I'm with Jerry.
I reckon Lord Kelvin got it right in 1883 when he said:
"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of
learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and
practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I
often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and
express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of
a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge,
but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of
/Science/, whatever the matter may be."
So I place more trust in my EZNEC results than in comments such as "I
tried this antenna and it worked really well".
I find EZNEC allows me to get an understanding of how an antenna "ticks"
that I couldn't easily get any other way. Of course its results wont be
reliable if the real world differs from the model, but I've been really
impressed with how well they hold up in the HexBeam work I've been
doing. Take a look at the "Real world vs EZNEC" plots on my website:
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/hexbeam/eznec2/
As Jerry says - results that are good enough for Ham use.
Steve G3TXQ
K4SAV wrote:
> NEC only provides an estimate of the results, but it is a very good
> estimate. It is not 100% accurate, but it is good enough for ham use,
> and in many cases the accuracy exceeds the accuracy that you can measure
> by experiment.
>
> Jerry, K4SAV
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|