor NEC-Win Basic, which will include the ability to
import A!EC files, create wire grids, and perform antenna synthesis.
“Registered users of the full version of NEC-Wm Basic are
eligible for upgrade notification and special pricing.
“Here are some examples you will want to try with the demo
version.
“ I ) Usingthemouse,click on File then Open.Choose the file
LPDA nwb and click OK.
‘‘2) Click on the NECYU icon (a picture of an eye) which is the
fourth button from the right at the top. You can spin the image of
the antenna by moving the mouse, Hold the left mouse button and
move it to translate the antenna,Holdingdowntherightmouse
button while moving the mouse allows youto zoom theantenna.
“3) When you arehappy with the image,press ‘P’ to send the
image to a print buffer. Press ‘Q’to exit XEC‘YU. A box will open,
allowing you to preview the antenna and change the colors before
printing. Click on the Exit button when finished
“4) Click on the upper-right-most button (Surface plot). When the
Surface-Plotboxappears,click on Continue. Press ‘Q’ when
finished viewins the surface pattern (printing also available).
*‘5) Since the antenna is a Log-Periodic you can look at the trans-
mission-line geometry by clicking on the main menu bar Options
then Transmission Line.
“6) Click on the second button from the upper right (polar plot)
Compare the radiation pattern of the Log-Periodic with a Yagi by
clicking on the Add File button in the box that appears. In the File
BOX choose Yagi.nou andthen click OK. Click on thecheckbox
61
next to elevation for the Yagi and then choose a line style for total
gain and a color Click on Generate Graph thenAutoScalethen
Redraw. You should see both elevation patterns on the plot. You
can add a title, copy and paste, or analyze the antenna by using the
menu options.
“I hope the demo version of MTC-Win Busrc will be helpful in
allowingyou to evaluatethepackage. Note that the manual
included with the full product contains fill1 documentation for each
feature and many examples ” ‘ 4
11111111111111111111lllllllll1llllllllll11111111l1111111111111111111111111111
Editor‘s Comments Continuedfrom page 47
cover almost since we became a .Mugmitre There is a story behind
this I was at the Dallas Symposium in June of 1990, just after our
first two issues as the A4agozhe had come out. I was talking with a
group of people about that, and I said that if we could sell the back
cover as a color ad, it would pay for having color on the front
cover. Dick Flam was there, and without hesitationhesaid,
“You’ve got itl’. He actually had me call his office from the meet-
ing,and the (ailright it was late, too) June, 1090,issuecarried a
Flam and Russell ad on the back cover, and color on the front. It’s
been there ever since. Yes, the ad helps to sell their product-but it
also was, and is, an act of faith and support for which AP-S should
be very grateful Color on the front cover is important for at least
ttvo reasons. It is an important element in making the publication
credible as a magazine. It is also valuable to our readers, because I
canofien nil1 figurest\hich need color to conveyinformation on
thecover, and thus save the substantial cost of having to run
“editorial color“ inside
Fortunately,we have had advertiserswhohavetaken color
ads inside the M a g o h e (and we’re always iooking for more!).
Onceacolor ad is inside, we can arrange the layout so that the
editorial color appears in the same “signature” (signatures are the
groups of 32 pages, printedat once, from which the Magorive is
assembled),and save the cost of additional presssetups andink
changes which we w-ould otherwise incur Orbit Technologies was
one of our first steady .‘inside” color customers, and I really appre-
ciate their support. as well
\Ye need a new Advertising &Tanager. The reason we have
the verysubstantial advertisingsupport we do is because of our
Advertising Manager,MarkRomekjo (andhis predecessor,Mike
Thorburn) hlark has done an outstanding job, and we owe him a
big debt of gratitude.However. P L knows how valuable he is, too,
and his job has grown dramatically there in the last year or so As a
result,he needs to step down fromthis position. Thus, we need a
newAdvertisingManger. This volunteer positionincludes both
soliciting new ads, and keeping track of what each current adver-
tiser wants to have run in the next issue This actually is much more
interestins than it might at first sound. Among other things, it gives
the person doing it an opportunity to come into contact with many
different companies in our field. Mike Thorburn pointed out that he
was a graduate student, who knew he was going to finish his PhD
in a year or so, whenhe started in the position,andhe felt he
benefitedfromthis exposure. Perhaps you know of a person in a
similar situation. .4notherpossibilitywouldbe someone who is
actually pursuing a degree in. or in the field of, marketing or adver-
tising. It would certainly look good on e resumi! Please call or send
your suggestions or expressions of interest directly to me
Do you have any data? In this issue, electromagnetic imag-
ing groups from Spain and France have announced the availability
62
of measured data, usehl for people tying to develop inverse or
imaging codes, or for those trying to validate scattering codes. It
can be obtained via FTP This is exfrc.n7r/j,valuable for those doing
this kind of work 1f you or your colleagues have data sets-meas-
ured, or even computed using well-tested-and-verified codes-which
you are willing to share.pleasesend mean announcement. We’ll
see to it that our colleagues can take advantage of the availability of
such data.
An additional data point. Inmy last column,Igavesome
figures for the performance of different types of drives as backup
devices. I have one additional data point to add to that. Using Cen-
tral Point Software’s CPBmku(?,ferDOS and writing to the Fujitsu
DynaMO 230 drive, with “compression to minimize time” selected
(and using a 90 MHz Pentium). the data rate from hard disk to the
DynaMO is 2 5.2MBimin This is actually faster than the Iomega
Bernoulli 150.
Closing thoughts. In the US and Canada, November brings a
holiday we callThanksgiving Althoush it originated n-ith the Pil-
grims whosettled onthis continent in the early 1600s. thishas
become a time in which we express our thanks for all that has come
to us in the past year So, to our readers and our very professional
volunteer Staff, I say a very heartfelt and sincere “Thank you”’
Display Ads Availablein
Magazine
Smaller, display advertising is available in the IEEE h/ennns
o ~ Propag0/10n
d ,2r;ngnz1~e.The primary motivation is to enable
those seeking employment and those offering employment to reach
each other inexpensively, although there is no limitation onwhat
may be advertised (other than thecurrentgeneral ,Mugazme
limitations,given in the Notice to Advertisers in the front of this
issue). The cost is $25 p e r p h / r . h d column inch (which is equal to
a space 1.33” highby 4.5” \vide in camera-ready-original format),
or part thereof, for one insertionAdsshouldbesubmittedinthis
camera-ready, 4.5‘’ wide format; a minimum type size of 12 points
is recommended. Ads are limited to three published column inches,
and arealso limited to textonly (for ads of a quarterpage and
larger, see the .‘Notice to Potential Advertisers” on page 4 of this
issue). A check in US dollars, drawn against a US bank and payable
to the IEEE Antennas and PropagationSociety, must accompany
each ad. Contact the Editor-in-Chief regarding the deadline for the
next issue Ads should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief,
W. Ross Stone
Stoneware Limited
1446 Vista Claridad
La Jolla, CA 02037
Te!. (619) 459-8305
Fax (619) 459-7140
E-mail 71221.621@compuse~ecom
Note. If anadis sent by fax, do not trJ’ to make it camera ready,
and please use type of 16 point or larger size!
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 5,October 1995
 Edmund K. Miller
3225 Calle Celestial
Santa Fe. NM 87501
(505) 82CF7371
emilierBesa.lanl.gov(e-mall)
r e m s discussed in this column include:
Howcomputers and associated communications can help the
disabled;
Some follow-up discussion on validation of published numerical
results;
A revisiting of publication ethics;
Some “spinoff’ computer packages based on NEC and MININEC;
And a personal experience with modern telephone systems.
Project dERE: The disABLED Electronic Resource Exchange
Project Inc.
One of the more-rewarding aspects of “modern” technology is
the uses to which it can be put, to help those having various dis-
abilities to live filler lives. There are a large variety of examples,
including control enhancements for automobiles; improved prosthe-
ses for helping to overcome the loss of limbs; better and smaller
hearing aids; and vision aids to assist those with limited eyesight.
While many technologies are helping the disabled, increasingly it is
computer-based systems that are making the biggest difference.
Most of you have probably heard of Stephen Hawking, who is
confined to a wheel chair and no longer able to speak, because of
having Lou Gehrig’s disease. This Nobel-Prize-winning physicist
has continued to contribute to findamental studies on the origin of
the universe and cosmology. Hecommunicates via a computer key-
board and voice synthesizer, being paralyzed except for the use of
two fingers. Although limited in a physical sense, he is certainly not
limited intellectually. Because of modem-computer technology, he
has remained a visionary thinker, and is holder of the Chair at Cam-
bridge which was once theprovince of Sir Isaac Newton.
I was reminded of this when I found an article in the Colum-
bus Dispatch newspaper, several months ago while at Ohio Uni-
versity. It was about a Columbus resident, Mark Tokarz, who has
started an organization designed to exploit electronic technology
for assisting those with disabilities. The name of the organization is
“ProjectdERE,” which stands for The disABLED Electronic
Resource Exchange Project, Inc. The emphasis is on the abilities
that an individual retains, rather than on those they have lost. It is a
non-profit group that Mark and his wife, Mary Ann Wojton, began
in 1993. Mark himself has Ataxia (a term used to describe a lack of
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37,No. 6, December 1995
coordination),the
of
one main symptoms of Muscular Dystrophy.
He knows personally just what computer technology can mean to
someone confined by physical constraints, especially in terms of
communications. In his case, he is not able to speak as clearly or
with the volume he once commanded.
Quoting from dERE’s brochure, “The disABLED need to
express themselves, communicating ,with those able and disABLED
about their general condition, challenges and triumphs. It is hard for
some disABLED people to communicate with others, especially in
today’s hectic world where time waits for no one.” From a personal
perspective, Mark says, “The reason that I have started Project
dERE is that I have come torealize ,just what technology can mean
to an individual with a disability.” Project dERE is “Dedicated to
providing the Technology and Knowledge so disABLED individu-
als can master the Powerof electronic communication.”
The first challenge dERE chose to tackle was establishing a
computer bulletin board.“dERE-Net!” is a multi-node bulletin-
board system accessible to all. It allows for the free exchange of
information between disABLED people, and is available to anyone
with a computer, modem, phone line, and any telecommunications
software. As the brochure fkther states, “But, for just a minute,
imagine that you are confined to a wheel chair, your speech pain-
hlly slow and slurred, but your mind is as clear and as sharp as
ever. By linking in to The &RE-Net! Bulletin Board System you
are in a new world, where your irdelligence is not measured by
what you look like, or what you sound like, but rather by what your
thoughts and opinions are. You are free to express yourself as your
really are, not as the world may view you.”
I wanted to mention dERE here for at least two reasons. One
is to provide an example of how electronic and electrical-engineer-
ing advances can help those with special problems. Another is to
mention that dERE needs help, specifically in the form of computer
equipment. “Many disABLED persons do not have access to com-
puters.dERE is working with cor,porate America to obtain and
refurbish their outdatedcomputer systems no longer in use and
train disABLED users to utilize them for work, education and on-
line networking. dERE will also serve as an information center for
computer recipients.”
You are welcome by dERE to getinvolved with it in any way
that you choose. If you, yourself, or someone you know, could
benefit from a computer or would like to donate a computer no
longer in use, write to dERE, or call dERE’s Voice Information
System at (614) 478-9940. If you want to call dERE-Net!, set your
telecommunications software t o 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity,
and dial (614) 478-dERE (3373) to llog on to the BBS. The mailing
89
address is Project dERE Inc., 4311 Portabello Dr., Gahanna, OH
43230.
Mark Tokarz, who is 30 years old, hasn’t let his own chal-
lenges hold him back. According to his biography, he holds numer-
ous degrees from various institutions, and started work on a PhD
degree in Computer-Based Instructional Design at Ohio State Uni-
versity, in the fall term of 1995,
Validation of computed results
A statement, concerning a new policy for the AP-S Magazine,
requiring that quantitative-accuracy statementsbe included in all
articles submitted beginning January 1, 1995, appeared in the Octo-
ber, 1994, Magazine, on page 39. Having authored this policy
statement, with input from several AP-S and ACES (which is also
implementing this policy for its Newsletter) members, I was hopefil
that we might also expect to have a similar requirement be adopted
eventually by the Transactions.Evidently, I was overly naive about
the acceptability of such a policy to many AP-S members, at least
those with whom I have had discussions about it. Possibly this was
caused by some confusion about just what would be required, and
how much extra work that might entail.
The problem of validation was again a topic for discussion at
the Newport Beach luncheon meeting of the Muguzzne StafF, at
which various Transacfions Staff members were also present. I
specifically suggested that the Transactions consider adoptinga
similar, or the same, policy. The gist of the discussion that followed
can be summarized succinctly as, “It’s a good idea but we can’t
impose such a policy because ,” where
the blank can
be filled in by any one of a number of reasons. Paraphrased exam-
ples about why this might be so include:
“Such a requirement is not appropriate for theTransactions;”
“Authors have widely varying resources to satisfy it;’
“Different people will use different yardsticks as a measure of accu-
racy;”
“Authors can ‘fidge’ their results;”
“It won’t work;”
“It’s not reasonable to expect everyone to adhere tosucha
requirement;”
“It should be voluntary. not mandatory;” etc., etc., etc.
You may be able to sense my own frustration and disappointment
overthesereactions I don’t see what is so unreasonable about
expecting authors to make a quantitative statement about the accu-
racy of numerical results that they think are important enough to
publish in an archival journal. Do you? To refresh your memory, a
statement like the following was needed to satisfy the accuracy
requirement:
“The results presented here are estimated to be accurate to
, based on using the following kinds(s) of validation exer-
cise(s):
Further information regarding the kinds of problems to which this
accuracy estimate is also applicable was to follow, along with the
nominal sampling densities required to achieve thataccuracy,
90 /€€€Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 6,December 1995
Finally, information about the associated computer-operation count
was to beincluded, together with the computer storage needed.
The latter information is desirable and valuable. However, the
initid statement forms thenub of the policy. My intention was that
this statement should be located in a separate section, immediately
following the introduction, together with whatever elaboration is
considered appropriate by theauthor.(The idea of aseparate
“accuracy” section, which should always follow the introduction,
was part of my draft version of the policy, but not included in the
version that appeared in the Magazine. I felt that this small degree
of standardization would make it easier for reviewer and reader
alike, always to know where theycould find this information. It also
makes crystal clear what the author needs to do.) It was suggested
that further elaboration of each of the above items could also be
contained in the body of the article, but that it was imperative that
this summary section be included.
Evidently, a major concern of those who have reservations
about such a requirement is the perceived difficulty an author might
have in filling in the blanks in the accuracy statement. But note that
there is not a list of means by which this would have to be done:
that is left to the author. It would be hoped that some substantive
evidence could be cited, to indicate why the author feels that the
accuracy of the presented results can be claimed to be so many dB
or per cent or whatever. But if the author were tobase an accuracy
estimate on something else, such as past experience in doing similar
computations, or by observing that the results are comparable to
other published results (in either case, appropriately cited),that
would be acceptable. At least an author would now have to think
explicitly about justifying why those results merit publication, and
howaccuratethey might be. Admittedly, most authors probably
now must consider these issues, but fail to address them in a quanti-
tative, explicit way.
The original policy statement may appear to impose a sub-
stantial additional effort on theauthor’spart Possibly, that is
because all of the items mentioned above were indicated to be nec-
essary to comply with the new accuracy policy. In retrospect, per-
haps the accuracy requirement would have appeared less threaten-
ing had it been limited to the statement enclosed in quotes That is
what I’m proposing here, as a less-intrusive way of an accuracy-
policy implementation. It doesn’t seem to me that complying with
this latter requirement would be an unreasonable imposition on
anyone who has the vaguest idea of what they’re doing, when using
a numerical model. If they can’t comply with this, what on earth
can anyone conclude about thevalue of their results?
Because such a policy can’t work without the support of Ap-
S members, I would appreciate receiving feedback on this issue.
Any comments that you’d like to submit would be welcome, but in
particular, it would be most helpfbl if you were to express a specific
opinion on the following statement:
The A P - S should impose a requirement in both the Magazine and
Transactions that an accuracy statement be included in all articles
containing numerical results, which, asa minimum, provides the
informatioK “The results presented here are estimated to be accu-
rateto based on using the following kinds(s) of validation
exercise(s):
Please check onebox: I agree 0 I disagree 0
Please return your opinion to E. K. Miller, 3225 Calle Celestial,
Santa Fe,NM 87501-9613, or by e-mail to emiller@esa.lanl,gov.
Available software
Various versions of NEC and MININEC have become avail-
able from sourcesother than the originators ofthese popular
modeling codes.For example, the ham-radio community has
embraced computer modeling of amateur-radio antennas. One
source ofMININEC (MININECfor Amateurs) is R. P. Haviland of
Daytona Beach, FL, who has sold over 1,000 copies (see the April,
1990, and February, 1991, columns). Mr. Roy Lewallen, also a ham
(W7EL), has developed two modeling codes based on MININEC
and NEC-2. Thesetwocodes are briefly described below, as
excerpted from Mr. Lewallen’s e-mailing to the NEC-list bulletin
board.
“Announcing EZNEC
“ELNEC (seebelow) has become the standard for antenna
modeling programs because of its combination o f speed, accuracy,
and user-friendly interface. It does have limitations, however, due
to its MZNINEC calculating engine. ELNEC can’t accurately model
wires which are lower than about 0.2 wavelength. Quads are difi-
cult, and results are inaccurate for long Yagis.
“EZNEC overcomes ELNEC‘s limitations, because it’s based
on the powefil NEC-2 code. And it does it without compromising
the friendly, easy-to-use ELNEC user interface.
‘%ZNEC has all the advanced features of ELNEC. . .
Easy-to-use spreadsheet-style data entry
3-D antenna view display, with currents-and even the antenna
pattern-superimposed
Group editing features tohelp you make complex antenna
descriptions fast
0 The ability to rotate wires and change wire lengths or antenna
height with a single entry
Frequency sweep
Multiple plots on the same screen for comparison
One-key analysis to display gain, frontback ratio, beamwidth, and
other important information
True current sources aswell as voltage sources
No copy-protection hassle
And many, many other features tomake modeling fast and easy
.. .plus
* Fast, fast operation
500 segments (twice the capability of ELNEC and MuxP
combined) for very complex antennas
* Transmission line models, including stubs
* Color printing with color DeskJet printers
Easy copying of plots to Windows documents
Automatic segmentation
Comprehensive automatic modeling guideline check
And, of course, thefull NEC-2 ground model
“EZNEC requires an 80386, 80486, or Pentium processor;
coprocessor (built in to ‘486DX and Pentium); at least 2 megs of
available extended memory; and EGA, V G 4 or SVGA graphics.
Supported printers are HP LaserJet, color and monochrome Desk-
Jet, and Epson dot matrix, or compatibles types. EZNEC can be run
under Windows as aDOS application.
“EZNEC is just$89.00, postpaid tothe US and Canada.
VISA and Mastercard accepted. Please see ordering information at
the end.
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 6, December 1995
“ELNEC
“ELNEC has become the standard for antenna modeling pro-
grams. Carefully designed to be friendly and easy to use, ELNEC
uses the powerful MININEC calculating engine. ELNEC can model
nearly any type of antenna you can make from straight wires or
tubes, connected any way you want. You can model Yagis, long
wires, phased arrays, verticals, or tbe crazy antenna in your back
yard. ELNEC can model most type:; of antennas having up to 6-8
total wavelengths of wire or tubing. MaxP (described below)
approximately doubles this capability. ELNEC is an economical way
to model antennas, and it will run on nearly any DM-PC compati-
ble machine. All ELNEC files can be directly read by EZNEC if you
decide later to upgrade.
“ELNEC lets you save and recall antenna descriptions and
patterns, gives you single-key analysis of gain, front-to-back ratio,
beamwidth, and more. It tells you S W R , trap loss, and nearly any-
thing else you’d like to know about your antenna. You can super-
impose patterns for comparison, and see a 3-D representation of
your antenna, with currentsand even the patternsuperimposed.
“ELNEC features an exclusive spreadsheet-like entry system,
to make antenna description and modification fast and easy. It has
many features to help you describe your antenna design easily. For
example, you can rotate a wire or change its length without having
to figure out thenew wire end locations.
“Because of its MININEC computing engine, ELNEC can’t
accurately model antennas with horizontal wires lower than about
0.2 wavelength. Quads can be analyzed with very good accuracy,
but changes are tedious, and ELNEC can handle only about 3 ele-
ments maximum. And ELNEC isn’t suitable for long VHF and UHF
Yagis. But for nearly all other antenna types, ELNEC will give you
excellent results, as many, many amateurs, commercial users,
broadcasters, and universities can confirm
“ELNEC can be run on any 1BM-PC compatible computer
with hard disk, 640k o f R A M , and CGA, EGA, VGA, or Hercules
graphics adapter. Plots print on Epson-compatible 8/9 or 24 pin
dot-matrix printers or HP LaserJet or DeskJet printers. Color
DeskJet printers are supported, but printing is monochrome.
“Two types of ELNEC are available: Standard, for use with a
coprocessor, and N,for non-coprocessor systems. Please specie
which type you need. Ifyou need both types, just add $5.00 to your
order.
“The Maximum Pulse Option ( M a p ) approximately doubles
the complexity of antenna you can model with ELNEC. MuxP
requires acoprocessor. It can be ordered with ELNEC or ata
hture date.
“A $20 discount is offered for ELNEC customers who later
upgrade toEZNEC.
“Ordering information for EZNEC, ELNEC,and MmP:
EZNEC, $89 ELNEC, $49 MaxP, $25
all postpaid to US and Canada. VISAand Mastercard accepted.
“International orders: Please add $3.00for air mail to coun-
tries other than the US and Canada. Make payment in US currency;
international check or money order i n US funds payable through a
US bank; postal money order in US f h d s redeemable at a US post
office; VISA; or Mastercard.
91
 “Make checks payable to Roy Lewallen.
“Order
from:
Roy
Lewallen,
W7EL, PO Box 6658,
Beaverton, OR 97007, USA, Questions? Call (503) 646-2885, or
email w7el@teleport.com .”
Revisiting publication ethics
A reader (Professor Doug Miron, of South Dakota StateUni-
versity) has called my attention to a serious omission in the two
columns (April and June, 1995) devoted to this question. Specifi-
cally, in discussing the responsibilities of reviewers, I inexplicably
forgot to addressoneofthemost-frequentcausesofcomplaints
aboutthereviewprocess:thesometimesinexcusablylongtime
lapse between paper submittal and receiving the reviews. Some of
themostegregiousexamples (many ofyou may haveprobably
experienced such delays) extend up to a year or more, before the
author hears back from the Editor/Associate Editor to whom the
paper was sent.
If we can all agree that ayear is not a reasonable review time,
then we need to consider what might be an acceptable upper bound
on this process. Most of the journals for which I review ask for a
response in a month to six weeks, but some request the review to
becompletedwithinatwo-weekperiod.Somealsocontactme
before sending it, to ask if I’m willing to review a specified manu-
script, while others just appear out of theblue. After completing the
review, I sometimes receive an acknowledgment and thanks. More
rarely, I’ll getasummary of thereviewers’consensus and the
Editor’s decision. I think the usual result is that I don’t hear any-
thing at all about the dispositionof the manuscript.
As an author, most ofus would vote for review times as short
as possible, say two weeks to a month. But, as a reviewer, most of
us would want to extend that time, possibly to as much as three
months. I suspect that I’m not alone in usually waiting up until the
last fewdaysprior toa reviewdeadlinebeforeactuallygetting
down to doing it. I suppose that stretching the review process out is
one way of controlling the number of reviews one ends up doing; it
seems reasonable to reject additional review requests when there
are already several in the queue. So, another reader request that I’ll
make is to seek your opinion on how long the review period should
nominally be (not for special issues or other instances where thereis
a hard deadline). I’d be interested in your opinion.
Idiosyncrasies of modern telephone systems
Most of you are probably aware that modem telephone sys-
tems,particularlytheswitchingnetworks,areworldsapartfrom
92 /€€€Antennas and PropagationMagazine, Vol. 37, No. 6,December 1995
their design just a few decades ago. The changes here, as in most
other “modern” technologies, are due to the electronics revolution
and the computer. Central offices areno longer places where physi-
cal pairs of wiresterminatefromthetelephonessewed by that
exchange, and where the switching is done atmechanical switch-
boards. Instead, this function is now performed via software-con-
trollable electronic networks,having few mechanical components.
These changes have added much functionality to telephonic
communication,someexamplesbeing call forwarding,automatic
rollover, caller identification, etc. However, they also open the door
for peculiarproblemsthatdidn’tpreviously arise. Onehappened
with my home-officetelephone,sinceaboutthetime it was first
connected two yearsago.Overthat time, weoccasionally had a
calling party ask for confirmation of my office number (through
anotherroute),astheywereunable to reach me. Afterthis had
happened enough to appear to be a real problem, I decided to call
the local telephone company. The basic complaint was that calls to
my office sometimes seemed to end up in some electronic “black
hole,” where no one had ever heard of me, if the phone was actually
answered.
The servicepersonwhoanswered our complaintmadean
interesting discovery. It seems as thoughmy number had previously
been assignedto an address a few houses down the street. The wire
pair had been changed to our house, but an extension phone in their
guest house had been left connected to the same physical line. The
homeowner was unaware of this, and it was only when someone
was staying at the guest house that they sometimes answered my
line. This problem was corrected, and presumably solved the prob-
lem.
But, problems persisted. Sometimes people calling me were
answered by a business to whom I was a complete stranger. Once
more, we called the phone company. After determining that thefirst
fix was still in place, additional detective work found a totally dif-
ferent explanation for the problem, one that didn’t involve my ofice
phone alone. Because I’m frequently using my computer modem,
we have a rollover feature that sends office calls to our home num-
ber, when the office phone is busy. Unknown to us, and forgotten
by the phone company, was a software-controllable rollover on our
home phone, that was left over from the previous customer. When
our home phone was busy too, the call was forwarded once again,
this time to a local business. The combination of circumstances that
caused this to happen was rather rare, and so escaped our notice
until we received enough comments to take it seriously. One lesson
from this experience is that,whilethe systemis computercon-
trolled, it is humans who do, or forget to do, the programming. It’s
also worth noting that if you find your outgoing calls sometimes
goingawry,itcanbe helpful to getthenumberyou’veactually
reached, in casesomethinglikethis is happening to thenumber
you’re calling..<e: