Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:13:51 GMT, "Dave" wrote:
what you are missing is the 'real world'. eznec is probably modeling over a perfectly flat infinite surface. In the far field in a perfect world the signal along the surface is a combination of ground wave and sky wave, the ground wave decays rapidly with distance leaving the sky wave which will always be very small along the surface. now remember, the frame of reference is at ground level, not the antenna height, so zero degrees is along the infinite flat surface. And there is nothing in there that models where the other antenna is... it just creates a picture of how the strength of the fields are at a given elevation/azimuth angle from the reference point. Dave, Your paragraph above helped. For VHF and above, in the real world, am I better off using EZNEC's "free space" setting instead of real ground? I know at HF frequencies, where antennas are often close to the ground, it makes a big difference, but could free space be a better approximation of VHF antenna many wavelengths off the ground? Pat |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
l/2 horizontal dipole vs inverted L 160m band | Antenna | |||
Horizontal Coaxial Dipole? | Antenna | |||
Vertical radiation from horizontal dipole? | Antenna | |||
(OT) 83 Degrees | Shortwave | |||
Who has an ideal horizontal dipole for HF? | Antenna |