My dear friend Cecil,

It's a waste of time mentioning things like DIP.TL.EZ and EZNEC4.
Hardly anybody has ever heard of whatever they are. I certainly
havn't. And the chances of obtaining them, even if legal, within the
next 12 months is so remote, by then, everybody will have forgotten
what it's all about and will have lost interest in the subject. So
nobody ever takes any notice of references and switches to another
more-interesting thread on the newsgroup.

If you have any facts to say then say them. It's up to you to be
convincing. If you think you need the support of Terman or Kraus then
you lack self-confidence. Bibles are usually misquoted, or taken out
of context anyway. Second-hand, plagiarised, information adds nothing
to reliability.

As usual, you gave only half of the information needed to make sense.

In addition to a thick neoprene layer of 0.1 inches, with a high
permittivity of 6.7, what was the antenna wire diameter and the
approximate height above ground?

Without such details your information is old-wives' waffle.

As things are, your velocity factor reduction of 7.8% does not go out
of the ball park value predicted by my formula.

My formula takes a few milliseconds to calculate. Whereas your method
requires a 4-weeks training course and several hours making the model.
----
Reg,G4FGQ