[TowerTalk] EZNEC- needs improvement

[Paul Playford]

Antenna gain is one thing, path loss is another.

As I recall Steve's question was 'why does EZNEC predict higher gain for a 
dipole than a vertical, but in practice I see the vertical outperforming my 
dipole (over salt water)'

The dipole (at 1/2 wavelength above ground) will have a higher angle of 
radiation (more F layer hops for DX) than the vertical, both over salt 
water.

Anytime you add F layer hops to a path you will have increased loss.

I have already spent too much time on this subject, I am done with it.

de Paul, W8AEF

ZF2JI/ZF2TA  FO8DX/FO8PLA  8Q7AA  XZ0A  VU7RG  TX5C



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "K4SAV" <RadioIR at charter.net>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] EZNEC- needs improvement


> G3TXQ wrote: " My point is that, even if the propagation massively
> favours the
> very-low-angle path, the dipole will only ever be 6.62dB behind the
> vertical. The fact that there may be other, much weaker, paths at higher
> angles where the dipole response peaks is irrelevant.
>
> W8AEF wrote: "Wrong.  The dipole will be 8 dB MINIMUM weaker than the
> vertical per F layer hop.  3 F layer hops will make the dipole 24 dB
> minimum weaker, etc."
>
> Paul, I suggest you sit down and rethink this.  The propagation angle
> does not change the gain of the dipole.  If the dipole has X amount of
> gain at at "Y" angle then the path does not change the fact it has X
> amount of gain at "Y" angle.
>
> And the propagation angle does not necessarily change if the gain of the
> antenna changes.
>
> Steve's statement is correct.  Your's needs some re-thinking.
>
> Jerry, K4SAV