Roy Lewallen wrote in message
...
I'm not at all insisting on your testing your antenna -- I have no need
to. NEC-2 and EZNEC are perfectly capable of accurately modeling it, and
accurately show the gain and pattern it will have in practice.

Methinks your opinion is in error, Roy...

NEC2d /NEC4 may well be capable, but I
have my reservations about your EZNEC.

I've been looking through your Ver. 3 manual
and I cannot find any reference to non-
radiating networks: two-port network
specification (NT)) or the thin-wire option: the
Extended Thin-Wire Kernel (EK). Nor do I
see these functions in your control panel.

In looking through the NEC2d docs, my
concern regarding NEC's ability to 'see'
"induced current at one or more points in a
structure" has been put to rest. However, in
Section V of the NEC2d docs (p 62), quite a
lot of attention is given to (1) source
modeling and (2) nonradiating networks.

On page 67 (Section V, 2 - Nonradiating
networks), through p 71, there is much
discussion ITR. In part:

"The driving-point matrix relates the voltages
and currents at network connection points as
required by the electromagnetic interactions.
The driving-point-interaction equasions are
then solved together with the NETWORK or
transmission line equasions to obtain the
INDUCED currents and voltages."

All EZNEC seems to offer ITR, are
simple transmission line simulations where
the fed (source) energy is applied to a
segement (load).

Figure 20 (p 69) and Figure 21 (p 70)
and the related discussion, make clear that
NEC can model parallel elements coupled
through a 2-port network (simulated bi-
directional transmission line).

Since your control center appears to not
utilize 2-port networks, it is no wonder your
software fails to agree in some instances
with empirical data.

Its
operation is simple and easily understandable. I'm entirely satisfied
that I understand how it works and what its performance is.

LOL


My offer, which I think was generous, was to pay the bill if a test
showed your antenna to meet the claims you made. I'm not offering to
test your antenna for you.

Wiggle, wiggle, squirm... that's not
what I'm asking.

You've once again chosen to fall back on your
back yard test and creative pseudo-scientific theory to explain the
claims you've made, rather than to show the world, at no expense to you,
that the claims are valid. That's up to you. I'm not obligated to
disprove your extraordinary claims.

You are, however, obligated to provide
ALL of the NEC capabilities in your
software!

If, in your closed-minded ignorance, you
wish to call critical coupling a
"pseudo-scientific" theory, so be it. But in
doing so, you leave me wondering if,
perhaps, some concepts simply lay
beyond your ability to visualize.

73 de Chuck, WA7RAI


Roy Lewallen, W7EL