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