Andy there is an old saying " let the buyer beware"
How much did you PAY Reg for using his software
and did you get what you PAID for ?
Cheers mate
Art

"Andy Cowley" wrote in message
...
Andy Cowley wrote:

"Dan Richardson " wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:02:25 GMT, Andy Cowley
wrote:

You also have modelling programs which don't work.

Can you please provide a list of these "non-working" programs?

Danny, K6MHE

Dear Dan,


An addition to my last post about Reg's dipole3.exe:-

With these settings l=1, h=6, w=1.5, s=0.2, f=1.8, 'Input resistance' is
given
as 248.4 ohms. Even if it is assumed that all the antenna current flows to
the
end of the wire, the wire resistance can't exceed 0.08 ohms, the correct
figure
being closer to 0.04 ohms, assuming linear current distribution. For a
short
antenna it is obvious that the radiation resistance must be less than that
of
a dipole in free space i.e. less than 73 ohms. That leaves a contribution
of
at least 175 ohms for the ground losses. Increasing height to h=1000
(effectively free space) the ground resistance falls to 136 ohms. There
is something very wrong here. Increasing the wire diameter produces big
reductions in the 'Input resistance'. I feel that the RF wire
resistance/wire
losses are being incorrectly calculated.

I'm fully prepared to be corrected if I'm wrong about this but Reg has so
far
failed to give any satisfactory explanation of the results I obtained. If
I am
wrong, I will, of course , make an unreserved apology to Reg.

Perhaps someone with more skill and knowledge than I have can check what
I've
done? I used EZNEC to simulate an identical aerial and got very different
results.



vy 73

Andy Cowley, M1EBV