This question is the same for actual antennas as it is for modeled antennas.
The performance of a real world and modeled 160m vertical antenna is almost
entirely determined by the nature of the radials and the dirt involved. We
talk about it as if the vertical 120 feet is the essential element, when in
truth, until the issues of radials and dirt are specified, the vertical
almost doesn't matter.
The other thing you will come across is that ALL of the models, including
the professional grades, UNDERESTIMATE ground losses at MF.
Alas, you are on the uncorrected-for-physical-issues side of the gotchas,
and misconceptions that plague modeling in the MF vertical antenna realm.
The distribution menangerie of pre-formed models is no longer identified
sufficiently in my collection of thousands, so I will need the .EZ files
from you, for both the dipole and vertical, in order to comment.
This will have to be done off reflector, as the reflector strips
attachments.
73, Guy.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rather than re-invent the wheel, and since I'm an EZNEC newbie who knows
> just enough about modeling to be dangerous, I'd like to find a good .ez
> file
> for a 120' vertical with a good radial system. There's got to be one out
> there, but I just can't seem to find one.
>
> I'm comparing a 35' high 160 dipole to the standard "vert1" model that
> comes
> with EZNEC, and something is just not right. The low dipole should be
> inferior to a 1/4 wave vertical at a 25 degree elevation, but my models do
> not show that, by any means.
>
> (I know there are limitations for radial systems in NEC2 vs. NEC4, but I
> believe there are workarounds.)
>
> I have EZNEC+ v. 5.0.
>
> TIA.
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
> _______________________________________________
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|