Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Modeling\s+\"Ground\"\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Modeling\s+\"Ground\"\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:18:01 -0800; I agree with W8JI and others who have observed that the earth's surface layer (what we call "ground" in a modeling context), is quite complex, and far from uniform. There's also the matter skin depth; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00584.html (11,994 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 20:38:34 -0500; The difference between the acoustic stuff and HF, MF antenna modeling, is that there is BIG money to be made with acoustics. Someone can invest serious capital in the research with a halfway decent h; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00585.html (9,484 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: "Richard Fry" <rfry@adams.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 05:38:12 -0600; In reality, NEC4 can produce quite accurate results when modeling buried radial wires and groundwave propagation losses along a real earth path -- as long as earth conductivity is known for that path; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00591.html (7,476 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:58:13 -0500; In reality, NEC4 can produce quite accurate results when modeling buried radial wires and groundwave propagation losses along a real earth path -- as long as earth conductivity is known for that path; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00592.html (7,426 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: "K1FZ-Bruce" <k1fz@myfairpoint.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:38:13 -0500; Agree with Tom I found that the 160 foot BOG antenna that was buried was more unstable with dry/rain conditions, than when on/above ground. Also the 1/8 wave spaced 160 meter 4 square, I had some y; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00594.html (8,104 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:01:43 -0500; For most of the past century the intractability of the equations was the excuse for just laying down "textbook" overkill radial systems. If you can't solve the "real world problem", then just change; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00595.html (13,021 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:00:00 -0500; For most of the past century the intractability of the equations was the excuse for just laying down "textbook" overkill radial systems. If you can't solve the "real world problem", then just change; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00596.html (10,673 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: "Richard Fry" <rfry@adams.net>; Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 06:36:47 -0600; For most of the past century the intractability of the equations was the excuse for just laying down "textbook" overkill radial systems. If you can't solve the "real world problem", then just change; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00603.html (8,291 bytes)
9. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:06:35 -0500; You wish. You're not considering the situation that everyone is complaining about. NEC x.x does not provide accurate answers for "UNDERkill" radial systems either. I've never heard of a skilled ham g; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00604.html (10,615 bytes)
10. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: shristov <shristov@ptt.rs>; Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:41:47 +0100; Sommerfeld integral is not an approximation, has not been tuned, and has no provision for tuning. Sommerfeld integral is an exact solution of Maxwell equations for the case of infinite, plane and hom; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00605.html (8,343 bytes)
11. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:49:18 -0500; Which decidedly makes it an approximation in real terms. And yes it IS tuned, read the program code. And note how the FCC specifies determination of the NEC ground constants to use. 73, Guy _________; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00606.html (7,662 bytes)
12. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: shristov <shristov@ptt.rs>; Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:49:47 +0100; This is interesting. Where in those 10,000+ lines is the tuning hack? 73, Sinisa _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00609.html (7,762 bytes)
13. Re: Topband: Modeling "Ground" (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:35:08 -0500; Let's hypothetically suppose the tuning is not there. Then the program itself is just flat wrong and miscalculating in some areas. I'd far rather blame it on tuning than mis-coding. It really works q; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00610.html (9,959 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]