I wouldn't bother responding, but I'm afraid some readers might be
misled by what's being said here.

Chuck wrote:

Yes Roy,

It has been well established that the
available NEC engines model extremely
well with conventional designs. That is
not the issue.

Your innuendo regarding 'professional'
customers is silly. In my 67 years, have
been Chief Engineer of commercial radio
and television stations, as well as having
designed commercial radio and
television stations, including the first all
solar powered commercial (5 KW) FM
station in the US. You seem to opine
that the ability to make measurement's
is limited to a only special few.

Since none of your customers are
producing critically coupled designs,
your arguments in this regard are
without merit, and IMO, the intent of
this post was a failed attempt to
reduce my standing.

The statement about professional users wasn't meant to be innuendo or
any sort of slight, but simple fact. I was referring to the aerospace
companies, government agencies, universities, broadcast consultants,
international broadcast companies, space agencies, and the like that
routinely use EZNEC, and some of whom continue to buy additional copies
of the professional versions. (Surely you regard these as professional
users?) And they don't tell me (or hardly anyone else) specifically the
kinds of antenna they design. Since your antenna is seemingly the only
one which is incapable of being modeled (other than ones which can't be
modeled for well known and documented reasons), you alone must have the
key to the magic involved.

The NEC-2 manual is available from the web. It explains in detail how
the network model, which is used for transmission lines, is implemented.
Surely someone with your extensive professional background is able to
read and understand it.

You claim to be a science minded
person, yet you choose to accept
theoretical results over contradicting
empirical data, and do so, without
even an iota of curiosity.

Ah, here we go again. Someone makes claims that contradict known and
widely accepted principles. Then the charge is made that anyone who
disbelieves is narrow minded and without curiosity, and challenged to
disprove the extraordinary assertions. I have no obligation to once more
show the validity of accepted science; the evidence is there in
abundance for anyone with curiosity to see. It's up to you to back up
your extraordinary claims with evidence. All I've seen from you for
evidence is a mention of back-yard measurements. This is hardly enough
to convince me or any rational person that established physics is wrong.
I've even put my money where my mouth is, and offered to pay for a real,
objective test of your antenna. That's all you're going to get.

That is not science, it's closed-minded
silliness! Equally as silly, is your
raising such a stink over 1/3 of a dB...
which will prove to be your Waterloo.

And that isn't even worthy of a response.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL