Dick,
It seems to me that EZNEC would confirm your own experience. If I model
a 40m dipole at 90ft over salt water compared to a 1/4 wave vertical at
ground level, EZNEC has the vertical better at low angles, by as much as
10dB. I realise the XM-240 should do better than the dipole I modelled,
but not by more that 3 or 4 dB I would have thought.
Steve G3TXQ
RLVZ@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> TT is tremendous- what a wonderful wealth of information is shared!
>
> I am NOT trying to stir up trouble here as I am very thankful for modeling
> software like EZNEC. But I'm hoping that the accuracy of modeling software
> will continue to improve.
>
> RadioIR (below) states how EZNEC is not always accurate.
>
> A few weeks ago, I posted an e-mail on how in dozens of side by side
> comparisons my single 40-m. 1/4 wave vertical near saltwater worked at least
> as
> well, if not better, than a new Cushcraft XM-240 Shorty-Forty at 90' in all
> directions the vertical looks over saltwater: Europe, Africa, and South
> America.
> Computer modeling indicated that the Shorty Forty should have about a 10dB
> advantage over the vertical with saltwater. (and the vertical has a minimal
> radial system: two 1/4 radials and a single 2" copper strap saltwater)
>
> My hope is that more actual side by side antenna comparison information can
> be used to improve modeling accuracy.
>
> 73,
> Dick- K9OM
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|