Cecil Moore wrote:

a 64% error yet the author says there's nothing wrong.

John, would you care to comment on those six points?

Hello, Cecil, and I think Roy and others have provided valid comment. I
would like to recommend, in addition to the ARRL publications, the
Schaum's Outline on transmission lines. I don't know if it's still in
print but it was authored by Chipman. Like the other paperback Schaum's
Outlines it is not intended to be an in-depth examination of RF
transmission line theory (if you want that I would recommend King and
Harrison's book). Chipman's book, OTOH delves into the theory at a
level that IMHO doesn't require an EE degree to comprehend. There's
also loads of practical problems worked out (lots of stuff on incident,
reflected and standing waves). I think it would prove timely to pursue
sources besides r.r.a.a for your electromagnetics training. Sincerely,

J.B. Wood wrote:
Hello, Cecil, and I think Roy and others have provided valid comment. I
would like to recommend, in addition to the ARRL publications, the
Schaum's Outline on transmission lines. I don't know if it's still in
print but it was authored by Chipman. Like the other paperback Schaum's
Outlines it is not intended to be an in-depth examination of RF
transmission line theory (if you want that I would recommend King and
Harrison's book). Chipman's book, OTOH delves into the theory at a
level that IMHO doesn't require an EE degree to comprehend. There's
also loads of practical problems worked out (lots of stuff on incident,
reflected and standing waves). I think it would prove timely to pursue
sources besides r.r.a.a for your electromagnetics training. Sincerely,

Bob, I've had the book for 30+ years. I'm not kidding about
those six items. Those are the old wives' tales being spread
by about six of the gurus on this newsgroup. I learned this
fields and waves stuff back in the 50s from Ramo, Whinnery,
and Johnson and some good professors at Texas A&M.

In particular, how about taking a look at my math on
the thread titled "Please verify (or disprove)". I would
welcome anyone proving me wrong but so far, there are
zero takers.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

J.B. Wood wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

a 64% error yet the author says there's nothing wrong.

John, would you care to comment on those six points?

Hello, Cecil, and I think Roy and others have provided valid comment.

BTW, the current plotting error in EZNEC is (100-64)
= 36%.

Do you think a 36% plotting error within EZNEC is nothing
to worry about? Do you think when current phase is displayed
as a sine wave instead of a straight line, that is OK?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com