A while back I posted the following image of my I-10K model beside yours.
[ATTACH=full]19001[/ATTACH]
Here we see our models with matchers included showing very similar results. I agreed with you that your feed point connection idea incorporated into my model could possibly improve my match.
Then after I posted my wires description, and you applied my wire description to 4Nec2. You reported that your model returned errors and warnings, and I checked you wires and found 5 wires with typos.
After you fixed the errors you come back still claiming you had to modify my model to get it to work, and that due to the error reports popping up you posted an idea that 4Nec2 and Eznec are different, which is obvious. Could the problem be that the source data did not cross over in duplicating the wires...and you have to fix the source?
You said in part:
Then you went on to talk about the different approach we made in the way we set the feed point and match the antenna.
DB all that I did to my model is insert the source (feed point) just like I always do with most models, and I asked you if what you did was apply your source using a split feed point feature in 4Nec2. I do not recall your answer to the split feed point question, but I know that 4Nec2 has such a feature, I think I called it to your attention way back when we first started using our software. I was lost in your describing what you did...and here we are.
I was curious though, and had an idea to set my FP in several different points on the trombone tuner and including the base of the radiator...which is where I see you FP set in the model that started this thread.
On moving the feed point around to different point on the tuner...I found moderate to very good match points at different places and none of them broke the NEC code...until I use the tuner part that is beyond the ground connection for the tuner, or like the typo errors your Geometry and Segment check program reported.
When I fixed the 5 wires I noted on you wires description all of the Geo/Seg errors and warnings went away. You say you had to fix other parts of my model, can you tell me what else you had to do?
Here is your editor with my wire descriptions you posted for me.
[ATTACH=full]19002[/ATTACH]
Here is the file I sent you with the correct wire descriptions. Look DB, I know how difficult it is to type all those little number values down in the right column, and if you get one wrong in will mess the model up:
[ATTACH=full]19003[/ATTACH]
Could you help me with what you had to fix?
I also posted your antenna view at post #1 above, and my antenna view of the matching devices on my model and from the I-10K manual for comparison. You will see the real antenna has angles below the radiator mast among other dimensions that are not in the same plane like you matcher.
So, I conclude that even though our matchers look different, they still produce similar results, and IMHO has nothing to do with 4Nec2 working differently than Eznec...even though there are differences in features which were created by the developers of the antenna software to make operator handling easier for the user to use the Nec engine.
