On 2/7/18 2:34 PM, Tom Osborne wrote:
I think the problem with this article, along with many other antenna
articles.is they have nobody to proof read and see if this is actually
factual or not. I have seen many articles in QST that I read and shake my
head wondering where they got their info from. 73
I didn't see any technical errors. As noted by others they compared an
analytical solution with the finite element and got similar results;
that's an important validation that is missing in many articles. The
article is complete - it provides everything you need to duplicate their
analysis (although I wish there was a way to download their NEC model,
but I've already typed it in). They cited good references (at least,
they're the same ones I would cite)
I wouldn't find this article amiss in IEEE Antennas and Prop Magazine.
Maybe even Transactions on Ant and Prop, although for that there would
be stylistic differences.
Tom W7WHY
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Shawn Donley <n3ae@comcast.net> wrote:
I believe the article certainly is accurate with respect to trends. The
NEC tree models track well with the infinite lossy cylinder closed form
solution, which is a good double check.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|