On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 04:16:53 GMT, "Jerry Martes"
wrote:

Hi Reg

I sure dont mean to become involved with the discussion on Cage Dipoles,
and which method of analyzing them, is better.
I do want to give some data concerning the time needed to learn to use
EZNEC. It isnt necessary to devote the time of a 10 day course in order to
be able to get alot of good/valuable data from EZNEC.
At Richard Clark's encouragement, I bought Roy's EZNEC program a couple
weeks ago. I was able to get good data from the program that same day,
The program is not mysterious.
I write this post to make it clear that EZNEC can be learned quickly by
anyone who trys, and can be learned in one day. I dont inply that I am a
well qualified EZNEC operator, but I have learned so much about the antenna
I am investigating that I really treasure this EZNEC program, and recommend
it to any HAM who has interest in understanding antennas.

Jerry

Jerry,

The truth probably lies somewhere between your view and Reg's.

Whilst you may have been able to construct a simple model in a very
short time, being confident that you have a valid model on even modest
antennas takes much more experience and knowledge.

I think it is another of those cases where the more I learn, the less
I know. You may find the same in time.

Owen
--

"Owen Duffy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 04:16:53 GMT, "Jerry Martes"
wrote:

Hi Reg

I sure dont mean to become involved with the discussion on Cage Dipoles,
and which method of analyzing them, is better.
I do want to give some data concerning the time needed to learn to use
EZNEC. It isnt necessary to devote the time of a 10 day course in order
to
be able to get alot of good/valuable data from EZNEC.
At Richard Clark's encouragement, I bought Roy's EZNEC program a couple
weeks ago. I was able to get good data from the program that same day,
The program is not mysterious.
I write this post to make it clear that EZNEC can be learned quickly by
anyone who trys, and can be learned in one day. I dont inply that I am a
well qualified EZNEC operator, but I have learned so much about the
antenna
I am investigating that I really treasure this EZNEC program, and
recommend
it to any HAM who has interest in understanding antennas.

Jerry

Jerry,

The truth probably lies somewhere between your view and Reg's.

Whilst you may have been able to construct a simple model in a very
short time, being confident that you have a valid model on even modest
antennas takes much more experience and knowledge.

I think it is another of those cases where the more I learn, the less
I know. You may find the same in time.

Owen

Hi Owen

I am not qualified to comment on Reg's information on either computer
programs or antennas in general. I am not far from being a beginer at
antenna design by today's standards. But I was able to get decent data on
a 4 dipole array circularly polarized array that requires some phasing of
the dipoles. By my standards, that isnt a modest antenna. Richard Clark
was god enough to give guidance and encouragement via E-mail. That may
account for my being to get such good data on the first day of trying EZNEC.
But, he didnt actually provide data.
I am not qualified to differ with your observations concerning learning to
use EZNEC. But, as must be clear by now, I am really impresed with this
program and I consider it learnable with a little time and logic. It is
my hope that I can encourage anyone who has interest in antenna design and
understanding to 'give it a try'. It doesnt demand a formal training
course. EZNEC is a nifty tool.

Jerry

--