Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:29:46 -0400, "Vito" wrote:
I agree completely. Question is, if modeling and prediction is so unreliable why do we bother? Hi OM, There is modeling, and then there are modelers. 99.9% of errors are found with the second. A simple example that explains the illusion of disparity may be tested with the free version of EZNEC (as is generally the case). Model a ground plane antenna at ground level (or simply an inch or cm above it); and then raise the same antenna a quarter wave (not so difficult to manage at these breathless reports from VHF-land). Difference approaches 6dB for this trivial exercise alone. Models answer the differences quite well, modelers can be found in commercials wearing lab coats saying "I'm not a doctor, but...." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
Plans for a 5/8 wave 2M ground plane | Antenna | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna |