"Dan Richardson wrote
Why do you feel modeling is "so unreliable"?

=========================

Because 99.99 percent of models are never properly tested in practice and
in
an anateur's back yard, if they WERE tested, the radiation patterns would
only bear a vague resemblance to predictions.

Predictions are mostly wishful thinking. Nevertheless, they can be a
satisfying intellectual activity.
----
Reg.


I see........ Then I assume then that your diagnosis of computer
modeling applies to your antenna computer programs as well?

Danny

====================================

Danny, there's nothing wrong with antenna pattern-prediction progams. There
are good nunber-crunched side effects. It's only their practical application
by people in their own back yards which is unreliable. It cannot be helped.
It's a fact of life. The environment and performance of an antenna cannot
be accurately predicted unless it is at a height of several wavelengths
above and away from obstructions.

Not a single one of my programs predicts a radiation pattern. Only an
exceedingly few professional antenna design engineers would ever make real
use of such facilities even if I could write them. I don't like wasting
time. I havn't all that amount of time anyway. Nobody has produced a new
type of antenna for many decades. (Not even Fractal). It's all been done
before.

But, as I say, radiation prediction programs are entertaining, educational
and satisfying. Enjoy them while you can.

Nevertheless, unreliable is a fair practical description.
----
Reg, G4FGQ