A graph from NEC data is going to be pretty much like a graph from the ARRL
books. By putting the data in a graphic form your are placing the same
limits on the data as they had to in the ARRL books. The ARRL graphs give
you a pretty good idea of what goes on when you change element spacing,
number of elements and so on. What they dont do is alllow you to perform
optimization like the NEC programs . Graphing a NEC program output would be
the same as going back to the time all you had was the graphs to go by
unless you are willing to do all the calculations on your slide rule or
calculator. What I am saying is that you already have this data. No point in
reinventing the wheel.Unless you think yiou can get a patent on it.

" wrote in message
news:65Zcd.150611$He1.116446@attbi_s01...
Jimmy,
I did not want to choose a curve that matches my modelling which you can
when presented with three different curves all of which are formulated at
different
times by different people. I would have thought that the advent of NEC
would
render these curves redundant !
Art

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...

" wrote in
message
news:xOzcd.263953$D%.243703@attbi_s51...
My ARRL books go back a decade or more
and the graph showing gain per boom length
has several curves based on different measurements
e.t.c. Has a graph been made based solely on NEC
program findings over say a perfect ground and at a uniform height?
Art


They probably have been done but there will not be much difference
between
them and the ARRL graphs. Its been long known how to calculate antenna
gain,
computers just take the teadous labor out of it.