Topband: Lab style comparison results on 160m small lot antenna changes.

[shristov]

DAVID CUTHBERT <telegrapher9 at gmail.com> wrote:

> why must we continually test NEC against measurements? The work by N6LF has
> shown great correlation between simulation and the real world.
 
> Those of us who design electronic circuits (including EM) in the world of
> computer simulation have great faith in the various programs and NEC-4 (and
> possibly NEC-2) should give us an adequate A-B comparison.


The question of correlation with reality
must be answered for each particular sumulation.

NEC works most accurately with straight thin wire antennas.
It leaves much to be desired with telescopic tube elements,
and it fails completely to predict effects of booms in case of VHF/UHF antennas, etc.
In those and other cases, there are programs that work much better.

For example, WIPL-D computes telescopic tube elements
much more accurately than NEC (or MININEC),
and can also accurately model influence of booms
and other nearby conductors.


73,

Sinisa  YT1NT, VE3EA