Gene the programs are different tho created by similar means. For
instance sharp corners in elements creat different things, uneven
distribution of measurement point of closely aligned elements also can
creat differences. By using NEC$ to double check illuminates problems
created by an individual programmer Now as far as a new science Ive
previously stated that I
concentrate on what the masters have found and try to take things
further in that it supports what I found by accident. No Iam not
introducing anything that is new just something that has been bypassed
for over 100 years. As far as not getting in to details wide statements
can mean anything but in life it is the details where the difficulties
come to light
Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

[snip]

this aproach
works out using a antenna program that is related but not the same as
standard formd i.e. AO professional. A separate individual took my
figures and applied them to the NEC4 program which is more universally
accepted and where it validated my findings.

[snip]


Hi Art,

I don't want to get into the details of your new antenna concept.
However, consider this.

Your antenna, whatever it is, seems to be modeled correctly by both AO
Pro and by NEC4. Both of those programs are based on completely
conventional electromagnetic theory that has been in use for over a
century. In that case it is most unlikely that you have discovered any
new electromagnetic science.

It is quite possible that your antenna configuration is novel, and it is
even possible that your method of informally describing the antenna is
new and useful. However, new science it ain't.

73,
Gene
W4SZ