K8JHR,
The Kelvin quote was slightly "tongue in cheek", but I think his appeal
for "numeracy" has some value.
I wasn't arguing that modelling is better than empirical measurement,
but that modelling is probably better than innumerate answers. It is
certainly a useful "first step" in developing a new antenna, and it has
saved me a lot of shoe leather :)
One other point - it seems to me that the same "unknowns" in an
antenna's environment which might make modelling untrustworthy, might
equally make a fellow Ham's practical experiences irrelevant. In other
words "just because it works for him doesn't mean it will work for me".
73,
Steve G3TXQ
Richards wrote:
> Your use
> of this bit, and your argument seems to be that the modeling program
> is much more reliable for a given case than real life experimentation
> in that case and that it is is not useful or practical or worthwhile to
> actually test the antenna design, but just see what the modeling
> program says.
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|