Just for yucks, bring up W6ELprop and:
insert 23 degrees as your Minimum Radiation Angle (Options - Prediction
Parameters).
Then run a prediction to a country maybe 10000 Km away.
Look at the predicted signal levels and scroll to the time that the best
signal level will occur on your chosen band.
Click on Advanced and scroll to the same time and note the Hop
Configuration.
Now insert 1.5 degrees as your Minimum Radiation Angle
run the prediction again
scroll to the same time
observe the Hop Configuration
And take a guess at how much signal you lose for each additional hop the 23
degree path takes as compared to the 6 degree path. That will give you an
idea of the differences you are observing and cannot be inserted into EZNEC.
de Paul, W8AEF
ZF2JI/ZF2TA FO8DX/FO8PLA 8Q7AA XZ0A VU7RG TX5C
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Hunt" <steve@karinya.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] EZNEC- needs improvement
> Dick,
>
> It seems to me that EZNEC would confirm your own experience. If I model
> a 40m dipole at 90ft over salt water compared to a 1/4 wave vertical at
> ground level, EZNEC has the vertical better at low angles, by as much as
> 10dB. I realise the XM-240 should do better than the dipole I modelled,
> but not by more that 3 or 4 dB I would have thought.
>
> Steve G3TXQ
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|