Regarding the use of English, I will interpret your opening line as
excluding Tom and me from the ranks of nitpickers. Thank you for the
comma.

Indeed, we build our world on approximations. Even Maxwell and friends
gave us only approximations, though ones that are far better than we
need for the things we do with our HF or even microwave antennas.

But if I'm given two DIFFERENT ways to approximate the same thing, and
they give me VERY different answers, then I'd like to understand the
situation better. In other words, I'm exactly interested in that art
you mention, and in being able to judge when others claim to know that
art but in fact do not. They can try to lead me astray, but I don't
have to let them.

In other words, if you or anyone else gives me answers, directly or
through graphs or computer programs or whatever, I'd like to be able to
judge the validity of those answers for what I'm trying to accomplish.
I trust that's not a goal you'd disagree with, but perhaps you will.

I also am much more wary of people who just give answers with no
indication of the degree to which they are approximations, than I am of
people who explain that their answers are approximations and to what
degree and why they are.

In this case, I happen to think that it's worthwhile understanding WHY
the DC capacitance isn't very useful in the dynamic situation of an
antenna. Thankfully, for those who can't figure that out for
themselves, there are some decent explanations kicking around.

Cheers,
Tom