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."

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

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."

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

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."

"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

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."

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

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."

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