> If I'm going to bet, it would be on Maxwell's
> Equations.
And if the issue were just if Maxwell's occasions were correct, I'd be at
the same table with you, betting with you on the same numbers. But the issue
is more than that. It's in how the formulas are applied to a particular
situation. The issue is if we get the particuar situation we see and apply
the formulas accurately, including all possible variables. If it always were
that easy, we'd never need another building to be inspected again. Just plug
in the numbers into the computer, and if the magic box says it's a sound
structure, than just build the thing. But, of course, that's not how it
works. There are often variables we miss in the original equation. There are
also variables that we can't possibly know 100% accurately ahead of
time.These same problems apply to antenna modeling. A computer program may
give us a good information, and based on what was entered into it may be
100% accurate. But that doesn't mean that just because it happens to say
that Antenna A is better than Antenna B that we know it has to be true.
Often, B may "kick butt" compared to A. I'm sure if we accounted for all
possible variables, the computer would agree with observed data. But, the
point is, we can't. Which is why we have to test. Which is why have to
compare. Which is why when our field data disagrees with our calculated
data, we need to re-check the accuracy and completness of our calculated
model, not just ignore what we see in the field.
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|