I'd say it looks like ARRL in QST at least, is publishing anything. QST is become a more non-technical publication, but I nevertheless found that "vertical beam" article irresponsible to publish for
Author: "Diane & Edward Swynar" <deswynar@xplornet.ca>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 10:32:03 -0400
"...Further, in my opinion, too much reliance is placed on modeling however the author did attempt field strength measurements (but in a flawed way)..." ** ** Hi Rob et al, IMHO, ALL of the antenna a
All sucessful antenna developments are done by EZNEC or similar NEC based software nowadays, I also use it extensively and the results always do work as expected from the beginning when converted int
I'll take exactly the opposite view -- if you can't make it work in the model, it isn't likely to work when you build it either. Modeling software, like NEC, simply does the math for a design that YO
If you research the origins of that urban myth about bumblebee flight defying the laws of physics you'll find some interest parallels with antenna modelling! In short, the supposition that a bumblebe
I've had moderate success (maybe) with modeling the trees as lossy conductors (big fat wires) in NEC4 The real problem is that there is precious little published data on the RF properties of forests
We could also design circuits by trial and error instead of calculation, we could mix chemicals by recipe instead of formula, and we could design towers with complicated wind loads by guesswork. Ante
Can you share some of your empirical best guesses for this? 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTa
You're quite mistaken - none of the Laws of Physics had to be adjusted. What changed was that they were applied more completely to the problem instead of making simplifying assumptions - that's a qui
I think it is a misnomer to call them ..."Laws"... . They are theories that explain a phenomenon to which the majority of the scientific community subscribe to, at this present time. They are not Hol
I couldn't disagree more. Like much of modern science, the fundamental principles of how antennas work have been clearly understood (and proven) for at least a century. The fact that any of us have n
Absolutely true. The physical theories as understood at the time of the original comment were completely sufficient to explain the flight of bumblebees ... they just weren't thoroughly applied by the
The true test would be have the other end of the contact on the land line and test with him over maybe a 10,000 mile path or the path one is interested in Since a contact is 95 percent propogation a
TT: Here's another: "The difference between theory and practice in theory is less than the difference between theory and practice in practice." 73 de Gene Smar AD3F __________________________________
There are laws and there are theories. The "laws of physics" ...are laws. 73 Roger (K8RI) _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mai
If I understand the stories I read, all the most effective antennas were designed and built in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Later antennas just can't compare <grin>. Rich NU6T (Ham since the dec
Yes.. right from the peak of cycle 19, and just before numerical modeling and antenna analysis got to the point where you could prove that a particular design was bad.<grin> _________________________
Do you recall the Gotham beams? They produced full size yagis. I had a 20 meter 3 el on a 24 foot boom. I added 4 feet to the original 20 foot boom. As a kid this was my first experience with antenna
Yup. Nostalgia has a way of derailing objectivity. Some hams seem to think that the best antennas, the best ops, and the best rigs are those that came into being right around the time they got their