On 24 Sep, 06:03, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I have gonedown that road also in the past. As one programmer stated
Antenna programs are not perfect and neither are you. They do not
adhere to Maxwells laws
because some have taken the libity to insert assumptions when things
don't work out.
Mathematicians usually find a constant to insert if they are not sure
of mathematical difference
or their mods don't work. You can do that with a theory because it has
not been confirmed but an electrical LAW
stands alone as being correct as it stands. Just imagine using Ohms
law with a fudge factor inserted where you have to insert a fuse to
take care of it! Even when dealing with superconductors there are
numurous provisos with respect to an ifnittessimle length that are
"solved with mathematical technics. With my amateur thesis that is on
plus other letters and attillas I wrote down the tears
that the head of the nuclear industry in Russia stated with the
reliance on the computors ability to do multiple equations every
minuite of the dayin the hope that one answer fits the bill or at
least it will if you add constants where it deviates from what you
want!
However the assumptions used in this case finally worked out for 100
years and where it doesn't work
in the present computor era then you didn't follow the restrictions
that come with adding assumptions