RLVZ@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Again- I am not trying to create trouble here but see computer modeling
> software improved.
>
> Yes- do have poor performance with verticals, but you mentioned that you
> live in a heavily wooded area. Verticals work poorly in heavily wooded
> areas so
> I don't believe that's a fair environment to compare verticals to
> horizontals.
>
> Our club once operated Field Day with verticals on 40-10m. in a heavy wooded
> area. The shade was wonderful for keeping us cool but the verticals worked
> terrible even on distances over 1,000 miles. Computing modeling should try
> to take the environment more into effect... I wouldn't be surprised if a
> heavily wooded area attentuated a verticals radiation by as much as 20dB.
>
> 73,
> Dick- K9OM
>
Jumping in late here..
It's not so much that modeling software needs improvement... it's pretty
good at telling you want the EM field will be in a given situation.
It's the applications knowledge that needs improvement. Tools to help
build the model. Tools to help interpret the results.
Jim
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|