[Amps] k9yc pdf

[Eddy Swynar]

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