I get feedback from some of my professional customers who have the
capability to test the antennas they analyze with EZNEC. They report
very good agreement between analysis and measurement. Of course, most of
them are real pros in both modeling and measurement. Given the choice of
believing their results or Ken's and Chuck's, I go for theirs. Even
though you might not consider those folks to be "experts", I do.


Maybe there are cases when things don't play as figured? Maybe would be of
interest for software author to find out, and if there is a glichand to find
the way to accomodate it? Have you figured out how to model loading coil of
particular inductance and physical size to reflect the real current drop across
it?
Experts said one time that she's flat.

But by all means, let's look at the test results -- unless you believe
that "critical coupling" results in radiation that conventional test
ranges can't detect but hams can. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Here we go again, W8JI snotty style?
I just mentioned what K7GCO found, in hope that it might shine some light at
the subject and arouse some curiosity about disagreement. If it is
inconvenient, than I am sorry to butt in here. I have no intentions to get
engaged in ****ing contest. Right now I am too busy with new ocean front QTH
next to 170 acre Rhombic antenna farm, DR1 design and business that brings
livelihood. When I get more time, I will get back to work on antennas, setup
test range (across salt water bay) and get into paper models vs. real ones.

Peace!

Yuri, K3BU.us