On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:52:29 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"?
This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for
the sake of arguing.

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"?

This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for
the sake of arguing.

It was a rhetorical question, Richard. If the creator of EZNEC
disagrees with his own creation, what does that imply?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:52:29 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"?
This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for
the sake of arguing.

Hm. Cecil was quick to hold up EZNEC results as evidence when they
seemed to support his theory. He must have come across a situation where
they didn't.

EZNEC can indeed be trusted. There are of course some cases where the
underlying NEC calculating engines have limitations or run into
numerical trouble, but those are quite well known and documented. So
far, the models and EZNEC results I've seen here -- from Cecil's models
and from the modified model I made -- are easily within EZNEC's
capabilities and agree with known theory. This shouldn't be a surprise
to anyone. If they disagree with some alternate theory, the alternate
theory is faulty.

Promoters of antennas with magical properties often say that their
antenna can't be modeled because the modeling programs don't "take into
account" whatever magical effect they've dreamed up to justify their
impossible claims. That's their way of trying to explain why modeling
programs show their claims to be false. I detect the same phenomenon
happening here.

EZNEC and NEC are being used daily by hundreds or thousands of
companies, government agencies, military groups, and universities to aid
in designing antennas that work, and NEC has been in use for nearly 30
years now. We make use of them daily. EZNEC is indeed trusted, by some
of the biggest and most sophisticated aerospace companies and government
agencies.

If anyone ever sees a significant difference between EZNEC and NEC
results, please let me know so I can track down the reason.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:35:40 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"?

This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for
the sake of arguing.

It was a rhetorical question

This prelude to more ignorance reveals moral equivocation.

"Cecil Moore" wrote
Your opinion of EZNEC is recorded for posterity on Google.
Who am I to embellish it?
=========================
Cecil, as usual you are being hopelessly evasive.
----
Reg.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"?

This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for
the sake of arguing.

Hm. Cecil was quick to hold up EZNEC results as evidence when they
seemed to support his theory. He must have come across a situation where
they didn't.

On the contrary, Roy, it was a ***rhetorical*** question to
which Richard kindly responded. It is you who are disagreeing
with the EZNEC results, which are your own creation. I fully
agree with the EZNEC results posted below. So are you or EZNEC
correct? Both you and EZNEC be correct. Please see:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm and scroll down to the bottom.

EZNEC can indeed be trusted.

Glad to hear you say that, Roy. Does that imply that you cannot
be trusted? (Another rhetorical question) Reckon why the EZENC
results disagree with your personal postings on this newsgroup?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark wrote:
This prelude to more ignorance reveals moral equivocation.

Actually, your naivite' in following me down the primrose
path is enlightening.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Reg Edwards wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote
Your opinion of EZNEC is recorded for posterity on Google.
Who am I to embellish it?

Cecil, as usual you are being hopelessly evasive.

I could waste my time Googling your opinion of EZNEC
but why should I waste my valuable time doing that?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Does that imply that you cannot
be trusted? (Another rhetorical question)

Even rhetorical questions cannot cloak their repugnant character.

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Does that imply that you cannot
be trusted? (Another rhetorical question)

Even rhetorical questions cannot cloak their repugnant character.

Certainly, no repugnance or disrespect intended. Roy is presently
in the unenviable position of agreeing with (EZNEC and me) or
disagreeing with (EZNEC and me). Hint: rhetorical questions
require no answer.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp