Tom launched the following into the ether:
Well, I've never modeled an antenna that I have built and they all seem to
work. I guess maybe if I bought a modeling program and ran it, I'd get a db
or better gain, or maybe a little better FB. Or it may tell me that it
won't work. I usually just put up an antenna and if it works, leave it up.
If it doesn't work, I build something else.
And now I'm responding:
This, to me, seems to be the oft-forgotten part about amateur radio.
I don't begrudge anyone their EZNEC or NEC2 modelling: hey, if it floats
your boat, go with it.
But it seems so many questions on TT, between the lines, reflect an
unwillingness or uneasiness to experiment.
OK, sure, if that 5-el 20m monobander is slated as part of a 5/5/5/5 stack
from 50-225 feet, then I certainly see the value in running modelling. I'm
sure even the most ambitious climber wants to minimize time at 225 to every
And like I said, if you like modelling, all the power to you.
But if you're just playing with verticals, or wires in trees, and know even
just whatever the minimum is to pass whatever licence class you have, feel
free to play. That's part of what this is all about. For a lot of folk, the
actual radiocommunication is secondary to the playing.
I'm not going to enter any debate on the merits of modelling. Like I said,
if it's what you like to do, do it. But for those on the reflector who may
have forgotten that learning about radio is part of what ham radio is about,
go have fun with your antennas. Learn from what works and what doesn't. For
someone who is still learning, it's the most effective way to learn, even if
it's not the most effective way to get a killer antenna.
TowerTalk mailing list