On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:39:46 -0800 (PST), Richard Fry
wrote:

You gave no characteristics of the NEC construction and settings for
your model (cogent or otherwise), as I did for mine.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:41:04 -0800 (PST), Richard Fry wrote:

The near-field analysis of EZNEC for radiation in the horizontal plane
at a point 1 km from a 1/4-wave monopole having two ohms in series
with a Mininec r-f ground, while radiating 1 kW over an earth
conductivity of 8 mS/m is shown as 72 mV/m.

When I observe the operational characteristics of EZNEC (you report
you use it above) AND I observe that it does not offer a Near Field
analysis for Mininec r-f ground (as you report you use above) THEN I
have to wonder how you arrive at a figure of 72 mV/m (as you report
you obtained above). Other than version differences or updates in the
program that supercede mine, I rely on the advice found in the Help
manual provided:
Near field analysis is disabled when MININEC-type ground is selected.
...Use some other ground type for near field analysis.

Your failure to heed this advice seems consistent with your repeated
ignorance of EZNEC's capacity to perform Near Field Analysis. Also
consistent is the complete absence of radials in your model - the
hallmark (cogent) research of BL&E's "Ground Systems as a Factor in
Antenna Efficiency." This consistency propagates into your near field
report - where did you get
is shown as 72 mV/m.
from?

Did you achieve this valuation through a novel upgrade feature found
in EZNEC 5? If so, I bet the help entry still suggests that mininec
type ground is not preferred (and that you ignored that commentary
too). The differences in models to replicate BL&E results well
illustrates this for any version issue you may reveal.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC