Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frank wrote -
I have also used your software for modeling verticals, and it is in very close to the results produced by NEC. The one problem with NEC 2 (Though not with NEC 4) is that it cannot model buried radials, but can get very close to the ground. ================================ The only program I am reasonably familiar with is the several years old free EZNEC. I don't know whether it has been updated or not and I make very little use of it. Come to think of it, I don't make much use of my own programs either. Regarding shallow buried radials in conjunction with a vertical, have you tried my recent program RADIALS2 ? It is intended to demonstrate performance of the radials themselves in a given ground rather than antenna performance. Which I suspect is the reverse of NEC-4. As you probably know, the effects of above-ground radials change very rapidly as they get within a few inches of the ground surface. But once in the ground they tend to remain static. RADIALS2 uses an entirely different, unconventional form of performance analysis. If other programs don't take soil permittivity into account at HF, predictions must lose accuracy. Are the inputs and outputs of NEC-4 in a form suitable for a direct comparison with my simple program? But in view of the large uncertainties involving ground conditions, accuracy is not worth making much of a song and dance about. ---- Reg, G4FGQ |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
An easy experiment with a coil | Antenna | |||
NEWS - Researchers invent antenna for light | Antenna | |||
Lumped Load Models v. Distributed Coils | Antenna |