On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

EZNEC is only an approximation.

The Great Approximator is arguing against approximation?
Presumably because its solutions are better. But like dissatisfaction
with the weather, you only have to wait for the change:

Most people cannot measure the feedpoint
impedances of their antennas when it is over a few hundred ohms,
so a rule-of-thumb is helpful.

Ah! Back to approximations without references or (dare I say it?)
that measurement that "most" people cannot perform.

The impedance graph in the ARRL Antenna Book is helpful.

Another approximation and to this point no valid comparisons, merely
testimonial.

what are you trying to prove by picking all those nits?

And then the Great Nit-Picker finds one:

That looks like an unreasonable value

Again, testimonial sans reference or measurement.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

The Great Approximator is arguing against approximation?

On the contrary. Most of our models are approximations.
Exactly what is your agenda in rejecting approximations?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:19:34 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

The Great Approximator is arguing against approximation?

On the contrary. Most of our models are approximations.
Exactly what is your agenda in rejecting approximations?

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

EZNEC is
only an approximation.

Richard Clark wrote:
wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
The Great Approximator is arguing against approximation?

On the contrary. Most of our models are approximations.
Exactly what is your agenda in rejecting approximations?

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question? There is
absolutely nothing wrong with being "only an approximation". That is
not a negative statement. Too bad you have never learned that everytime
you make a measurement, you make an error. There are no 100% accurate
measurements. Everything except cardinal numbers is an approximation.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:36:57 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
The Great Approximator is arguing against approximation?

On the contrary. Most of our models are approximations.
Exactly what is your agenda in rejecting approximations?

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question?
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question?

wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

You have obviously missed the point. There's absolutely nothing wrong
with an approximation. That includes EZNEC and my rule-of-thumb.
"EZNEC is only an approximation", is NOT a negative statement any more
than, "You are only a man", is a negative statement. Everything,
including precise measurements with expensive instruments, has
limitations.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On 31 Mar 2004 08:27:20 -0800, (Cecil Moore)
wrote:

Everything,
including precise measurements with expensive instruments, has
limitations.

I note no measurement with instruments, expensive nor inexpensive, no
expression of limitations, no references - simply innuendo. Innuendo
is not approximation. There is no discussion as to the genesis of
this "approximation." There is no data garnered by experiment to
support it. There are no correlatives to associate it. Nothing
educational, no generality. As such, all the quality of the Old
Wife's Tale.

I believe Tom's point was that more information was known or available
preceding the "approximation" than following it, which portrays the
"approximation" as a degradation of knowledge. The process of the
"approximation" has so many constraints as to fall out of the field of
a generality, which is the common understanding of "approximation."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Cecil Moore" a écrit dans le message de om...
Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question?

wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

You have obviously missed the point. There's absolutely nothing wrong
with an approximation. That includes EZNEC and my rule-of-thumb.
"EZNEC is only an approximation", is NOT a negative statement any more
than, "You are only a man", is a negative statement. Everything,
including precise measurements with expensive instruments, has
limitations.

Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot.

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question?
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

Funny, I have exactly this same problem with my dog. The only
response I ever get from her is "Arf", the exact intellectual
equivalent of your responses.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

"Cecil Moore" a écrit dans le message de om...
Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question?
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
EZNEC is only an approximation.

Funny, I have exactly this same problem with my dog. The only
response I ever get from her is "Arf", the exact intellectual
equivalent of your responses.

Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot.