How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

I would like to see some numbers. It is a ground plane with 4 radials
(typical). Free space.

Assume a source at the base. The type of source is your choice. EZNEC
defaults to one amp, but can be changed to a constant power of your choice.

I'm sure I've left out additional requirements, but maybe this will be
a healthy discussion even so. Suggestions are welcome.

On 10/4/2015 10:05 AM, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

You are starting to sound like someone else.


I would like to see some numbers. It is a ground plane with 4 radials
(typical). Free space.

Assume a source at the base. The type of source is your choice. EZNEC
defaults to one amp, but can be changed to a constant power of your choice.

I'm sure I've left out additional requirements, but maybe this will be a
healthy discussion even so. Suggestions are welcome.

Don't you need to define all the characteristics of the antenna? I
guess an impedance specification will suffice.

I don't know what electrical model EZNEC uses for the transmitter, but
won't you need to deal with impedance mismatch at that point? Or does
the model use a current drive with infinite impedance (or conversely a
voltage drive with zero impedance)?

--

Rick

rickman wrote:
On 10/4/2015 10:05 AM, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

You are starting to sound like someone else.

Perhaps, but the post to which you reply is barely a "1 Bottle" on the
"Meths Scale". I don't think that Gareth has posted less than a "2 Bottle"
grade message in the 20 years he's been abusing Usenet.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

rickman wrote:
On 10/4/2015 10:05 AM, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

You are starting to sound like someone else.


I would like to see some numbers. It is a ground plane with 4 radials
(typical). Free space.

Assume a source at the base. The type of source is your choice. EZNEC
defaults to one amp, but can be changed to a constant power of your choice.

I'm sure I've left out additional requirements, but maybe this will be a
healthy discussion even so. Suggestions are welcome.

Don't you need to define all the characteristics of the antenna? I
guess an impedance specification will suffice.

It doesn't work that way.

You define the physical structure, including the material size and
type as well as the environment and EZNEC calculates the impedance,
material loss, voltages, currents, near and far fields.

I don't know what electrical model EZNEC uses for the transmitter, but
won't you need to deal with impedance mismatch at that point? Or does
the model use a current drive with infinite impedance (or conversely a
voltage drive with zero impedance)?

Like all circuit analysis programs, EZNEC uses ideal sources; you select
the type.

The default reference impedance is 50 Ohms, but can be set to anything.

Is the material some real material or lossless?

What you will find is that the only loss in the ANTENNA in free space
is the I^2R loss of the material.



--
Jim Pennino

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 12:29:28 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/4/2015 10:05 AM, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

You are starting to sound like someone else.

That's because he IS that someone else. Check his headers! Gareth strikes again.
Typical troll tactic to change user name to thwart filters.

"Renee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 12:29:28 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/4/2015 10:05 AM, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

You are starting to sound like someone else.

That's because he IS that someone else. Check his headers! Gareth strikes
again.
Typical troll tactic to change user name to thwart filters.

You stupid boy.

Renee wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 12:29:28 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/4/2015 10:05 AM, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

You are starting to sound like someone else.

That's because he IS that someone else. Check his headers! Gareth strikes again.
Typical troll tactic to change user name to thwart filters.

John S is NOT Gareth as can easily be seen from the contents of his posts,
i.e. they are NOT random, babbling gibberish NOR are they extended whinning
about manners.


--
Jim Pennino

On 10/4/2015 1:47 PM, Renee wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 12:29:28 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/4/2015 10:05 AM, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

You are starting to sound like someone else.

That's because he IS that someone else. Check his headers! Gareth strikes again.
Typical troll tactic to change user name to thwart filters.

Now you have lost it. John S is a different person and his post looks
nothing like one from someone else.

--

Rick

On 10/4/2015 11:29 AM, rickman wrote:
On 10/4/2015 10:05 AM, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

You are starting to sound like someone else.


Sorry guys. I didn't mean to sound like someone else. I regret starting
this post now. Let's just forget it.

On 10/5/2015 6:51 AM, John S wrote:
On 10/4/2015 11:29 AM, rickman wrote:
On 10/4/2015 10:05 AM, John S wrote:
How less efficient is a short vertical than a 1/4 vertical?

You are starting to sound like someone else.


Sorry guys. I didn't mean to sound like someone else. I regret starting
this post now. Let's just forget it.

I was just joking...

--

Rick