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

My model did not include a matching device CK, so the match shown is bad at 4.336 SWR in the attached source data report. So, I did not include the SWR bandwidth curve report that could show us the broadband benefit that a OWA design should produce. I did not mean to suggest what you post above, in fact I agree with you on that point.

Justin's model produces a very good direct feed match with a very low SWR among other benefits, so I included the bandwidth SWR curve in his models. All I can claim about my model of your 6 meter beam is...I think I got all of your dimensions right.

Note: You also used taper and I can't model using that feature. So, like I said earlier...my model might not be of any use to you. Maybe Henry will find some time to do your model with matching and taper before you raise it up again.

I did this modeling, because I wanted to see if I could duplicate results that somebody with good credits, using Eznec, might generated. I was also trying to make a model showing all of the benefit features the OWA design indicates are possible...and doing it when using the non-professional basic Eznec software vs. the Eznec Pro/4 version...as in this case.

<blockquote data-quote="Marconi" data-source="post: 556575" data-attributes="member: 903">My model did not include a matching device CK, so the match shown is bad at 4.336 SWR in the attached source data report. So, I did not include the SWR bandwidth curve report that could show us the broadband benefit that a OWA design should produce. I did not mean to suggest what you post above, in fact I agree with you on that point.Justin&#039;s model produces a very good direct feed match with a very low SWR among other benefits, so I included the bandwidth SWR curve in his models. All I can claim about my model of your 6 meter beam is...I think I got all of your dimensions right. Note: You also used taper and I can&#039;t model using that feature. So, like I said earlier...my model might not be of any use to you. Maybe Henry will find some time to do your model with matching and taper before you raise it up again.I did this modeling, because I wanted to see if I could duplicate results that somebody with good credits, using Eznec, might generated. I was also trying to make a model showing all of the benefit features the OWA design indicates are possible...and doing it when using the non-professional basic Eznec software vs. the Eznec Pro/4 version...as in this case.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marconi, post: 556575, member: 903"] My model did not include a matching device CK, so the match shown is bad at 4.336 SWR in the attached [I][B]source data report. [/B][/I]So, I did not include the SWR bandwidth curve report that could show us the broadband benefit that a OWA design should produce. I did not mean to suggest what you post above, in fact I agree with you on that point. Justin's model produces a very good direct feed match with a very low SWR among other benefits, so I included the bandwidth SWR curve in his models. All I can claim about my model of your 6 meter beam is...I think I got all of your dimensions right. Note: You also used taper and I can't model using that feature. So, like I said earlier...my model might not be of any use to you. Maybe Henry will find some time to do your model with matching and taper before you raise it up again. I did this modeling, because I wanted to see if I could duplicate results that somebody with good credits, using Eznec, might generated. I was also trying to make a model showing all of the benefit features the OWA design indicates are possible...and doing it when using the non-professional basic Eznec software vs. the Eznec Pro/4 version...as in this case. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom