At 09:00 AM 7/11/02 -0400, Tom Rauch wrote:
> > At 09:03 AM 7/10/02 -0400, Pete Smith wrote:
> > >it can be useful to have these numbers, even though we know the
> > >experimental accuracy may be in the 1 dB range.
> >
> >
> > For some reason, the reflector strips out the mathematical symbols for
> > plus or minus. That's what I meant, "plus or minus 1 dB."
>
>Hi Pete and all,
>
>My point is best illustrated by the A-B comparisons of Rick, N6RK, by
>comments from I4JMY, and by my own experiences.
Tom, I don't disagree with your point at all. The ONLY thing I was trying
to point out is that modeling is one useful tool, among many, that learning
how to do it better is worthwhile, and that knowing the exact values others
obtain with modeling . I freely acknowledge (even insist) that to do it
well means understanding the known weaknesses of the model, including
imperfect modeling of ground media. I suspect that this is more a problem
with verticals than with horizontal antennas, and that NEC-based models
seem to be biased against verticals.
73, Pete N4ZR
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the World HF
Contest Station Database at
www.pvrc.org
|