[TowerTalk] EZNEC- needs improvement

[K4SAV]

G3TXQ wrote: Are we sure we're looking at the EZNEC results carefully 
enough.
If I compare a 160m half-wave at 300ft with a ground-mounted
quarter-wave vertical, over average ground, the vertical has the
advantage at take-off angles under 10 degrees by as much as 8dB.

Well Steve it's obvious one of us is not looking close enough.  I can't 
get that.   Are you sure you're not using a perfect ground for the 
vertical?  When I said no near field ground loss, that implies a Mininec 
ground.

Here is some data.  Tell me which you think is wrong.

A half wave dipole at 300 ft (260 ft long), 1.84 MHz, average ground.
Elevation  Gain
26 deg  __ 8.3
15 deg  __ 6.46
10 deg  __ 3.77
 5 deg  __  -1.7


Quarter wave vertical over Mininec ground and no added near field ground 
loss (which is guaranteed to be better than any real vertical), 128 ft 
tall, 5 inches diameter.
Elevation  Gain
26 deg __ 1.2
15 deg __ 0.81
10 deg _  -0.29
5 deg __  -3.36

Steve Hunt wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> Are we sure we're looking at the EZNEC results carefully enough.
>
> If I compare a 160m half-wave at 300ft with a ground-mounted 
> quarter-wave vertical, over average ground, the vertical has the 
> advantage at take-off angles under 10 degrees by as much as 8dB.
>
> That of course is in the dipoles favoured direction. At low angles the 
> dipole is exhibiting a front to side as high as 18dB, so the vertical 
> would have a considerable advantage at low angles for much of the 
> azimuth. In the dipole's worst direction the vertical beats it for all 
> angles below 66 degrees.
>
> And anything better than Average Ground favours the vertical even more.
>
> Steve G3TXQ
>
>