On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:43:03 -0700, Jack Twilley
wrote:


I'm not familiar with twenty-degrees as any particular canonical
value. As for what I meant by "full height", one-quarter wavelength
minimum should serve.

Richard This exercise is easily within the limited feature set of the
Richard free distribution of EZNEC.

I do not doubt that your calculations are within the capabilities of
EZNEC. However, I'm more interested in real-life experience, not
computer-generated simulations.

Hi Jack,

20° serves as well as any and at least offers a basis of comparison.
This again turns to the matter of the inspecific. You cite no
particular application (DX v. NVIS) no particular band (that is
heavily swayed by ground given ground characteristics vary over
frequency) and offer a quarter wave height as "full height" which by
most standards is generally accepted as mediocre at best where half
wave height (twice full height?) offers better performance (which is
borne out in testimonial) and where higher sometimes offers worse
performance (also borne out in testimonial). Such issues are easily
isolated and compared through modeling and are consistent with
experience.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC