Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:52:29 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"?
This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for
the sake of arguing.

Hm. Cecil was quick to hold up EZNEC results as evidence when they
seemed to support his theory. He must have come across a situation where
they didn't.

EZNEC can indeed be trusted. There are of course some cases where the
underlying NEC calculating engines have limitations or run into
numerical trouble, but those are quite well known and documented. So
far, the models and EZNEC results I've seen here -- from Cecil's models
and from the modified model I made -- are easily within EZNEC's
capabilities and agree with known theory. This shouldn't be a surprise
to anyone. If they disagree with some alternate theory, the alternate
theory is faulty.

Promoters of antennas with magical properties often say that their
antenna can't be modeled because the modeling programs don't "take into
account" whatever magical effect they've dreamed up to justify their
impossible claims. That's their way of trying to explain why modeling
programs show their claims to be false. I detect the same phenomenon
happening here.

EZNEC and NEC are being used daily by hundreds or thousands of
companies, government agencies, military groups, and universities to aid
in designing antennas that work, and NEC has been in use for nearly 30
years now. We make use of them daily. EZNEC is indeed trusted, by some
of the biggest and most sophisticated aerospace companies and government
agencies.

If anyone ever sees a significant difference between EZNEC and NEC
results, please let me know so I can track down the reason.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL