Roy Lewallen wrote:

snip useful info

The most common cause of reported discrepancy between EZNEC and NEC-2
and some other programs is that in EZNEC, you specify wire diameter
while for NEC-2 you specify radius. People often miss that when
comparing the two. Another common cause of differences -- not present in
your situation -- is when analyzing antennas near antiresonance (e.g.,
half wave vertical or full wave dipole), small changes in source
placement cause large changes in feedpoint impedance. In those cases,
differences in segmentation can produce substantially different
impedance results.

I have never seen a significant difference between EZNEC and NEC-2
results (except where I've unintentionally introduced an obvious bug
into the modified NEC-2 code incorporated in EZNEC), and it's my intent
that there not be any. I'd like very much to hear from anyone who thinks
he sees a difference. So far, all apparent differences have turned out
to be due to unintentional differences in the models, but if any real
discrepancy is present, I want to know about it so it can be tracked
down and corrected.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Thanks for the information and offer. As a previous poster pointed put it
normally the operator. I'm going to spend some time this weekend looking to
see if I have done something wrong (likely) before wasting anyones times.

--
Rod
M0DTG

remove -- to reply