[TowerTalk] EZNEC- needs improvement

[Steve Hunt]

Dick,

It seems to me that EZNEC would confirm your own experience. If I model 
a 40m dipole at 90ft over salt water compared to a 1/4 wave vertical at 
ground level, EZNEC has the vertical better at low angles, by as much as 
10dB. I realise the XM-240 should do better than the dipole I modelled, 
but not by more that 3 or 4 dB I would have thought.

Steve G3TXQ

RLVZ at aol.com wrote:
>  
> Hi Guys,
>  
> TT is tremendous- what a wonderful wealth of information is shared!  
>  
> I am NOT trying to stir up trouble here as I am very thankful for  modeling 
> software like EZNEC.  But I'm hoping that the accuracy of modeling  software 
> will continue to improve.
>  
> RadioIR (below) states how EZNEC is not always accurate.
>  
> A few weeks ago, I posted an e-mail on how in dozens of side by side  
> comparisons my single 40-m. 1/4 wave vertical near saltwater worked at  least as 
> well, if not better, than a new Cushcraft XM-240 Shorty-Forty at  90' in all 
> directions the vertical looks over saltwater: Europe, Africa,  and South America.  
> Computer modeling indicated that the Shorty Forty  should have about a 10dB 
> advantage over the vertical with  saltwater.  (and the vertical has a minimal 
> radial  system: two 1/4 radials and a single 2" copper  strap saltwater)
>  
> My hope is that more actual side by side antenna comparison  information can 
> be used to improve modeling accuracy.
>  
> 73,
> Dick- K9OM  
>
>