On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:49:11 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

I don't work the low bands enough , but I would have thought someone would
have just gave some prctical experiance instead of all the NEC stuff. Not
many hams are going to put up a 60 some foot vertical and the required
ground system for 80 meters.

That's OK, not many hams read these threads either. They fully expect
they are doing their best, and certainly their experience proves it.

Could not someone say that with horizontal dipoles about 30 feet up (or
whatever is being used) you may get so many miles ground wave and during
the day so many miles skywave and so many more at night ?

Those same Hams that don't read these threads, and don't build 60+
foot radiators with elaborate ground systems don't realize that
horizontal antennas don't have ground waves anyway. So what coverage
they do get is perfect and they probably got an ARRL award for
horizontal antenna ground wave WAC already when they sent in the
box-top of their favorite breakfast.

NEC and other programs are fine for predicting the coverage, but it does not
take into account all the variatables that can be answered by the
experiance of actual operations.

NEC doesn't predict coverage, it is an antenna modeler, not a
propagation modeler (which would fit into your "other programs"). That
aside, these programs account for more variables than imagined by
those Hams that don't read these threads and don't build 60+ foot
radiators with elaborate ground systems. They have already had the
experience of actual operations and nothing is better than that.

So, why are we writing about those experienced, award winning Hams who
don't read these threads, expect ground wave from their horizontal
antenna, couldn't list more than one variatable and are satisfied with
sub-par to mediocre performance?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC