Oh hey, look what I found. Its the complete model data, and the other things on the same page as the .pdf file... I mean, why couldn't you have just shown this?
[photo=medium]6651[/photo]
So the elevated vertical has slightly angled radials and no mast, so, why did you mention that a mast is needed to get that pattern shown in the model when the model of the elevated antenna in question has no mast? Looking back up I see the post has been edited and that remark has been removed... Good on you.
The two ground mounted vertical antennas in the model have no visible radials, so they used the mininec ground, and simulated the radials rather than using actual radials in their models... But it still doesn't say how many radials they simulated... For the reports I have read and the testing I have done, this is a less accurate way of doing things. Its due to the many limitations because of shortcuts they had to make when creating the mininec ground for mininec. I wouldn't necessarily call it wrong, I would just say there are better ways of doing this.
Having this information available to me, I could duplicate it if I needed to now that I see more of what the modeler did.
Never said anything about a change in directivity. Did mention that the more radials you have on a ground mounted antenna the stronger the signal in the model shows, but the directivity doesn't change, at lest not enough for the model to report a difference. In the three 1/4 wavelength ground mounted antenna models I made for this (a 4 radial, a 16 radial, and a 20 radial), they all have different gains, but the same directivity...
0.36 ohms? That number strikes me as rather low. I made a 16 radial model to compare with my 20 radial model and the difference in radiation efficiency going from 16 to 20 radials is 0.34% already 0.02% away from your claim before adding the 40 additional radials needed to get to your 60 radial upper limit. There is still quite a bit of room for improvement here. Another thing to note is I'm not actually using particularly lossy ground, which would mean that adding radials would have an even larger effect on the change in efficiency than they are here...
Perhaps I was mistaken to associate the 16 radials with what was used in the model you posted.
This, at best, is nothing but a distraction in front of the concerns I pointed out above. Your really telling this to a modeler who has shown in the past that they are experienced with using this very software? So why don't you actually address the actual concern I brought up, namely you intentionally cutting off part of the model data in your picture... Nope, didn't think you would as you haven't addressed these types of concerns in the past. I mean, is it really that hard to have just shown the entire page in the first place?
The DB
[photo=medium]6651[/photo]
So the elevated vertical has slightly angled radials and no mast, so, why did you mention that a mast is needed to get that pattern shown in the model when the model of the elevated antenna in question has no mast? Looking back up I see the post has been edited and that remark has been removed... Good on you.
The two ground mounted vertical antennas in the model have no visible radials, so they used the mininec ground, and simulated the radials rather than using actual radials in their models... But it still doesn't say how many radials they simulated... For the reports I have read and the testing I have done, this is a less accurate way of doing things. Its due to the many limitations because of shortcuts they had to make when creating the mininec ground for mininec. I wouldn't necessarily call it wrong, I would just say there are better ways of doing this.
Having this information available to me, I could duplicate it if I needed to now that I see more of what the modeler did.
Never said anything about a change in directivity. Did mention that the more radials you have on a ground mounted antenna the stronger the signal in the model shows, but the directivity doesn't change, at lest not enough for the model to report a difference. In the three 1/4 wavelength ground mounted antenna models I made for this (a 4 radial, a 16 radial, and a 20 radial), they all have different gains, but the same directivity...
0.36 ohms? That number strikes me as rather low. I made a 16 radial model to compare with my 20 radial model and the difference in radiation efficiency going from 16 to 20 radials is 0.34% already 0.02% away from your claim before adding the 40 additional radials needed to get to your 60 radial upper limit. There is still quite a bit of room for improvement here. Another thing to note is I'm not actually using particularly lossy ground, which would mean that adding radials would have an even larger effect on the change in efficiency than they are here...
Perhaps I was mistaken to associate the 16 radials with what was used in the model you posted.
This, at best, is nothing but a distraction in front of the concerns I pointed out above. Your really telling this to a modeler who has shown in the past that they are experienced with using this very software? So why don't you actually address the actual concern I brought up, namely you intentionally cutting off part of the model data in your picture... Nope, didn't think you would as you haven't addressed these types of concerns in the past. I mean, is it really that hard to have just shown the entire page in the first place?
The DB
