On 2015-01-13, at 10:01 AM, Doug Renwick wrote:
> Yes it's interesting how some believe their computer is a god, in some cases
> rightly so, in others, maybe not.
>
> Doug
Hi Guys,
Is it just me here---an aging dinosaur of almost 63 years of age, & a Ham for
44 of those---who bemoans the fact that ALL antenna articles in magazines these
days MUST be accompanied by reams of computerized data & charts...?
I LOVE playing with antennas here, & have made my own small "...footprints in
the sands of time" in that regard myself, by having had a couple of aerial
pieces published in CQ, and one in QST. Probably one of THE biggest things that
I anticipate reading in any antenna article is simply the CONCLUSION: how did
the antenna perform in on-the-air tests...? Did it accomplish what the author
was hoping to achieve in the first place...? How did it compare to previous
sky-hooks that the author had...?
Instead of ANY such comments, all we ever consistently see are words to the
effect of, "...As can be seen in graph #3, EZNEC establishes that the take-off
angle is 15 db. symmetrical with yadda yadda yadda yadda..."
Theory is great, but in this iinstance, I want empirical comments, and NOT just
scientific-engineering bafflegab alone!
Sorry, but that's just me, I guess---as I said from the outset, I'm just an
aging dinosaur...
~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|