Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] NEC4 server

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] NEC4 server
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 13:04:25 -0700
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>


I think that's a fine idea, Jim, assuming that the license allows it.  I wouldn't need it very often, but there are times when I'd like better confidence in a model that has closely spaced wires or wires near (or under) ground.  It would even be cool to run a simple dipole model to compare with a real antenna to see where actual RF ground might be on this mostly dry rocky hillside.

I'm not sure how difficult it would be to implement, but it might be a good idea to require an individual subscription of sorts with a userid/password to be able to control potential abusers.  Or maybe that could be accomplished more simply with limits on compute time, frequency of use, and number of elements.

73,
Dave   AB7E



On 11/9/2019 11:34 AM, jimlux wrote:
I've been thinking about putting up a server that would run NEC4.2 on user submitted decks - The idea is you would upload your input deck, and then, sometime later, your output would be there to download. Single run at a time, some sort of queuing system, some sort of "maximum run time".  After some period of time, your output file would disappear (depends on how much disk space I have)

(Just for context, I've been running a bunch of jobs recently for a variety of designs with >600 segments, the GN3 Sommerfeld-Norton ground, and run times are about 5 seconds per frequency)

It would be free, as an experiment. Sort of like the servers that will produce a aziumuthal map centered at a user entered location.

The idea is that you can run your NEC2 jobs, and then, after iterating, and you want to verify against the higher quality modeling that NEC4 provides, you could do that.

Or, if your job is simple enough and runs fast enough, you could iterate a design that has buried wires, etc.

I do need to look into the NEC4 license agreement to make sure it's permitted. There's no export control issue - the executable (and source) are export controlled (EAR, not ITAR), but input and output data is not.


I'm looking for feedback on the idea - any interest in it?
Any suggestions on implementation or features?


Jim, W6RMK
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>