[Top] [All Lists]

[Towertalk] Models and real world

To: <>
Subject: [Towertalk] Models and real world
From: (Pete Smith)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:03:17 -0400
At 08:40 AM 7/10/02 -0400, Tom Rauch wrote:
>The REASON we have models is the actual system is too complex to
>consider. While the models are certainly very good in some aspects,
>they always miss some things.

This is certainly true, but there is another good reason, and that is that 
the sheer magnitude of the task required to accurately measure a phenomenon 
is impractical.

I remember that back in the 60's and 70's VOA used to employ people whose 
job involved monitoring VOA transmitters' signals at various locations 
around the globe.  Expensive, if you're going to compile a large-enough 
data set to be more than anecdotal.  They adopted VOACAP as their standard 
for propagation analysis and transmitter siting in the 80's, presumably 
after satisfying themselves that its results were sufficiently consistent 
with the empirical data.

I've always wondered, though, how they made their decisions on their big MW 
installations, since these would be near or below the threshhold of 
accuracy of VOACAP.

One final comment, on the utility to giving NEC model results to two 
decimal places.  For those of us who are still learning how to use these 
programs effectively, it can be useful to have these numbers, even though 
we know the experimental accuracy may be in the +/- 1 dB range.  For 
example, one important source of error in these models is not using enough 
segments to get convergence.  If I look at Bill's results, and they aren't 
the same as mine, then I want to know why, and in the process I can learn 

73, Pete N4ZR

Check out the World HF
Contest Station Database at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>