I see some of the self declared techie types are concerned about my motives for asking the question in the first place. So be it. I suggest that many of the answers posted are of benefit to others re
Yeah... I thought you were looking to see if guys' experience added anything useful or different from what you were getting from the modeling programs. Asking whether or not real world experience dif
I'm glad you found something useful in the actual experience stories. ..."I see some of the self declared techie types are concerned about my motives for asking the question in the first place. So be
That places a lot of faith in the modeling software. How does one know that sort of faith is warranted, given the number of variables that can alter the results in reality? How does the modeling prog
Those numbers I gave don't include all those variables. Some of the variables like ground quality were included as a average value. Those last models do not include all the possible variables because
Also: There are some things that the software can't analyze. It can't handle an arbitrary terrain. It has only a very limited capability in this area. It can handle flat ground OK. Non-flat ground ca
I'm with Jerry. "In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality
OK... so, I am guessing this is why the fellow asked the original question about how those two types of antennas were working out in real life, where all the all those variables would be working thei
Yes - exactly what I was thinking. You see, I was getting kinda confused over the utility of this modeling software thing. The first guy said he modeled the two antennas under scrutiny, but wanted re
With respect (seriously) as a old student of Philosophy of Science (Epistemology) I do not believe that Kelvin meant it quite as literal you suggest - but I like the quote and its application here. Y
TT: <snip> So, I am sure there are others who would take a different academic turn at t his juncture, and suggest the modeling is a close approximation of reality, but one must, in the end, trust the
K8JHR, The Kelvin quote was slightly "tongue in cheek", but I think his appeal for "numeracy" has some value. I wasn't arguing that modelling is better than empirical measurement, but that modelling
A perfect example of this might be the half-sloper: while W8JI points out some very valid technical reasons that this antenna should be a total dog, that doesn't change the fact that some people get
has Jerry and Steve have said this rather well for us techie types, but I'm gonna underline it for those aren't so techie. OF COURSE actual meausrement of the performance of an antenna (or any other
At the risk of "flogging this horse to death", but just to re-inforce Jim's point: In developing my new Broadband Hexbeam I consistently saw a small, but significant, frequency offset between what EZ
The exception to this is if you have some concrete, testable prediction about what the antennas under comparison or test *SHOULD* do. This is ideally what we might want to shoot for with modeling. M
Good aphorisms. Thanks for the post. I have four antennas now... A 40 meter dipole... a 20 m dipole... an AlphaDelta DX-B Sloper ... and Alpha Delta DX-EE 40-10 meter fan dipole. My conundrum is what
AH... YES. GOOD REBUTTAL ON ALL POINTS. //////////////////// Richards- K8JHR ///////////////// == the same "unknowns" in an == . _______________________________________________ ______________________
Richards: Obviously, I'm no expert on what YOU can put up at YOUR QTH. I can't visualize what supports you have available or can build or how much $$ you have available for your hobby; that is always
Yes -- and this phenomenon is what makes selecting an antenna so difficult. This is clearly as much an art as a science. ////////////// K8JHR ///////////// == , that doesn't change the fact that some