Reg Edwards wrote:

Until now I have not contributed to this discussion. Neither now and
very little in the past. So please leave me out of it.

I have produced one small program (I am surprised at the attention
drawn to it) which computes radiating efficiency of a short vertical
antenna based on a novel analysis of ground loss, ie., shallow buried
radial wires which behave as lossy transmission lines.

All I have to say is that the program gives the "right" answers.
Disprove it if you can.

Considering that Brown, Lewis, and Epstein's experimental work has held
as being valid for about 70 years now, it can be used as a test for
various attempts at calculating ground system losses. NEC-4 matches
their results quite well; your program produces results which are
dismally different. Anyone armed with both the BL&E paper and your
program can see for himself.

It is as accurate as the ground "constants" are known, that is about
plus or minus 30 percent. The answers are forthcoming within
milli-seconds. No need to go on a one month training course. And it's
free. What more do you want?

It's sure a lot easier to create an easy-to-use free program if the
results don't have to bear any resemblance to reality. But perhaps
you're right -- maybe people who use free software shouldn't expect the
author to be honest about the program's accuracy.

To prove it wrong you have to create a set up similar to that pruduced
by BL&E - only this time don't forget to measure ground coductivity
and permittivity!

Your program fails badly with any reasonable ground conductivity and
permittivity. NEC-4 does pretty well with reasonable assumptions for the
ground quality of a field in New Jersey in the wintertime.

From what Roy says, BL&E were hardly better than bungling amateurs of
their era.

Once again, you've crossed the line from your normal pomposity and
crankiness to an insult and lie.

The only reason their report is considered to be 'The
Bible' is because it was the only one ever produced and available at
the time.

Another untruth. It stands because their measurements took in quite a
number of conditions, and have been replicated.

They laid down so many radials it didn't matter what ground
conductivity was.

Those people who have read the paper know this to be untrue, also. They
made measurements with 2, 15, 30, 60, and 113 radials.

Isn't that kind of a record, Reg, three flatly untrue statements in a
single posting? You should record the name of that wine and save it for
those special occasions when you feel threatened by the possibility that
some Yanks might have done something useful 70 years ago. Hope your
favorite store has lots in stock. In vino veritas, indeed.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL