AI4QJ wrote:

I suspect that the EZNEC program is not designed for taking into account
such "rare" phenomena as "ground wave propagation". So much for EZNEC
analysis at 75m.


My own experiments with vertical vs dipole led me to the conclusion
that they both work better than the other, and they both work worse than
each other.

I based my analysis on signal strength using a db pad to match for the
weakest signal vs the strongest one. You can't do this one with just the
S-Meter, they aren't very accurate.

Sometimes the vertical "worked" better, and sometimes the horizontal
did. And while a generalization could be made for distance, therefore
"take off angle" between the two antennas, the reception could change
in the middle of a QSO, favoring one other the other.


Comparing one antenna against another is quite difficult - at least to
say which one "works" better.

And I'm curious - where is the propagation function in EZNEC?


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Feb 15, 12:52*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
AI4QJwrote:
I suspect that the EZNEC program is not designed for taking into account
such "rare" phenomena as "ground wave propagation". So much for EZNEC
analysis at 75m.

* * * * My own experiments with vertical vs dipole led me to the conclusion
that they both work better than the other, and they both work worse than
each other.

I based my analysis on signal strength using a db pad to match for the
weakest signal vs the strongest one. You can't do this one with just the
S-Meter, they aren't very accurate.

* * * * Sometimes the vertical "worked" better, and sometimes the horizontal
did. And while a generalization could be made for distance, therefore
"take off angle" *between the two antennas, the reception could change
in the middle of a QSO, favoring one other the other.

Comparing one antenna against another is quite difficult - at least to
say which one "works" better.

* * * * And I'm curious - where is the propagation function in EZNEC?

* * * * *- 73 de Mike N3LI -

There is none, of course. You would have to construct the lobes on an
asimuth chart but this is only useful for take-off angle and skywave
propagation. EZNEC information tells you nothing about ground wave
propagation.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:37:55 -0800 (PST), wrote:

AI4QJwrote:
I suspect that the EZNEC program is not designed for taking into account
such "rare" phenomena as "ground wave propagation". So much for EZNEC
analysis at 75m.
....
EZNEC information tells you nothing about ground wave
propagation.

Two things wrong with this:
1. EZNEC does provide information about the radiation characteristics
along ground at any distance on an infinite, flat plane and at any
elevation above it;
2. EZNEC is not a propagation modeler as its users are well aware;
3. EZNEC models the 100M work of Brown, Lewis, & Epstein quite
closely. There is nothing in the body of RF literature to suggest
that the nature of radiation shifts suddenly in 7/8ths of a megahertz.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC