[TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker"

[Richards]

Yes - exactly what I was thinking.   You see, I was getting kinda confused
over the utility of this modeling software thing.   The first guy said he
modeled the two antennas under scrutiny, but wanted real life reports
comparing them in the field.  But then another guy seemed to chastise
him for not just using the modeling software as, in his view, that is
sufficient.  But then, it seems, the modeling software includes certain
assumptions about several variables that may not play out as assumed
in reality in a given place, so that, in my mind, throws the mantle of
suspicion over the software modeling, and validates the original question
as to how these things compare in practice.

Great discussion I am learning a lot here.   Lots better than watching
some dumb program about celebrities behaving badly on TV.

Happy trails and 73 to all.          ///  K8JHR  ///
=====================================================

K4SAV wrote:
> Also:
> There are some things that the software can't analyze.  It can't handle 
> an arbitrary terrain.  It has only a very limited capability in this 
> area.  It can handle flat ground OK.  Non-flat ground can in some cases 
> can make a big difference.  If you want to include that parameter you 
> have to use different software.
> 
> There are some antennas that can't be analyzed because they exceed the 
> capabilities of the software.  For example:

> 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, 


===========================================================