On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:16:44 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

AFAIK, neither NEC 2 nor NEC 4 from any source will show a composite
elevation pattern over a defined ground at a specified distance to include
the space wave and the surface wave in a single display. One must merge
them using his/her own understanding and resources.

This seems to ramble well off the earlier path encapsulated by Denny
and apparently subscribed to by Owen, in regard:
But to bring us back to the major complaint which seems to be that the
Nec engine doesn't model the last few degrees over ground very well, so
that the zero angle is discarded by the software... Richard seems on a
mission to prove the NEC engine wrong - well, I agree, the NEC engine
does have limitations for low angle signals which is why the authors
have installed an angle cut off... Per Richard's citations
To which I object to, to no notice (I wasn't surprised however).

This subsequent restriction to GRAPHICS (and not to issues of NEC per
se) merely highlights my earlier comments that such "merging" serves
no apparent purpose of the Ham's activities in MF/HF, especially when
such GRAPHICS would only support a region of one to a dozen or so
miles. There is nothing remarkable or noteworthy in this indulgence.

To bring us back to the major complaint.... That complaint is without
foundation. EZNEC easily models the last few degrees over ground very
well (and to all constraints offered). Having said this, I, for one
(out of at least three) can see a contradiction. I, for one (out of
at least three) can support my contentions with data taken directly
from EZNEC whereas all other discussion to this point has been
particularly void of informed content.

So, I return to those same, earlier queries:
What is the comparison being made?

To what purpose?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC