Same here. Trial and error may eventually work, but most likely you
won't know why. Modeling, especially if you investigate the currents
and their phasing, will help you learn and understand why something
might work or not work. "Ham" radio doesn't mean being ignorant of the
stuff behind what we do.
There are pitfalls with modeling of course, but doing things like a
running a sensitivity analysis (tweaking dimensions to see if the
changes make sense) can minimize that. I learned more about antennas
from playing around with EZNEC+ than I ever did from any other source.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 7/11/2018 5:19 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
On 7/11/2018 5:08 PM, Dan Bookwalter via TowerTalk wrote:
I know everyone is onto modeling everything, I am in the camp of ,
put it up , give it a try , dont like it , try again ...
We have lost so much of the "ham" part of ham radio... I used to ,
and still do , throw a wire out and see what you can do ... other
than 160 and probably 80 , you can work a suprising amount of stuff ..
My view is completely the opposite -- to me, ham radio is studying the
fundamentals and using that knowledge to build our stations, including
antennas, that work better. Wandering around in the dark is not part
of my view of ham radio.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|