At 10:40 AM 2/2/02 -0500, N8DE wrote:
>Pete,
>Perhaps my use of the word 'excessive' wasn't quite correct for the
>situation described, but the results of modelling are still IDEALIZED.
>
>You say you don't agree .. but then you talk about a 'smooth and
>predictable change in the radiation pattern' ... this is IDEALIZED ..
>
>As I said:
>
>This is one of the reasons that we must NOT trust the software to give
>EXACT answers, but rather to give 'idealized' situational results of the
>MATHEMATICS involved [not shouting ... just emphasis].
Again, I disagree. For a flat, smooth foreground, the change in the real
radiation pattern IS smooth and predictable. Then you put the same antenna
over an irregular foreground, and of course the resulting far field is no
longer smooth or regular, but that's a whole 'nother topic, one which is
every bit as difficult as modeling the antenna's field in the first place.
But I repeat, good modeling aims to use mathematics to produce a good match
to the observable world. Unless it is close enough to real, it is
essentially useless. NEC-2 is far from useless.
73, Pete N4ZR
Sometimes a tower is
just a tower
________________________________________________________________________
Where do you get ICE bandpass filters & beverage matching boxes? The
same place that pays for the hosting of this list: The eHam Store.
Order online at http://store.eham.net.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
|