|
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
Which one of the the two is more efficient as a radiator & why?
1/2 wave vertical fed in the center with coax or one vertical 1/4 wave with four 1/4 wave radials also fed in the center with coax? |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
"N3" wrote in news:1156112798.027258.152330
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: Which one of the the two is more efficient as a radiator & why? 1/2 wave vertical fed in the center with coax or one vertical 1/4 wave with four 1/4 wave radials also fed in the center with coax? The vertical dipole has more horizontal gain than the groundplane. I believe its about 1dB improvement. Ed K7AAT |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
On 20 Aug 2006 23:54:28 GMT, Ed wrote:
"N3" wrote: Which one of the the two is more efficient as a radiator & why? 1/2 wave vertical fed in the center with coax or one vertical 1/4 wave with four 1/4 wave radials also fed in the center with coax? The vertical dipole has more horizontal gain than the groundplane. I believe its about 1dB improvement. Actually, *neither* one has any "gain". :-) Jonesy -- Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux 38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2 *** Killfiling google posts: http//jonz.net/ng.htm |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
The vertical dipole has more horizontal gain than the groundplane. I believe its about 1dB improvement. Actually, *neither* one has any "gain". :-) Its all a matter of reference. I was thinking in terms of dBi.... a vertical has 3dBi gain, a ground plane, 2 dBi. Ed K7AAT |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
On 21 Aug 2006 17:50:21 GMT, Ed
wrote: Its all a matter of reference. I was thinking in terms of dBi.... a vertical has 3dBi gain, a ground plane, 2 dBi. Hi Ed, The missing "reference" is that the vertical is planted into earth (because both antennas are vertical, this missing "reference" should be very explicitly stated). However, in the context of 2M FM, an antenna planted into the ground, unless that ground happens to be the peak of a mountain, is rather a very poor option for 1dB "gain." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
The missing "reference" is that the vertical is planted into earth (because both antennas are vertical, this missing "reference" should be very explicitly stated). However, in the context of 2M FM, an antenna planted into the ground, unless that ground happens to be the peak of a mountain, is rather a very poor option for 1dB "gain." I've lost you here, on the "planted into earth" part. The original poster was asking about 2M vertical vs. groundplane antenna. I would assume for 2M that either antenna would be up in the air..... ??? Ed K7AAT |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
On 21 Aug 2006 18:35:41 GMT, Ed
wrote: I've lost you here, on the "planted into earth" part. The original poster was asking about 2M vertical vs. groundplane antenna. I would assume for 2M that either antenna would be up in the air..... ??? Hi Ed, In that case, the gains are identical. A vertical "planted into the earth" exhibits a higher gain (given many other considerations) than an elevated vertical - be that elevated vertical be a dipole or a ground plane design (which is simply another dipole, albeit rather more elaborate). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
On 21 Aug 2006 17:50:21 GMT, Ed
Its all a matter of reference. I was thinking in terms of dBi.... a vertical has 3dBi gain, a ground plane, 2 dBi. Here is a ground plane with a free-space gain greater than 2.9 dBi and an SWR less than 1.2 at its design frequency (as given by NEC2): CM Groundplane antenna for MURS (151.8 Mhz) CE GW 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0.444243 0.000813863 GW 2 21 0 0 0 0 0.163546 -0.4506 0.000813863 GW 3 21 0 0 0 0 -0.163546 -0.4506 0.000813863 GW 4 21 0 0 0 -0.163546 0 -0.4506 0.000813863 GW 5 21 0 0 0 0.163546 0 -0.4506 0.000813863 GE 0 FR 0 31 0 0 145 0.33 EX 0 1 1 0 1 RP 0 31 73 1001 0, 0, 3, 5, 10000, 0 EN It uses 14 AWG wire and consists of a 17-1/2 inch vertical, and 4 18-7/8 inch radials symmetrically placed at about 20 degrees with respect to the vertical axis: | | | A A = 17-1/2 in | B = 18-7/8 in | T = 2*19.95 degrees / \ C = 12-7/8 in / T \ B / \ (only 2 radials shown) / \ -- C -- --John |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
In that case, the gains are identical. A vertical "planted into the earth" exhibits a higher gain (given many other considerations) than an elevated vertical - be that elevated vertical be a dipole or a ground plane design (which is simply another dipole, albeit rather more elaborate). I don't have much experience with earth verticals.... mostly HF I would say, and that's another animal altoghther than the question the original poster raised here on VHF antennas. The vast majority of my experience with groundplanes and verticals is at VHF and above. Every reference and factory specification for standard grounplane and vertical dipole antennas I've seen indicates the standard vertical dipole has a horizontal gain of 3 dBi, and the groundplane 2.1 dBi. I don't know where some others are finding the non-industry standard figures I have seen cited here. Ed K7AAT |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
On 21 Aug 2006 22:07:40 GMT, Ed
wrote: Every reference and factory specification for standard grounplane and vertical dipole antennas I've seen indicates the standard vertical dipole has a horizontal gain of 3 dBi, and the groundplane 2.1 dBi. Hi Ed, Those are pretty curious references then. Why would they dwell on the HORIZONTAL gains of VERTICAL antennas? There must be something left unsaid in what you are trying to express because cross polarization would drive down sensitivities by 20 to 30 dB. For another matter, those values you quote bear very little resemblence to typical 2M FM operation, unless it is from the Space Shuttle. Height above ground variations in gain easily washes over any differences you might perceive. I can see a variation of 2dB in just raising a groundplane from 40" off the turf to 120". 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
Every reference and factory specification for standard grounplane and vertical dipole antennas I've seen indicates the standard vertical dipole has a horizontal gain of 3 dBi, and the groundplane 2.1 dBi. Those are pretty curious references then. Why would they dwell on the HORIZONTAL gains of VERTICAL antennas? There must be something left unsaid in what you are trying to express because cross polarization would drive down sensitivities by 20 to 30 dB. For another matter, those values you quote bear very little resemblence to typical 2M FM operation, unless it is from the Space Shuttle. Height above ground variations in gain easily washes over any differences you might perceive. I can see a variation of 2dB in just raising a groundplane from 40" off the turf to 120". Richard, You and I seem to be talking different languages !! :^) My reference to horizontal gain is gain measured in the horizontal plane...... that is, measurements are taken broadside to the vertical antenna elements, in this case, both the vertical dipole and a groundplane. Gain measurements taken in any other plane in any other plane than horizontal tend to be rather useless since most VHF mobile communications takes place horizontally..... even distant repeaters tend to be close to the horizon. Cross polarization is not an issue in VHF operations since all commercial and amateur FM operations I'm familiar with use vertical polarization. As far as height variations having effect on gain.... you are talking about path gain, or system gain. I am speaking specifically of antenna gain, which I believed to be the question of the original poster. And as I have already pointed out, most factory specifications for vertical dipoles and groundplane antennas are as I already listed. Ed K7AAT |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
You should always run an average gain test when you have an unusually
high or low field strength. Using EZNEC, the average gain shows as 1.227, or 0.89 dB, and this same average gain should be reported by NEC-2. That means that the actual gain is 0.89 dB less than what NEC-2 is reporting, or just about 2.0 dBi. If you don't understand what this test is, consult the NEC-2 manual. EZNEC users will find it indexed in the EZNEC manual. I suggest you also do an average gain check on your 3 dBi vertical. Roy Lewallen, W7EL John E. Davis wrote: On 21 Aug 2006 17:50:21 GMT, Ed Its all a matter of reference. I was thinking in terms of dBi.... a vertical has 3dBi gain, a ground plane, 2 dBi. Here is a ground plane with a free-space gain greater than 2.9 dBi and an SWR less than 1.2 at its design frequency (as given by NEC2): CM Groundplane antenna for MURS (151.8 Mhz) CE GW 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0.444243 0.000813863 GW 2 21 0 0 0 0 0.163546 -0.4506 0.000813863 GW 3 21 0 0 0 0 -0.163546 -0.4506 0.000813863 GW 4 21 0 0 0 -0.163546 0 -0.4506 0.000813863 GW 5 21 0 0 0 0.163546 0 -0.4506 0.000813863 GE 0 FR 0 31 0 0 145 0.33 EX 0 1 1 0 1 RP 0 31 73 1001 0, 0, 3, 5, 10000, 0 EN It uses 14 AWG wire and consists of a 17-1/2 inch vertical, and 4 18-7/8 inch radials symmetrically placed at about 20 degrees with respect to the vertical axis: | | | A A = 17-1/2 in | B = 18-7/8 in | T = 2*19.95 degrees / \ C = 12-7/8 in / T \ B / \ (only 2 radials shown) / \ -- C -- --John |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
On 22 Aug 2006 00:21:47 GMT, Ed
wrote: And as I have already pointed out, most factory specifications for vertical dipoles and groundplane antennas are as I already listed. Ed K7AAT Maybe I'm missing something, who manufactures vertical vhf dipoles? bob k5qwg |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
Maybe I'm missing something, who manufactures vertical vhf dipoles? bob k5qwg Cushcraft used to sell one, amongst others. Most commercial dipoles now are folded design, and designed for side mount on a tower or mast, so gain figures tend to include the effects of the mast... although they can be mounted on top of a tower or mast, too. Other than the certain physical advantages inherent in folded dipole design, the performance remains about the same as a standard halfwave dipole. A quick check showed Andrew and Celwave (RFS Celwave) with current products along these lines. Couldn't find a decent site for Cushcraft, and didn't spend time looking for other vendors. http://www.andrew.com/products/anten...a/DB220-B.aspx http://shop.talleycom.com/store/product.jsp? pdtl=_root&pdtl_pn=TELANT150D Ed |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
Bob Miller wrote:
On 22 Aug 2006 00:21:47 GMT, Ed wrote: And as I have already pointed out, most factory specifications for vertical dipoles and groundplane antennas are as I already listed. Ed K7AAT Maybe I'm missing something, who manufactures vertical vhf dipoles? bob k5qwg I don't know about vertical dipoles for ham radio but many manufacturers make them for marine applications. The vhf marine band antennas for fiberglass boats are center fed vertical dipoles. Dave WD9BDZ |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
"Bob Miller" wrote in message ... snip Maybe I'm missing something, who manufactures vertical vhf dipoles? bob k5qwg US Navy has two, at least, NT-66095 for the VHF aircraft band and a shortened version, NT-66095MOD, for the 160 MHz Marine band. Also, do a Google search on "dipole sleeve" and "dipole cage" to see a few others. Military also uses some biconical dipoles for receive only. They look like two funnels, connected together at the skinny end and are all mounted vertically for omni coverage, IIRC. Would it be cheating to call the J-pole a vertical dipole? It is a free-space half-wave radiator, albeit end-fed. |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
Sal M. Onella wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in message ... snip Maybe I'm missing something, who manufactures vertical vhf dipoles? bob k5qwg US Navy has two, at least, NT-66095 for the VHF aircraft band and a shortened version, NT-66095MOD, for the 160 MHz Marine band. Also, do a Google search on "dipole sleeve" and "dipole cage" to see a few others. Military also uses some biconical dipoles for receive only. They look like two funnels, connected together at the skinny end and are all mounted vertically for omni coverage, IIRC. Would it be cheating to call the J-pole a vertical dipole? It is a free-space half-wave radiator, albeit end-fed. Actually it looks like a OCF dipole antenna to me. Dave WD9BDZ |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:31:54 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: You should always run an average gain test when you have an unusually high or low field strength. Using EZNEC, the average gain shows as 1.227, or 0.89 dB, and this same average gain should be reported by NEC-2. That means that the actual gain is 0.89 dB less than what NEC-2 is reporting, or just about 2.0 dBi. If you don't understand what this test is, consult the NEC-2 manual. EZNEC users will find it indexed in the EZNEC manual. You are correct--- an antenna cannot radiate more energy than was input into it. Increasing the number of segments did not help the accuracy of the model either. It appears that the angles are too acute (40 degrees) for NEC-2 to model accurately. Changing the geometry to avoid the smaller angles also produced an antenna with a gain of 2 dBi as you suggested. Perhaps you can advise me regarding the numerical stability of the following omni-directional, which NEC indicates has a gain of 4 and a VSWR1.2 when fed with a 50ohm feedline at 151.75 Mhz. The geometry consists of a 54.5 inch vertical with 4 35.625 inch radials that are bent upward by about 11 degrees. The vertical is made from 14 AWG wire, while the radials are 1/8 inch brazing rod. CM High Gain Omni for MURS CE GW 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 1.38375 0.000813863 GW 2 3 0 0 0 0.0508 0 0 0.0015875 GW 3 19 0.0508 0 0 0.938496 0 0.172104 0.0015875 GW 4 3 0 0 0 3.1105e-18 0.0508 0 0.0015875 GW 5 19 3.1105e-18 0.0508 0 5.74644e-17 0.938496 0.172104 0.0015875 GW 6 3 0 0 0 -0.0508 6.221e-18 0 0.0015875 GW 7 19 -0.0508 6.221e-18 0 -0.938496 1.14929e-16 0.172104 0.0015875 GW 8 3 0 0 0 -9.3315e-18 -0.0508 0 0.0015875 GW 9 19 -9.3315e-18 -0.0508 0 -1.72393e-16 -0.938496 0.172104 0.0015875 GE 0 FR 0 41 0 0 145 0.25 EX 0 1 1 0 1 RP 0 61 73 1001 0 0 3 5 10000, 0 GN -1 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EN With segment sizes of 0.05 and 0.025 lambda, the average power gain is very close to 1. Changing the segment size to 0.0125, drops the average power gain to 0.93, which indicates numerical instability. Should I believe this model? Thanks again, --John |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
Let's not confuse "efficiency" with "gain". Efficiency asks, "Of the power
that is incident at the feed point of the antenna, how much of that power is radiated into free space and how much is wasted as reflected or consumed in losses (matching or the elements themselves)?" Gain asks, "For a receiver far distant (in terms of wavelengths) from the antenna, which antenna produces a higher signal strength?" In the latter, which is what I presume you meant, we have to have a reference of some sort ... we have a fictitious impossible antenna called "isotropic", which says that all power is radiated from a point source that is infinitely small and infinitely efficient ... that is, all the power incident on the point is radiated equally in all spherical directions ... a radiating molecular seed at the center of an orange the size of Yankee stadium. If you measure a perfect dipole with respect to this isotropic source, you find a "gain" perpendicular to the dipole elements of 2.14 dB. Where did this "gain" come from, since power can not be created by a passive antenna? If you look at the radiation pattern of a dipole, this apparent increase in power was caused by a deep hole in the pattern off the ends of the dipole. THe dipole, in essence, squeezed the top and the bottom to let the sides bulge out. Think of a donut dropped over the elements and sitting at the feed point of the dipole. For the ground plane, think of that same donut cut in half through the fat part of the donut. Now since our "power" is really the volume of the donut, if you cut it in half, you are going to have to start out with a fatter donut if you are going to wind up with the same volume. Now drop that fat donut over the radiating element and let it come to rest on the center of the ground plane. The dipole radiated its energy so that half of it was "up" and half of it was "down". If "down" into the ground isn't what you wanted, then the ground plane, which radiates all of its energy "up" at some angle to the horizon, has more gain. By a clever bending of the ground plane wires down at some angle to the horizon, you can move that donut pattern down to where it is nearly horizontal. Thus, for a person at some far distance, a properly constructed ground plane will appear to have a stronger signal relative to a dipole. Jim "N3" wrote in message oups.com... Which one of the the two is more efficient as a radiator & why? 1/2 wave vertical fed in the center with coax or one vertical 1/4 wave with four 1/4 wave radials also fed in the center with coax? |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
"N3" wrote in message oups.com... Which one of the the two is more efficient as a radiator & why? 1/2 wave vertical fed in the center with coax or one vertical 1/4 wave with four 1/4 wave radials also fed in the center with coax? ========================================== They are both equally efficient. There's no reason why they should be otherwise. Hint : Try not to confuse efficiency with gain. |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
I was always under the impression the 2.15 dBi and 3 dBi applied to antennas
in free space, the GP being on one side of an infinite plane at the fed end. Indeed in real would cases in the vicinity of earth or other large (relative to the antenna) objects the differances (particularly in FM service) become negligable. Note too: dBi is relative to a (theoretical) isotropic radiator (which is a mathamaticily logical standard of comparison), vs. dBd which is relative to an ideal center fed 1/2 wave dipole in free space. "Ed" wrote in message . 192.196... Every reference and factory specification for standard grounplane and vertical dipole antennas I've seen indicates the standard vertical dipole has a horizontal gain of 3 dBi, and the groundplane 2.1 dBi. Those are pretty curious references then. Why would they dwell on the HORIZONTAL gains of VERTICAL antennas? There must be something left unsaid in what you are trying to express because cross polarization would drive down sensitivities by 20 to 30 dB. For another matter, those values you quote bear very little resemblence to typical 2M FM operation, unless it is from the Space Shuttle. Height above ground variations in gain easily washes over any differences you might perceive. I can see a variation of 2dB in just raising a groundplane from 40" off the turf to 120". Richard, You and I seem to be talking different languages !! :^) My reference to horizontal gain is gain measured in the horizontal plane...... that is, measurements are taken broadside to the vertical antenna elements, in this case, both the vertical dipole and a groundplane. Gain measurements taken in any other plane in any other plane than horizontal tend to be rather useless since most VHF mobile communications takes place horizontally..... even distant repeaters tend to be close to the horizon. Cross polarization is not an issue in VHF operations since all commercial and amateur FM operations I'm familiar with use vertical polarization. As far as height variations having effect on gain.... you are talking about path gain, or system gain. I am speaking specifically of antenna gain, which I believed to be the question of the original poster. And as I have already pointed out, most factory specifications for vertical dipoles and groundplane antennas are as I already listed. Ed K7AAT |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
Maybe I'm missing something, who manufactures vertical vhf dipoles? We're hams. We make our own antennas, don't we? Two pieces of wire, and some insulators. I had a vertical dipole for 2 meters once, a section of an old tv antenna. One element (by definition) mounted on an insulator on a boom. I attached the boom with two hose clamps onto my tower and mouunted the single element out from the tower 3-4 feet. Attached a piece of coax to the elements. Zero cost, used it for 15 years like that. Worked great. Wait a minute. On second thought how would I know that? Ok let me rephrase that. "It worked." It's 2 meters, for crying out loud - anything works. If you need gain you get a beam. Rick K2XT |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
John E. Davis wrote:
. . . Perhaps you can advise me regarding the numerical stability of the following omni-directional, which NEC indicates has a gain of 4 and a VSWR1.2 when fed with a 50ohm feedline at 151.75 Mhz. The geometry consists of a 54.5 inch vertical with 4 35.625 inch radials that are bent upward by about 11 degrees. The vertical is made from 14 AWG wire, while the radials are 1/8 inch brazing rod. . . . With segment sizes of 0.05 and 0.025 lambda, the average power gain is very close to 1. Changing the segment size to 0.0125, drops the average power gain to 0.93, which indicates numerical instability. Should I believe this model? Actually, that's pretty good. It's not uncommon to see quite good models hit around a half dB from perfect, i.e., average gain around +/- 12% from unity. Within that range, and even when the average gain is substantially worse, you can correct both the input resistance and gain with the average gain figure to arrive at an accurate result. (Refer to the NEC-2 or EZNEC manual for more information.) Poor average gain doesn't usually indicate instability, but rather problems with the way the assumed currents from the source overlap onto adjacent segments -- it's an excitation problem. Particularly problematic are wires of differing diameters, different segment lengths, and with bends in the immediate vicinity of the source. Your model has all three, so the average gain you're seeing is really good for that model. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
|
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:59:32 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: Should I believe this model? Actually, that's pretty good. It's not uncommon to see quite good models The only other thing that worries me is the placement of the feedline. I plan run it at right angles to the vertical as much as possible. After I built my 5-element yagi for MURS, I found that the SWR was affected by the placement of the feedline. As such, I would like to simulate its presence with NEC-2. Any hints about how to do this? Thanks, --John |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
|
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:42:32 -0700, Dan Richardson
wrote: Its all called out in EZNEC's help file. Look under "About Transmission Lines" Does EZNEC support linux? I do not have windows installed on my machines--- only Debian linux. I will double check the NEC-2 docs. I also have the ARRL antenna book but I do not recall a discussion of it there, but I will recheck that too. Thanks, --John |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
John E. Davis wrote:
Does EZNEC support linux? I do not have windows installed on my machines--- only Debian linux. I will double check the NEC-2 docs. I also have the ARRL antenna book but I do not recall a discussion of it there, but I will recheck that too. Sorry, there is no EZNEC version for Linux. The last report I got was that the available Linux Windows emulator isn't able to open the EZNEC manual, and it has other problems with EZNEC also. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
John E. Davis wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:42:32 -0700, Dan Richardson wrote: Its all called out in EZNEC's help file. Look under "About Transmission Lines" Does EZNEC support linux? I do not have windows installed on my machines--- only Debian linux. I will double check the NEC-2 docs. I also have the ARRL antenna book but I do not recall a discussion of it there, but I will recheck that too. A printable form of the EZNEC manual can be downloaded from http://eznec.com/ez40manual.html. It's in both .rtf (rich text) and .doc MS Word) formats, though, so you'll have to be able to read one or the other of those. Having no Windows system must be quite a handicap. It certainly limits the amount of software available to use. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:38:25 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: Having no Windows system must be quite a handicap. It certainly limits the amount of software available to use. It depends upon what you want to do. I have not found it to be too big of a limitation for what I do, and I have been using linux since 1992. I have also been an active supporter of open software for many years (see http://www.jedsoft.org) and I have managed to code around what I perceive as gaps. For the antenna modeling, I use a slang script (http://www.jedsoft.org/slang/) to search the parameter space for a specified antenna geometry by minimizing a statistic. The slang script runs nec and then runs a hacked version of xnecview to get the gain and SWR as a function of frequency, and from that information computes the statistic. --John |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
Roy Lewallen writes:
John E. Davis wrote: Sorry, there is no EZNEC version for Linux. The last report I got was that the available Linux Windows emulator isn't able to open the EZNEC manual, and it has other problems with EZNEC also. Roy Lewallen, W7EL The versions in Ubuntu Edgy and Debian Etch both hang at the splash screen. I asked on the Wine mailing list, but nothing helpful turned up. I can run it under VMWare - slow on my machine -, or I can use the kids' Windows game computer. But the gap between their bedtime and mine is closing. The Wine people are interested in fixing bugs, but they need info from app developers. Roy, would you be interested in working with them, if I can get a Wine developer interested? What toolkit do you use? Regards LA4RT Jon Trondheim, Norway |
Two Meter FM Antenna Question
LA4RT Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
Roy Lewallen writes: John E. Davis wrote: Sorry, there is no EZNEC version for Linux. The last report I got was that the available Linux Windows emulator isn't able to open the EZNEC manual, and it has other problems with EZNEC also. Roy Lewallen, W7EL The versions in Ubuntu Edgy and Debian Etch both hang at the splash screen. I asked on the Wine mailing list, but nothing helpful turned up. I can run it under VMWare - slow on my machine -, or I can use the kids' Windows game computer. But the gap between their bedtime and mine is closing. The Wine people are interested in fixing bugs, but they need info from app developers. Roy, would you be interested in working with them, if I can get a Wine developer interested? What toolkit do you use? The person who reported the problems posted them on the appropriate newsgroup but as far as I know got no response. The primary problem is that the manual can't be viewed under wine, and the last thing I want is to have the program functional but the manual not functional. Only when that problem is fixed will I address any others. The manual is created with RoboHelp v. 7, and although getting pretty old now, it's always worked on all Windows systems as well as under Mac emulators. The manual is EZW4.hlp with EZW4.cnt, which are installed with the EZNEC demo program and freely available for analysis by anyone who's interested. This isn't the appropriate newsgroup for this discussion, so we should take this discussion off-line for any followup. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com