| To: | <topband@contesting.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Topband: Accuracy of modeling of 160m verticals |
| From: | "Roger Kennedy" <roger@wessexproductions.co.uk> |
| Date: | Wed, 7 Nov 2018 23:19:19 -0000 |
| List-post: | <mailto:topband@contesting.com> |
Actually, I'm rather sceptical about the accuracy of theoretical antenna modelling software generally on 160m. (as per my recent discussion on a well-known Forum) I'm not convinced that the various programs (which all seem to give different projections) properly take into account the different kind of REAL ground under the antenna . . . particularly with a low Dipole like I use - which is equivalent to a 20m Dipole just 3ft off the ground ! (and therefore the ground has a HUGE effect on the antenna) Roger G3YRO _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Topband: Which compromise receiving antenna, Peter |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Topband: Accuracy of modeling of 160m verticals, Richard (Rick) Karlquist |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Topband: Accuracy of modeling of 160m verticals, K9FD |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Topband: Accuracy of modeling of 160m verticals, Richard (Rick) Karlquist |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |