You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

Marconi,
"Are you just a complete Oklahoma hillbilly naysayer about everything?"
No, there are no 'hillbillies' in Oklahoma. There are 'rednecks' though, and I was issued the #2 in the RedNeck club. I did the issuing so that has to be the way it is.
Having gotten that out of the way, I would like to say that I'm not the only one who thinks those antenna analyzer programs are nice, but they still have to be 'mixed' with some real world knowledge to come out even ball-park close. Would you take the word of the guy who wrote that EZNEC program that it isn't -exact- by any means? How about the writers of the NEC program that EZNEC was derived from? They will tell you the same thing, that their program requires a huge amount of real world data before it can even get close to real world numbers. The average person has no means of collecting that data because they can't do the measuring required. And that's why the results of the EZNEC and other derivitives of the NEC program are always given in dBi, or isotropic numbers. Another definition of that "i" could be 'ideal', for what you would get under ideal conditions/circumstances.
I have and use EZNEC. I've also got the base NEC program, and another one that's a quite a bit older antenna analyzer program. They DO give you some idea of what's possible! But they will never be as exact as some people think, they can't be that exacting except for 'isotropic' antennas in isotropic 'space'. There are a gob of 'fudge factors' built into EZNEC, or compromises based on real world experience. The newer the version of the program the more of those 'fudges' there are. Ever wonder why?
It's a nice program and I'm glad I've got it. But I've learned not to get too obsessed with depending on it.
- 'Doc

<blockquote data-quote="W5LZ" data-source="post: 369149" data-attributes="member: 129">Marconi,&quot;Are you just a complete Oklahoma hillbilly naysayer about everything?&quot;No, there are no &#039;hillbillies&#039; in Oklahoma.&nbsp; There are &#039;rednecks&#039; though, and I was issued the #2 in the RedNeck club.&nbsp; I did the issuing so that has to be the way it is.Having gotten that out of the way,&nbsp; I would like to say that I&#039;m not the only one who thinks those antenna analyzer programs are nice, but they still have to be &#039;mixed&#039; with some real world knowledge to come out even ball-park close.&nbsp; Would you take the word of the guy who wrote that EZNEC program that it isn&#039;t -exact- by any means?&nbsp; How about the writers of the NEC program that EZNEC was derived from?&nbsp; They will tell you the same thing, that their program requires a huge amount of real world data before it can even get close to real world numbers.&nbsp; The average person has no means of collecting that data because they can&#039;t do the measuring required.&nbsp; And that&#039;s why the results of the EZNEC and other derivitives of the NEC program are always given in dBi, or isotropic numbers.&nbsp; Another definition of that &quot;i&quot; could be &#039;ideal&#039;, for what you would get under ideal conditions/circumstances.I have and use EZNEC.&nbsp; I&#039;ve also got the base NEC program, and another one that&#039;s a quite a bit older antenna analyzer program.&nbsp; They DO give you some idea of what&#039;s possible!&nbsp; But they will never be as exact as some people think, they can&#039;t be that exacting except for &#039;isotropic&#039; antennas in isotropic &#039;space&#039;.&nbsp; There are a gob of &#039;fudge factors&#039; built into EZNEC, or compromises based on real world experience.&nbsp; The newer the version of the program the more of those &#039;fudges&#039; there are.&nbsp; Ever wonder why?It&#039;s a nice program and I&#039;m glad I&#039;ve got it.&nbsp; But I&#039;ve learned not to get too obsessed with depending on it.&nbsp;- &#039;Doc</blockquote>

[QUOTE="W5LZ, post: 369149, member: 129"] Marconi, "Are you just a complete Oklahoma hillbilly naysayer about everything?" No, there are no 'hillbillies' in Oklahoma. There are 'rednecks' though, and I was issued the #2 in the RedNeck club. I did the issuing so that has to be the way it is. Having gotten that out of the way, I would like to say that I'm not the only one who thinks those antenna analyzer programs are nice, but they still have to be 'mixed' with some real world knowledge to come out even ball-park close. Would you take the word of the guy who wrote that EZNEC program that it isn't -exact- by any means? How about the writers of the NEC program that EZNEC was derived from? They will tell you the same thing, that their program requires a huge amount of real world data before it can even get close to real world numbers. The average person has no means of collecting that data because they can't do the measuring required. And that's why the results of the EZNEC and other derivitives of the NEC program are always given in dBi, or isotropic numbers. Another definition of that "i" could be 'ideal', for what you would get under ideal conditions/circumstances. I have and use EZNEC. I've also got the base NEC program, and another one that's a quite a bit older antenna analyzer program. They DO give you some idea of what's possible! But they will never be as exact as some people think, they can't be that exacting except for 'isotropic' antennas in isotropic 'space'. There are a gob of 'fudge factors' built into EZNEC, or compromises based on real world experience. The newer the version of the program the more of those 'fudges' there are. Ever wonder why? It's a nice program and I'm glad I've got it. But I've learned not to get too obsessed with depending on it. - 'Doc [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom