[TowerTalk] EZNEC- needs improvement

[K4SAV]

The only time I have verified EZNEC being different from my real world 
measurements is usually because of some error I put into the model or 
something I left out of the model.  However I can't do comparisons of 
high dipoles and verticals on 160 at my station because I don't have 
them.  I can look at data generated by others (who are likely to not be 
in error) and check that with EZNEC.  In the case of 160 (and only 160) 
I can't get their results to agree with EZNEC.  So I'm wondering if 
there is some magic on 160 that says a vertical get a special advantage, 
and what the heck is it?

EZNEC says a 300 ft high dipole on 160 beats a quarter wave vertical at 
all elevation angles under 54 degrees even if I assume zero near field 
ground loss for the vertical.  Real world data disagrees.

By the way, this disagreement doesn't exist on 80 meters.

Jerry, K4SAV


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  
>