[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR

To: "Tom Osborne" <>,"Towertalk" <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR
From: "Kelly Taylor" <>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:50:58 -0500
List-post: <>
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 
extent possible.

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.

73, kelly

TowerTalk mailing list

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