[TowerTalk] Is "The Truth about Trees and Antenna Gain" the whole truth?

[jimlux]

On 2/7/18 2:34 PM, Tom Osborne wrote:
> I think the problem with this article, along with many other antenna
> articles.is they have nobody to proof read and see if this is actually
> factual or not.  I have seen many articles in QST that I read and shake my
> head wondering where they got their info from.  73

I didn't see any technical errors.  As noted by others they compared an 
analytical solution with the finite element and got similar results; 
that's an important validation that is missing in many articles.  The 
article is complete - it provides everything you need to duplicate their 
analysis (although I wish there was a way to download their NEC model, 
but I've already typed it in).  They cited good references (at least, 
they're the same ones I would cite)

I wouldn't find this article amiss in IEEE Antennas and Prop Magazine. 
Maybe even Transactions on Ant and Prop, although for that there would 
be stylistic differences.


> Tom W7WHY
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Shawn Donley <n3ae at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> I believe the article certainly is accurate with respect to trends.  The
>> NEC tree models track well with the infinite lossy cylinder closed form
>> solution, which is a good double check.
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>