Mike Kaliski wrote:

...
I'm sure Roy is quite capable of defending himself against your
accusations, but I think you are being a trifle unfair. EZNEC is a
simulation designed to predict the performance of an antenna design.
...
Best wishes
Mike G0ULI

No need for any defense; EZNEC (and other apps) are the "state of the
art" as far as hams are concerned--they are more than adequate for our
needs. Too bad so many view this/these discussions as an "attack."

These "arguments" are only an attempt to peer over the horizon on
possible new discoveries and inner workings of antennas.

Nothing in my posts are meant to be an attack on EZNEC, Roy, or for that
matter, any others and those who use them to construct and place into
service the antennas in common use and which perform well. I am sure
most others are of a like mind.

Arts' feathers have just been ruffled ... something we all have been
guilty of--at one time or another.

Regards,
JS

On 15 Nov, 19:08, John Smith wrote:
Mike Kaliski wrote:

...

I'm sure Roy is quite capable of defending himself against your
accusations, but I think you are being a trifle unfair. EZNEC is a
simulation designed to predict the performance of an antenna design.
...
Best wishes
Mike G0ULI

No need for any defense; EZNEC (and other apps) are the "state of the
art" as far as hams are concerned--they are more than adequate for our
needs. Too bad so many view this/these discussions as an "attack."

These "arguments" are only an attempt to peer over the horizon on
possible new discoveries and inner workings of antennas.

Nothing in my posts are meant to be an attack on EZNEC, Roy, or for that
matter, any others and those who use them to construct and place into
service the antennas in common use and which perform well. I am sure
most others are of a like mind.

Arts' feathers have just been ruffled ... something we all have been
guilty of--at one time or another.

Regards,
JS

Just to clear things. I am not saying that Roy's work does not predict
with good accuracy how certain antennas perform. What I am saying
it is that it does this despite manipulations for the wrong reasons.
Isn't that sort of thing what makes us different to E ham.
One can hold his own theories but not by attempting to deride those
whose
theories differs. There must be room for differences in thought amoung
reasonable men or advancement in science is squashed and adherence
to written theories could last for ever. A moderator can ensure that
present theories remain sacrosant if that is what members desires!
Art

art wrote:

...
Just to clear things. I am not saying that Roy's work does not predict
with good accuracy how certain antennas perform. What I am saying
it is that it does this despite manipulations for the wrong reasons.
Isn't that sort of thing what makes us different to E ham.
One can hold his own theories but not by attempting to deride those
whose
theories differs. There must be room for differences in thought amoung
reasonable men or advancement in science is squashed and adherence
to written theories could last for ever. A moderator can ensure that
present theories remain sacrosant if that is what members desires!
Art

Yer preachin' to the choir.

There is more than enough to "prove" there are errors/holes in our
present knowledge--well, IMHO, at least. No one is suggesting we just
"throw it all away" ... I don't think I am alone--some just remain
silent to escape the stones and arrows.

I have many more questions than answers, but don't we all? Be
interesting in coming back in a hundred years and viewing "em
radiation"/antenna theory at that time.

You just don't take well to bein' "poked with a stick!" ;-)

Regards,
JS