Marconi's Eznec model for the AS Super Magnum 1/2 wave GP

[Henry HPSD]

Hi !

That video isn't really focused indeed.

I really hope you find some time to work with ANSOF.
Its the Eznec versus 4NEC2 thingy...

You need to pay for Eznec and for that primary reason people have faith in "it"
(don't attack me on my words here...just speaking up loud)
You don't need to pay for 4NEC2 so it is less well known (and other NEC versions)
Without a doubt Eznec is user friendly etc...
But for some reason if one needs to pay money it seems "better"

That same argument goes for CST and antennas.
Where the guys from CST just tell me...well normal MoM (Nec) is great for normal antennas...you don't need any other "engine"...
There are those who say ....owh look at that plot...its done by CST....it must be "better".
Where actually MoM is a method CST uses...
funny hihi..

The thing where im going at:
ANSOF uses ....whats it called cMoM ? which seems (key word) a step up from MoM)
My initial testing has given me that indication.
BUT....im not at a stage where im "confident beyond any doubt in all situations"
The strange thing is ...
I use NEC4 ...costs (for me as a working guy) a huge amount of money....where ANSOF is relative cheap and easy to work with...
Im leaning towards:
if you needed to pay the same (or more) it would have a "better standing"..
Like that video ...not focused... that gives the idea of "cheap".
Like the advertising they have done (not sure if they still do it ?)
It gives the idea that precaution is needed....

But...big but....
It seems to do an outstanding job, is easy to work with and can handle situations where NEC has issues.

Yes, there ore other "methods" time domain/frequency domain" thingy's ...

But heck, im not a computer guru...
I need something to "work" with ...and something that is affordable....

There really is a large variety in software beyond Eznec / 4nec2

have fun !

 

[Marconi]

Henry, I've made a few models using my older version of An-Sof, but I was never able to use its feature rich output to full advantage. However, I gave up on it mostly because I didn't see much difference in the basic performance results compared to Eznec.

An-Sof does make pretty, colorful images however. I see this pretty much like a fisherman looking at fishing lures...and evaluates them on looks.

Do you know how to extract the manual out of the download? I have one for the old version, but I cannot find it. I asked Louis how and I asked the same on the An-Sof forum, but not response as yet.

What do you know about cMOM? Can you give me a few words in this regard? Sounds a little like sales promotion ideas at play here.

BTW, like you suggested, they are promoting this product to me at some really low prices of late. My old version, if it still works, had no limitations on the trial version, but it does look more complicated now.

 

[Marconi]

Just curious if you generally use a mast in your real Earth models?

Do you remove the mast...when you set the model up in Free Space or over Perfect ground...before you run your AGT?

DB can you comment on these two questions?

Also do you have a model for the Super Penetrator 500 or this Super Magnum that also has the raised radials on the mount? I would like to compare results. I'm seeing my SM model showing almost identical results compared to the longer SP 500. I'm not sure but the raised radials may be making the difference.

 

[The DB]

Just curious if you generally use a mast in your real Earth models?

It depends. The initial model does not include the mast, it will generally be added later for comparison purposes. If there is a noticeable change because of said mast I will keep it in, if not I don't worry about it.

Do you then remove the mast...when you set the model up in Free Space before you run your AGT?

When running the models in free space I don't use a mast. The fact that the mast is connected to an earth when modeled over an earth and not in free space is enough to change how the mast affects the antenna. When connected to a ground the current on the tip of the mast will be much higher than if it is just an end in free space. If there are significant currents on the mast, that is enough to change various aspects of the antenna.

To me, a mast is like a variable. I want to know what an antenna should do, then I want to know how a mast affects what the antenna is doing. If the mast does affect the antenna I will often put the antenna at various heights looking for the best and worst case scenarios.

Also do you have a model for the Super Penetrator 500 or this Super Magnum that also has the raised radials on the mount? I would like to compare results. I'm seeing my SM model showing almost identical results compared to the longer SP 500. I'm not sure but the raised radials may be making the difference.

I don't. Perhaps in time if I get a chance sometime soon.


The DB

 

[Marconi]

When I finished this model over real Earth, the model showed more gain than most of my other 1/2 wave and 5/8 wave models...and that seemed to me to be problematic. So I concentrated on making the model in (FS).

To start here is the (SM) model in (FS). Notice the (AG) at the bottom of the main screen indicates a nearly perfect match of the model.

My comments about my idea for doing a model in FS and testing the AG first before I do the model over Real Earth. I posted this idea in my post #1 for this thread.

I'm seeing my SM model showing very good results compared to the longer SP 500.

Here is the pattern results of my 1/2 wave Super Mag vs. 5/8 wave Super Penetrator 500.



I setup both of these models over Real Earth, by first getting the FS models to show a very good Average Gain result.

This is the idea I tried to suggest earlier...that modeling might produce more correct results if we build a model in Free Space and test the AG first, then convert the model to Real Earth.

Note: both models are isolated (ISO) from the Earth. I did this in order to get the best results the model might show.