I thought about it, but...

[HomerBB]

Model, schmodel. Crunch a few numbers, stick it in the air, see if it works. (No offense Marconi, love what you do)

73

Crawdad, I've done so many antennas I've lost count. It's just I think the complexity of modeling programs is not a tribute to intelligence, but a confirmation of code writing ignorance in the 21st century. The kind of complexity involved in modeling antennas in currently available software is from the caveman era of coding.
Justly my opinion. It needs to catch up with the times.
In the mean time I build them and test them...

 

[Crawdad]

Crawdad, I've done so many antennas I've lost count. It's just I think the complexity of modeling programs is not a tribute to intelligence, but a confirmation of code writing ignorance in the 21st century. The kind of complexity involved in modeling antennas in currently available software is from the caveman era of coding.
Justly my opinion. It needs to catch up with the times.
In the mean time I build them and test them...

Homer,
Could not agree more. There are way yonder too many variables in my particular situation that need to be plugged in to get a real answer anyway. So I stick it up and try it. But I am an old guy.

73 + Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

 

[Alan Blackmon]

I don't do modeling. I may one day but I am in no hurry. I build it and use it. Did it work? How well? How did it compare to the other antenna I have already and I am happy with? Example would be I have a 17 meter elevated vertical in a tree with three radials. Works pretty good. I built a 17 meter inverted V and put it up in another location. Comparing the two I think the quarter wave vertical is the winner for my location when comparing the two antenna types.

 

[HomerBB]

I like to see modeling results. They serve as indicators of antenna potential. I don't do them because they are so difficult. I dislike the software, but I've made that clear before.