Roy Lewallen wrote in message
...
If any EZNEC customer is interested in the answers to these or other
questions about EZNEC, please email me and I'll be glad to answer them.
(My only request is that before asking any question about EZNEC, you
make an honest effort to find the answer in the manual. That's the only
way I can possibly provide the level of support my customers deserve.)

I have the strong feeling that Chuck isn't nearly so interested in the
inner workings of EZNEC as he is in simply being as big a nuisance to me
as he can. After all, he's said how horrible he thinks the EZNEC
interface is, and has never purchased it. And I've been guilty of
encouraging his being a nuisance by responding. I apologize to the other
readers for this.

I've wasted much more time with Chuck than he deserves. From here on,
let Chuck, Art, Chip, and Yuri will have to vent their frustrations
without me. I will continue to try to contribute positively to the
newsgroup as I have (tried) in the past. Ignoring Chuck is a necessary
step in doing so.

Good grief, Roy...

I asked honest and valid questions,
seeking honest and valid answers.
Instead, I get this pejorative, and rather
disingenuous diatribe.

My obtaining a legal copy of your
software - with your full knowledge, I
might add - was for evaluation purposes
only. It is common opinion, that your
DOS interface was less then desirable.

Considering this highly unusual reaction
to my questions, It's not unreasonable
for me to now assume that you left out
the thin-wire model. Surely you weren't
thinking it was superfluous and no one
would really need to use it. Perhaps you
were just concerned about speed and
memory back in the days of the 80386.

* [p 72, NEC2d documentation] "The
* explicit transmission line model is, of
* course, less efficient in computer time
* and storage because of the additional
* segments required."

I have for a long time, suspected there
was a tx line modeling problem in NEC.
Now, it is apparent this problem exists
only in your EZNEC.

Tort liabilities aside (that's not my
concern here) let me suggest that it
may be in your best interest to address
this issue, not covertly as you seem to
be suggesting, but openly, in a way that
will illuminate your honesty and integrity.

73 de Chuck, WA7RAI

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:03:10 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

I have for a long time, suspected there
was a tx line modeling problem in NEC.
Now, it is apparent this problem exists
only in your EZNEC.


Hi Chuck,

You asked how to avoid this (if indeed it exists), and I offered a
very simple response to which you have had no comment. You continue
this "claim" of a problem and yet with very simple modeling
alternatives to prove it (aside from testimonials) you have yet to
achieve this proof or demonstrate you have even attempted a
resolution. Is this because it is not in your interest?

Roy has offered a means to have a third party verify your claims,
independent of his software such that it comes down to you are right,
or he is right. You have not taken this offer either and it seems,
given the expense, you either cannot afford to be right (which would
be fully funded by Roy) or you cannot afford to be wrong (which would
be fully funded by you). Any "expense" grievance leans towards the
second interpretation.

You also had another offer to range test, but I can full well
appreciate your backing off from that in overdrive. Any such offers
should be closely attended by "Who owns the intellectual rights to the
results?" If you claimed X gain and the test demonstrated X+1 results
because of "simple adjustments" at the site, "Who owns the
intellectual rights to the results AND the "new" antenna?" If you
attempted to publish the results (assuming they were complementary)
would you be threatened with plagiarism and copyright violation?

Answers to these questions may be researched at the Google Archives by
simply entering the search terms of "Patent Pending," "you may be
sued," "my lawyer will contact your lawyer," "intellectual property."
Once you use any one of these phrases (or all of them - it constitutes
one of our best Soap Operas), simply sort on the basis of author hits
to see who holds the record for these issues as a business manifesto.

It won't be Roy.

There seem to be solutions in the queue, what remains to be seen is if
one or several are visited, or if future communication will be stuck
in the groove of repetition and denial.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You also had another offer to range test, but I can full well
appreciate your backing off from that in overdrive. Any such offers
should be closely attended by "Who owns the intellectual rights to the
results?" If you claimed X gain and the test demonstrated X+1 results
because of "simple adjustments" at the site, "Who owns the
intellectual rights to the results AND the "new" antenna?" If you
attempted to publish the results (assuming they were complementary)
would you be threatened with plagiarism and copyright violation?

Answers to these questions may be researched at the Google Archives by
simply entering the search terms of "Patent Pending," "you may be
sued," "my lawyer will contact your lawyer," "intellectual property."
Once you use any one of these phrases (or all of them - it constitutes
one of our best Soap Operas), simply sort on the basis of author hits
to see who holds the record for these issues as a business manifesto.

It won't be Roy.

There seem to be solutions in the queue, what remains to be seen is if
one or several are visited, or if future communication will be stuck
in the groove of repetition and denial.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


As far as I'm concerned, the results are for Chuck to do what he wants with;
I'm just volunteering time, range, and equipment.

And, if Mr. Lewallen wants a proxy, he can get his colleague Steve Best to come
down. Steve works about 1/2 mile from here.

Of course, should Chuck's results be compatible with his specs, then it seems
that a third party must pay the bill.

That sure seems fair to me.

No one is frustrated, as far as I am aware of.

Why are you trying to create problems that don't exist, Mr. Clarke?

73,
Chip N1IR

Richard Clark wrote in message
news
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:03:10 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

I have for a long time, suspected there
was a tx line modeling problem in NEC.
Now, it is apparent this problem exists
only in your EZNEC.


Hi Chuck,

You asked how to avoid this (if indeed it exists), and I offered a
very simple response to which you have had no comment.

Hi Richard,

To be blunt, I didn't see any merit in your
suggestion. (1) there are no modeling
alternatives for this problem, and (2) it
failed to address the issue: Roy's apparent
omission of the thin-wire model in his EZNEC,
which he touts as a complete NEC application.

I suggest you re-read the posts if you truly
are interested, then read the NEC2d
documentation to confirm. As far as
independent empirical testing is concerned,
there is nothing new to be learned other than
revealing EZNEC's shortcomings in this
regard.

Roy has offered a means to have a third party verify your claims,
independent of his software such that it comes down to you are right,
or he is right. You have not taken this offer

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

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

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

IRT your other oratory ramblings: Incoherent
nonsense...

73 de Chuck, WA7RAI

It READS like language, but I don't know what to make of it....

73,
Chip N1IR

Sigh.

It's really a shame that I have to keep returning to this bashing
session just to correct the false statements about EZNEC that Chuck
keeps inventing. He did, at least, give the thread an honest and
appropriate name. Responding only to his mistruths:

Chuck wrote:

To be blunt, I didn't see any merit in your
suggestion. (1) there are no modeling
alternatives for this problem, and (2) it
failed to address the issue: Roy's apparent
omission of the thin-wire model in his EZNEC,

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.) Chuck has chosen to either disbelieve or ignore
this, although I have no idea why he even cares about EZNEC's inner
workings. Once again, I welcome any example of disagreement between
EZNEC and NEC-2 modeling results. (Those which have been submitted in
the past have nearly always been the result of the models indavertently
being different, the most common error being due to the use of wire
radius in NEC-2 and diameter in EZNEC.)

which he touts as a complete NEC application.

I have never, at any time, claimed that EZNEC does or would implement
all the features of NEC-2, so Chuck will never be able to support his
fabrication. The lack of "patches" in EZNEC is in itself a difference
that's obvious to anyone with even a superficial acquaintance with
NEC-2. What I do claim is that EZNEC uses NEC-2 for the calculations it
performs, and that the results one gets from EZNEC will be essentially
identical to NEC-2 results.

EZNEC does have many features not present in NEC-2.

I don't know what's motivating Chuck to continue making false statements
about EZNEC, but I caution readers to look at the record, archives, or
other sources of information before believing what he says. You can't
say you weren't warned -- just look at the thread subject.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

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