![]() |
Linear decoupling traps
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:11:05 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: Buck wrote: . . . I don't remember the dimensions, but I remember that in the instructions, EZNEC could not make accurate measurements with parallel wires within a certain distance like 8-10 inches. (someone correct me here.) . . . That's not correct. However, it is essential to align the segment junctions so they're directly across from each other when modeling closely spaced parallel wires. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Is this true for 3 as behind a version or two. Thanks Buck -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." |
Linear decoupling traps
Buck wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:11:05 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Buck wrote: . . . I don't remember the dimensions, but I remember that in the instructions, EZNEC could not make accurate measurements with parallel wires within a certain distance like 8-10 inches. (someone correct me here.) . . . That's not correct. However, it is essential to align the segment junctions so they're directly across from each other when modeling closely spaced parallel wires. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Is this true for 3 as behind a version or two. This is true for every NEC-based program, which includes all versions of EZNEC. See "Parallel Wires" in the EZNEC manual index. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Linear decoupling traps
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:56:31 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: Buck wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:11:05 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Buck wrote: . . . I don't remember the dimensions, but I remember that in the instructions, EZNEC could not make accurate measurements with parallel wires within a certain distance like 8-10 inches. (someone correct me here.) . . . That's not correct. However, it is essential to align the segment junctions so they're directly across from each other when modeling closely spaced parallel wires. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Is this true for 3 as behind a version or two. This is true for every NEC-based program, which includes all versions of EZNEC. See "Parallel Wires" in the EZNEC manual index. Roy Lewallen, W7EL You wrote the program, so I am not arguing with you, I will check it out again. I sure feel I remember that being a restriction. Funny thing is, that I haven't set learning the program to a higher priority since I didn't think it would model what I want to experiment with, which is parallel wires/poles. I'll have to look into that more. Thanks for the heads up. BTW what is the upgrade cost for 4.0 and 5.0 from 3.0? Thanks Buck n4PGW -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." |
Linear decoupling traps
Buck wrote:
You wrote the program, so I am not arguing with you, I will check it out again. I sure feel I remember that being a restriction. Funny thing is, that I haven't set learning the program to a higher priority since I didn't think it would model what I want to experiment with, which is parallel wires/poles. I'll have to look into that more. Perhaps you're remembering a restriction with MININEC-based programs, which had problems with close spaced parallel wires. Thanks for the heads up. BTW what is the upgrade cost for 4.0 and 5.0 from 3.0? Sorry, the upgrade price is available only to people who have purchased EZNEC. You can find information on purchasing a new program at http://eznec.com. Thanks Buck n4PGW Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Linear decoupling traps
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:24:14 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: Buck wrote: You wrote the program, so I am not arguing with you, I will check it out again. I sure feel I remember that being a restriction. Funny thing is, that I haven't set learning the program to a higher priority since I didn't think it would model what I want to experiment with, which is parallel wires/poles. I'll have to look into that more. Perhaps you're remembering a restriction with MININEC-based programs, which had problems with close spaced parallel wires. Thanks for the heads up. BTW what is the upgrade cost for 4.0 and 5.0 from 3.0? Sorry, the upgrade price is available only to people who have purchased EZNEC. You can find information on purchasing a new program at http://eznec.com. Thanks Buck n4PGW Roy Lewallen, W7EL My wife purchased it at a hamfest about three years ago before we married. -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." |
Linear decoupling traps
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message news:P9adnbUbhbmPtZTVnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@easystreeton line... JN wrote: Roy, One question: Down the list is my posting FINAL PLAN. Is it possible with EZNEC to simulate it? It is made of transmission line (partly) Yes or No is enough. I have the DEMO version. 73 Jouko OH5RM Yes, a simulation should be reasonably accurate. The segmentation limitation of the demo version will probably reduce the accuracy some, but you'll be able to get a very good idea of how it will work. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Yes indeed, the simulation verified that my FINAL PLAN is working OK Two very clean resonances at 3.6MHz and 10.1MHz SWR abt 1.3 on both bands Antenna length only 26m instead of normal 41m for 80m dipole. For the stub section I used 0.003m=3mm spacing and 1.5mm insulation on 1mm wire DielC 2.6. Is there any possibility in EZNEC to calculate how long is quarter WL on 10.1MHz with these stub variables? By using transmmission line objects it could have been possible to use the VF of line 0.73. I did run out of segments to simulate tri-band version with additional parallel dipole. All simulation was made in free space and probably needs some minor tuning in real life. 73 Jouko OH5RM |
Linear decoupling traps
Yes indeed, the simulation verified that my FINAL PLAN is working OK Two very clean resonances at 3.6MHz and 10.1MHz SWR abt 1.3 on both bands Antenna length only 26m instead of normal 41m for 80m dipole. For the stub section I used 0.003m=3mm spacing and 1.5mm insulation on 1mm wire DielC 2.6. Is there any possibility in EZNEC to calculate how long is quarter WL on 10.1MHz with these stub variables? By using transmmission line objects it could have been possible to use the VF of line 0.73. I did run out of segments to simulate tri-band version with additional parallel dipole. All simulation was made in free space and probably needs some minor tuning in real life. 73 Jouko OH5RM Do you have the ARRL version of the demo, or just the one downloaded from EZNEC? If you have the ARRL version, you can modify a sample design and get all the segments you need; you just can't save the antenna. -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." |
Linear decoupling traps
Do you have the ARRL version of the demo, or just the one downloaded from EZNEC? If you have the ARRL version, you can modify a sample design and get all the segments you need; you just can't save the antenna. -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." Hi Buck, I downlowded the Demo and it is limited to 20 segments. My ARRL antenna book is so old that it had no EZNEC. 73 Jouko OH5RM |
Linear decoupling traps
Perhaps you're remembering a restriction with MININEC-based programs, which had problems with close spaced parallel wires. I apologize. I think I mentioned that your program had limitations that would not allow me to model what I wanted, which in my case is close parallel elements. I was pretty sure that was why I quit using it. Maybe there was another reason. Whatever the case, I have, and still do, appreciate hearing your knowledge and information. It isn't my desire to design a new earth-shattering antenna or to super-fine tune a yagi, but to use the rules of thumb in antennas to build antennas with specific purposes in mind such as for portability, maximum number of HF bands with minimal losses, and maximum gain with minimum cost. I gave up on an all-band HF antenna. there are just too many bands these days. I built one from 80 - 6 meters in parallel dipole format. It became such a bear to handle that it wasn't worth the effort trying to keep it untangled, not to mention the weight of it. I guess I digress. 73 for now N4PGW Buck -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." |
Linear decoupling traps
Buck wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:24:14 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Buck wrote: You wrote the program, so I am not arguing with you, I will check it out again. I sure feel I remember that being a restriction. Funny thing is, that I haven't set learning the program to a higher priority since I didn't think it would model what I want to experiment with, which is parallel wires/poles. I'll have to look into that more. Perhaps you're remembering a restriction with MININEC-based programs, which had problems with close spaced parallel wires. Thanks for the heads up. BTW what is the upgrade cost for 4.0 and 5.0 from 3.0? Sorry, the upgrade price is available only to people who have purchased EZNEC. You can find information on purchasing a new program at http://eznec.com. Thanks Buck n4PGW Roy Lewallen, W7EL My wife purchased it at a hamfest about three years ago before we married. Buck, send me an email so we can get this sorted out off-line. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com