Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

Ken, K7GCO got bunch of RAIbeams and put them up, wrote glowing review for 73
Mag. He was impressed with the performance and wanted to figure out why is it
so. He very carefully inserted dimensions into EZNEC model and could not get
agreement. He had to go down to 48. 5 MHz in EZNEC to obtain similar pattern
and parameters as real antenna resonant at 51.25 MHz.

So, maybe modeling doesn't "see" the dual driven elements and critical coupling
well? It is amusing to see the "experts" defending unmistakability of software
(loading coil case etc.)

I'm sure you're glad, as I am, that Chuck has finally accepted my offer
and agreed to have a real, professional test done, after something like
8 years. The results of the test should put to rest any speculation
about this issue. I'm looking forward to the test and seeing the test
results.

I get feedback from some of my professional customers who have the
capability to test the antennas they analyze with EZNEC. They report
very good agreement between analysis and measurement. Of course, most of
them are real pros in both modeling and measurement. Given the choice of
believing their results or Ken's and Chuck's, I go for theirs. Even
though you might not consider those folks to be "experts", I do.

But by all means, let's look at the test results -- unless you believe
that "critical coupling" results in radiation that conventional test
ranges can't detect but hams can. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL