Vertical Antenna Performance Question
 

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:53:09 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Get my gist?

Yes, unimaginative trolling.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Vertical Antenna Performance Question
 

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:18:09 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I am going to seriously reconsider my participation
in this newsgroup.

Dan, you've taken a long time to get serious - but this sentimentality
you offer is still unimaginative trolling. This group has seen it
done far better. Far, far better. At least Punchinello had
intelligence, experience, and gave Hams tools they still use.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Vertical Antenna Performance Question
 

AI4QJ wrote:
I am at all loss to how real scientists like Cecil Moore and Gene
Fuller can continue to participate here.

Although I try to use the scientific method, I am
but a lowly EE who tends to think outside the box.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Vertical Antenna Performance Question
 

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:18:09 -0500, AI4QJ wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:53:09 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Get my gist?

Yes, unimaginative trolling.

Technical content noted. I am going to seriously reconsider my
participation in this newsgroup. Too many people here do not wish to
discuss real science, they just want to argue and flame.

And yet you criticize Roy for plonking *you*?


I have seen
many times here where a person makes an assertion that I know is true,
even by use of such elementary tools as a smith chart, yet yahoos who
know nothing about engineering try to shoot the assertion down in flames
based on personality differences or whatever.

Yup, and there is a fringe element of folks with apparent sexual
hangups. That's why God made killfiles! ;^)

Defending such assertions
that are based on first principles violates the politics of the alleged
gurus. It all reduces to a non-technical word game (semantics becomes
the norm) where the search for scientific truth and understanding is
suborned by personality cults and word games.

Art says pretty much the same thing.

And oh, by no means must
anyone *ever* question the EZNEC software tool! My god, software is
scientific perfection itself.

Odd, people question it all the time, and get reasonable and polite
answers. Perhaps a difference in question style?

However, when the Apollo made the landing
on the moon I wonder what would have really happened hadn't Niel
Armstrong assumed manual control of the craft at the last moments? So we
have the software addiction of antenna modeling and we find the author
of this thread puzzled as to why he cannot explain to his class the
problems associated with software modeling in conducting real world
QSO's.

Roy has made several mentions of what his software will and won't do. I
don't recall anyone saying it is infallible.

Try to explain and wham! You get hit. You are a heretic. On the
other hand, you have some crackpot trying to explain antenna theory as
quasi cosmic particles spewing out of the ends of a shoebox sized
antenna and you have a private pilot offering to fly over to his QTH and
test the new concept.

You must not understand the offer, Dave. It was a "put your money where
your mouth is" offer. And Art reacted just as expected.

I am at all loss to how real scientists like Cecil
Moore and Gene Fuller can continue to participate here.

They enjoy a good row. They like it here, arguing with each other.
Everyone here is getting something out of the group. You may not.

I think I will
just stand by and lurk for a while and if I see no changes, I will
simply write this off as a flame group and go someplace else like eham.

I think that you cannot control the group. I think that you may have an
issue with that.


"73" de AI4QJ (my real call sign and I have no qualms at all in
writing under my true identity)



--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

Vertical Antenna Performance Question
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:18:09 -0500, AI4QJ wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:53:09 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Get my gist?

Yes, unimaginative trolling.

Technical content noted. I am going to seriously reconsider my
participation in this newsgroup. Too many people here do not wish to
discuss real science, they just want to argue and flame.

And yet you criticize Roy for plonking *you*?


I have seen
many times here where a person makes an assertion that I know is true,
even by use of such elementary tools as a smith chart, yet yahoos who
know nothing about engineering try to shoot the assertion down in flames
based on personality differences or whatever.

Yup, and there is a fringe element of folks with apparent sexual
hangups. That's why God made killfiles! ;^)

Defending such assertions
that are based on first principles violates the politics of the alleged
gurus. It all reduces to a non-technical word game (semantics becomes
the norm) where the search for scientific truth and understanding is
suborned by personality cults and word games.

Art says pretty much the same thing.

And oh, by no means must
anyone *ever* question the EZNEC software tool! My god, software is
scientific perfection itself.

Odd, people question it all the time, and get reasonable and polite
answers. Perhaps a difference in question style?

However, when the Apollo made the landing
on the moon I wonder what would have really happened hadn't Niel
Armstrong assumed manual control of the craft at the last moments? So we
have the software addiction of antenna modeling and we find the author
of this thread puzzled as to why he cannot explain to his class the
problems associated with software modeling in conducting real world
QSO's.

Roy has made several mentions of what his software will and won't do. I
don't recall anyone saying it is infallible.

Try to explain and wham! You get hit. You are a heretic. On the
other hand, you have some crackpot trying to explain antenna theory as
quasi cosmic particles spewing out of the ends of a shoebox sized
antenna and you have a private pilot offering to fly over to his QTH and
test the new concept.

You must not understand the offer, Dave. It was a "put your money where
your mouth is" offer. And Art reacted just as expected.

I am at all loss to how real scientists like Cecil
Moore and Gene Fuller can continue to participate here.

They enjoy a good row. They like it here, arguing with each other.
Everyone here is getting something out of the group. You may not.

I think I will
just stand by and lurk for a while and if I see no changes, I will
simply write this off as a flame group and go someplace else like eham.

I think that you cannot control the group. I think that you may have an
issue with that.


"73" de AI4QJ (my real call sign and I have no qualms at all in
writing under my true identity)



--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike

I have some limited accuracy test equipment for evaluating antennas.
Recently Richard Clark prodded me till I couldnt take it any more so I got
some of Roy's software. Richard even told me how to use it. It has become
clear that *my* test equipment is is very good agreement with Roy's EZNEC.
.. EZNEC works so well for my situation that I thought it was woring well for
everyone. I can make real radiation patterns of my prototype antennas
(using POES signals for the illuminator) that are in agreement with EZNEC
prediction. Even the inpedance of the eklements are well predicted by
EZNEC. Do you know where any real data is in disagreement with EZNEC
predictions? I'd like to know more about any data anyone has that shows
where EZNEC gives wrong data.

Jerry KD6JDJ (who is extreemely happy with his EZNEC
"tool")

Vertical Antenna Performance Question
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:r7Ltj.12156$R84.3863
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

AI4QJ wrote:
I am at all loss to how real scientists like Cecil Moore and Gene
Fuller can continue to participate here.

Although I try to use the scientific method, I am
but a lowly EE who tends to think outside the box.

In this case, you would have to think outside the sphere... ;^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Vertical Antenna Performance Question
 

"Jerry" wrote in news:MJMtj.457$kD3.85@trnddc08:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:18:09 -0500, AI4QJ wrote:

redundant stuff snipped

Roy has made several mentions of what his software will and won't do.
I don't recall anyone saying it is infallible.

Try to explain and wham! You get hit. You are a heretic. On the
other hand, you have some crackpot trying to explain antenna theory
as quasi cosmic particles spewing out of the ends of a shoebox sized
antenna and you have a private pilot offering to fly over to his QTH
and test the new concept.

You must not understand the offer, Dave. It was a "put your money
where your mouth is" offer. And Art reacted just as expected.

I am at all loss to how real scientists like Cecil
Moore and Gene Fuller can continue to participate here.

They enjoy a good row. They like it here, arguing with each other.
Everyone here is getting something out of the group. You may not.

I think I will
just stand by and lurk for a while and if I see no changes, I will
simply write this off as a flame group and go someplace else like
eham.

I think that you cannot control the group. I think that you may have
an issue with that.

more redundant stuff snipped

Hi Mike

I have some limited accuracy test equipment for evaluating antennas.
Recently Richard Clark prodded me till I couldnt take it any more so I
got some of Roy's software. Richard even told me how to use it. It
has become clear that *my* test equipment is is very good agreement
with Roy's EZNEC. . EZNEC works so well for my situation that I
thought it was woring well for everyone. I can make real radiation
patterns of my prototype antennas (using POES signals for the
illuminator) that are in agreement with EZNEC prediction. Even the
inpedance of the eklements are well predicted by EZNEC. Do you
know where any real data is in disagreement with EZNEC predictions?
I'd like to know more about any data anyone has that shows where EZNEC
gives wrong data.

Jerry KD6JDJ (who is extreemely happy with his EZNEC "tool")

I can't recall offhand, but I think there are a few instances in which
the engine has difficulty. But any softare using the engine would, and
for almost any application, it wouldn't matter.

Otherwise, it is one nice piece of software, and functions well and as
advertized.

Possibly embarrassing accolade follows.......

We are lucky to have someone like Roy posting here. So many truly
competent folks have been run off from the newgroups by the crazies over
the years that people like him are becoming more and more rare.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Vertical Antenna Performance Question
 

AI4QJ wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:53:09 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Get my gist?
Yes, unimaginative trolling.

Technical content noted. I am going to seriously reconsider my participation
in this newsgroup. Too many people here do not wish to discuss real science,


Great! Don't go away mad. just go away.

tom
K0TAR

Vertical Antenna Performance Question
 

Jerry wrote:

Hi Mike

I have some limited accuracy test equipment for evaluating antennas.
Recently Richard Clark prodded me till I couldnt take it any more so I got
some of Roy's software. Richard even told me how to use it. It has become
clear that *my* test equipment is is very good agreement with Roy's EZNEC.
. EZNEC works so well for my situation that I thought it was woring well for
everyone. I can make real radiation patterns of my prototype antennas
(using POES signals for the illuminator) that are in agreement with EZNEC
prediction. Even the inpedance of the eklements are well predicted by
EZNEC. Do you know where any real data is in disagreement with EZNEC
predictions? I'd like to know more about any data anyone has that shows
where EZNEC gives wrong data.

Jerry KD6JDJ (who is extreemely happy with his EZNEC
"tool")

There are many very serious commercial users of EZNEC who have the
capability to compare its results with professionally made measurements.
They regularly report very good agreement -- if the agreement wasn't
good, in fact, they'd certainly quit using it. You'll find antennas
designed with the help of EZNEC on military and civilian vehicles,
aircraft, and satellites, in use by domestic and international broadcast
stations, and countless other places as well as in many, many amateurs'
back yards.

I can't take credit for its accuracy, however. The basic calculations
are done by NEC-2, which has been even more extensively tested and
shaken down for several decades now. As a result, its limitations are
quite well known and documented, and I've tried to pass these along in
the EZNEC manual, correspondence with users, and in postings here.
NEC-2's ability to accurately predict antenna performance is also very
well known. NEC-2 uses some very fundamental equations which have been
well established by over a century of theory as being those which all
real antennas abide by.

But when using *any* model, including the models we all use in circuit
analysis -- resistance, inductance, capacitance, transmission lines, and
many more -- you always have to keep in mind that the analysis applies
to the *model*, not to any real object. So the results are only as good
as the match between the model and the physical circuit, antenna, or
object the model represents. Anyone not able to recognize when and where
a model differs in any significant way from the modeled object shouldn't
be using modeling for analysis, because his results are bound to be
wrong and he won't know it. On the other hand, one who recognizes the
differences can still often get useful information from the model even
though it might not fully represent the actual antenna. As just one
example, I've recently been designing a number of antennas which are
fabricated as traces on a circuit board. They have requirements for
pattern and SWR bandwidth, and have to share a fairly small board with
one or more other antennas and a substantial number of other conducting
objects which aren't electrically small at the operating frequency.
Although EZNEC has no way to accommodate the effect of the dielectric
(which is quite significant), it has nevertheless given critical
information about interaction among the antennas and other conductors
and its effect on pattern and bandwidth, allowing me to optimize my
designs for adequate performance in the difficult environment. I've
produced designs which have worked as intended with only a minimal
amount of modification. Several are now in use in the client's products,
and they keep asking for more.

Models can be made for many antennas and systems which represent the
real antennas or systems to a very good approximation, and those will
agree very well. The ground model is a weakness of NEC-2 and therefore
EZNEC. Fortunately, it's still good enough for all but a relatively
small number of applications. Making the ground model curved according
to the Earth wouldn't make any real difference in results except for
extremely high antennas or for ground wave communication at distances
greater than about 100 km. Perhaps the greatest shortcoming is the
homogeneous ground assumption, which can be very different from real
ground. I'm not convinced that a single "equivalent" homogeneous ground
can be found which behaves like real stratified ground(*). But the skin
depth in average soil at 1.8 MHz is about 20 feet. So to properly model
it would require the ability to include strata extending perhaps to 60
feet or so. And even if you added this capability to the program, how
would you measure the ground conductivity and permittivity at all the
necessary levels, to that depth, over the area necessary for
calculation? And how about hills, houses, buried water and power lines,
and roadway rebar?

So, like any other tool, today's modeling programs don't do everything.
But in the hands of someone with a basic understanding of their
applications and limitations, they can be a tremendous tool, solving in
seconds problems which were beyond the capabilities of the very best
engineers and scientists just a short while ago.

(*)AM broadcasters determine an equivalent ground conductivity by
measuring the ground wave attenuation of an AM signal. However, this is
equivalent only in that it results in the same attenuation. The effect
of the ground on a radial ground system or far field pattern might be
affected differently, and require different "equivalent" values. But
it's possible that no "equivalent" would correctly predict, say, an
elevation pattern from a vertical radiator over stratified ground.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Vertical Antenna Performance Question
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in
:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..

-73 de Mike N3LI -

No, it's 73 de LAWRENCE COUNTY AMATEUR RADIO ASSOCIATION, right
"Mike"? Check N3LI on QRZ.COM ) http://www.qrz.com/detail/N3RI. And
then tell me that their direct reference to the FCC database got it
wrong. Does the trustee "Cliff" know you are using the "club"
callsign?

Ahem.....

I'm N3LI. Its true, I swear! I looked it up in the database, and was
pleased to see mine very own name.

You wrote:

http://www.qrz.com/detail/N3RI

Ayup, * that * will give you the group in Lawrence County.

Feel free to tell "CLiff" about my malfeasance! Might as well tell Riley
that someone is masquerading as someone else by using a callsign that is
only 6 letters away from his actual one too! What a trickster I is....


Note: Better tell your "club" that it's call sign expired in June
2007.

I'll pass, though you might if you care. I suspect that they might
have let it expire, as the FCC is trying to cut down on the groups who
hoard callsigns. Lawrence county is probably just doing the right thing
here. Its also possible that that group doesn't exist any more. I can't
find a reference online.

And you tell *me* about fringe groups?

Ayup.

Just what do all the guys
in your "club" do to pass the time since you can't get on the radio
anymore?

My guess is that the Hams in Greencastle use NC3LC as a club call

Shall I inform "Cliff", as trustee, how badly you are
abusing his call sign, or are you really "Cliff".

Oh would you please? I might be a little suspicious of that other group
in Lawrence County also with their club call of NC3LC. After all, if you
drop the first C from their callsign, and add 9 letters to the last C,
you'll come up with that N3LI callsign again.

The mystery
deepens....(hi hi)

Oy. Is there an emoticon for shaking one's head?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -