Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Antennaware\]\s+EZNEC\s+model\s+versus\s+reality\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Antennaware\]\s+EZNEC\s+model\s+versus\s+reality\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [Antennaware] EZNEC model versus reality (score: 1): Author: David Gould <dave@g3ueg.co.uk>; Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:22:46 +0000; I have what I think is a significant discrepancy between my model and reality, I would be interested if anyone on the list might be able to offer any insight or explanation. The antenna is a custom T; /archives//html/Antennaware/2009-02/msg00003.html (8,045 bytes)
2. Re: [Antennaware] EZNEC model versus reality (score: 1): Author: "K9AY" <k9ay@k9ay.com>; Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:53:51 -0600; Dave, First, take the 10 ohm 'ground loss' resistance out of the model. 48 radials approximately 1/4-wavelength is a low-loss ground. Without it, the 'zero-X' spot is around 36.5 ohms at 3.840 in my; /archives//html/Antennaware/2009-02/msg00004.html (9,682 bytes)
3. Re: [Antennaware] EZNEC model versus reality (score: 1): Author: "Guy Olinger, K2AV" <olinger@bellsouth.net>; Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:23:19 -0500; Second what Gary said. Further, from my experience in model vs. actual, the one thing I *don't* worry about is the exact presented impedance. The model will tell you things to try, things to avoid, b; /archives//html/Antennaware/2009-02/msg00005.html (11,542 bytes)
4. Re: [Antennaware] EZNEC model versus reality (score: 1): Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:32:10 -0800; Doesn't it seem strange that your antenna never actually resonates (X=0)? For a simple quarter wave vertical, you'd expect that if you went high or low enough in frequency, the reactance would go thr; /archives//html/Antennaware/2009-02/msg00007.html (9,799 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]