LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #23   Report Post  
Old May 18th 04, 06:36 PM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 8 February 24th 11 10:22 PM
Plans for a 5/8 wave 2M ground plane George Cronk Antenna 21 April 6th 04 10:14 AM
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 12 October 16th 03 07:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017