L. B. Cebik wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> I assure you that, as a modeler with some experience with the span of
> available modeling programs, that there is nothing wrong with the model
> and that the results are in accord with antenna theory and that NEC-2 is
> in no way inaccurate with this model relative to the more advanced NEC-4.
>
Thanks to you and all for the responses. I see that indeed it is what it
is! I am surprised to see the differences though. A 4 Sq array seems to
be tremendously louder for DX than a lowly dipole at 1/2W yet the data
suggests this should not be true! Unless the angle is that much lower
than 4-5 degrees which I am sure it isn't for mid range DX on 80. I have
modeled raising the vertical and ground conditions. THis is a blast!!!!
I now have a 4 vertical vee array that seems great - it is 9.38dbi (@16
deg) compared to the dipoles peak of 6.8 (@ 34deg) when both are mounted
at the same height (V goes down to ~23'). BOY I wish I had purchased
this earlier......
G.
So why is it the 4 sq does so well, is it simply that its generic
competition is dipoles at 1/8 W or lower or similar antenna? Must be!
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search
|