Roy Lewallen wrote in message
...
[... ]

I clearly stated in an earlier posting that EZNEC implements the
extended thick-wire kernel as required by the model. (The thin-wire
kernel is the default.)

Hi Roy,

For clarity, let it be established that the
term "wire kernel" and "wire model" (the
term used in the NEC2d documentation) will
be considered as one and the same in this
discussion.

That said, I find it extremely hard to believe
that the wire model used for interconnecting tx
lines, which normally would be implemented
only in the special case of unbalanced
terminations, and one that uses the most
resources, would be designated as the
default wire model. It defies all logic.

When asked what criteria your program uses
to determine which wire model to implement,
and why it is not a choice the user can make
- as it should be - you responded with a rather
paranoid and pejorative diatribe attacking my
character... what am I supposed to assume
from that?

In any event, these were honest questions
which you chose to evade, and continue to do
so. All things considered, it is easy to make
the assumption that the thin-wire model is not
implemented in EZNEC, and you're simply
trying to spin your way out of a hole.

Shame on you!

73 de Chuck, WA7RAI

Things are looking up. Instead of patently false statements, you've
advanced to musings that simply make no sense. Since most readers will
hopefully recognize them for what they are, no response is necessary.
Actually, no rational response is even possible.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Chuck wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in message
...
[... ]

I clearly stated in an earlier posting that EZNEC implements the
extended thick-wire kernel as required by the model. (The thin-wire
kernel is the default.)


Hi Roy,

For clarity, let it be established that the
term "wire kernel" and "wire model" (the
term used in the NEC2d documentation) will
be considered as one and the same in this
discussion.

That said, I find it extremely hard to believe
that the wire model used for interconnecting tx
lines, which normally would be implemented
only in the special case of unbalanced
terminations, and one that uses the most
resources, would be designated as the
default wire model. It defies all logic.

When asked what criteria your program uses
to determine which wire model to implement,
and why it is not a choice the user can make
- as it should be - you responded with a rather
paranoid and pejorative diatribe attacking my
character... what am I supposed to assume
from that?

In any event, these were honest questions
which you chose to evade, and continue to do
so. All things considered, it is easy to make
the assumption that the thin-wire model is not
implemented in EZNEC, and you're simply
trying to spin your way out of a hole.

Shame on you!

73 de Chuck, WA7RAI

Fractenna wrote:

I accepted Roy's offer, but with conditions. So
far, he has declined to accept those conditions.

I did accept Chip's offer, though.

IRT your other oratory ramblings: Incoherent
nonsense...

73 de Chuck, WA7RAI



Yep:-) Sure did. I posed no conditions nor restrictions for Chuck. It's his
antenna and his technology. I don't have any bias on how or why it works; I'll
just measure it. Period.

I will have no problems testing it with a professional outdoor range setup.

No 's' meters here, friends.

If a third party has offered to pay for the tests if they meet Chuck's extant
specs, that's fine with me. In fact, my inclination at this point is to have
that third party pay up directly to Chuck. I'm happy to do this for Chuck,
gratis.

Chuck can do what he wants with the data.
Always happy to help a colleague.

73,
Chip N1IR

Gee, Chip, that sounds very generous of you, but don't you
think you may be stabbing him in the back? I mean what if your
tests show that his claims were a bit on the hyperbolic side?
Wouldn't there be a danger that a lot of Chuck's customers would want
their money back?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Gee, Chip, that sounds very generous of you, but don't you
think you may be stabbing him in the back?

No;

I don't see that. Neither does Chuck.

If this were truly so, then surely a third party would pay for the testing
fully and without hesitation, don't you think?

73,
Chip N1IR

Roy Lewallen wrote in message
...
Things are looking up. Instead of patently false statements, you've
advanced to musings that simply make no sense. Since most readers will
hopefully recognize them for what they are, no response is necessary.
Actually, no rational response is even possible.

Hi Roy,

If what I am saying makes no sense,
then the information contained in the
NEC2 documentation must be a fairy
tale and you must be Merlin the
magician.

I invite everyone to take the time to
look at section 3 "Transmission line
modeling" on page 72, of the NEC2
documentation.

http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf

It explains the uses of both implicit and
explicit tx line models, and under what
conditions the explicit model (thin-wire
kernel) should be used.

Looking a look at previous statements;

First, the thin wire kernel is invoked
automatically:

The extended thin wire kernel is invoked automatically when the model is
such that it's needed, according to the criteria given in the NEC
manual.

Then the 2-port network is invoked
automatically:

I clearly stated in an earlier posting that EZNEC implements the
extended thick-wire kernel as required by the model. (The thin-wire
kernel is the default.)

And the thin-wire kernel now becomes
the default. ("default" implies no need
to "invoke" as it is the preferred function
by default - which makes no sense,
since the 2-port network has the most
common usage - W8JK, log periodic
dipoles, etc., etc., and uses less
resources.)

The NEC2 documentation even
suggests there may be instances where
both models should be implemented
simultaneously.

When asked for an explanation of these
contradiction, I get my character
assassinated instead.

So now we're supposed to believe either
the thin-wire kernel or the 2-port network
is invoked automatically, determined by
a *mysterious* set of criteria.

Mysterious simply because that criteria
cannot be divulged...

This is real science, indeed. Given that
no one can ascertain which tx line model
is being implemented, it leaves any
resulting outcome ITR in question!

I suggest we have here a situation akin
to VP Cheney giving disingenuous excuses
as to why no one should see the records
of his covert energy meetings.

Stonewalling will prove to be an exercise
in futility as the truth will come out, one
way or another!

73 de Chuck, WA7RAI



Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Chuck wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in message
...
[... ]

I clearly stated in an earlier posting that EZNEC implements the
extended thick-wire kernel as required by the model. (The thin-wire
kernel is the default.)


Hi Roy,

For clarity, let it be established that the
term "wire kernel" and "wire model" (the
term used in the NEC2d documentation) will
be considered as one and the same in this
discussion.

That said, I find it extremely hard to believe
that the wire model used for interconnecting tx
lines, which normally would be implemented
only in the special case of unbalanced
terminations, and one that uses the most
resources, would be designated as the
default wire model. It defies all logic.

When asked what criteria your program uses
to determine which wire model to implement,
and why it is not a choice the user can make
- as it should be - you responded with a rather
paranoid and pejorative diatribe attacking my
character... what am I supposed to assume
from that?

In any event, these were honest questions
which you chose to evade, and continue to do
so. All things considered, it is easy to make
the assumption that the thin-wire model is not
implemented in EZNEC, and you're simply
trying to spin your way out of a hole.

Shame on you!

73 de Chuck, WA7RAI