Cecil wrote,

Tdonaly wrote:
He can't work out the proofs himself so he has to
appeal to a higher authority and hope it all comes out
right.

I hope that Kraus is right. You hope that Kraus is wrong.
Guess which hope has the highest probability of being true?
I have presented a reference with which I agree. Now it is
your turn to present a reference that disagrees with Kraus.
Good luck on that one.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


EZNEC, although I expect EZNEC to have its limitations, just as
Kraus has his. Last night I pretended that dipoles were transmission
lines, as you and Reg and a lot of others suggest, and I wrote some
network equations and solved them. After doing that, I've come to have
more respect for EZNEC. I don't consider my little exercise to be definitive,
though. The only way to resolve this is to make an antenna and see if it
will work the way you say Kraus, and you, say it will. Then you can
ask the question of why it does or does not work.
If I remember correctly, Tom Rauch tried this and couldn't get it to
work as it was supposed to. Tom is a careful experimenter, so his
experience should carry some weight. Why don't you try it, Cecil?
As Reg has repeatedly pointed out, relying on authority only for your proofs is

a procedure fraught with danger.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH