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

I simply scanned and quoted the information from said book that you requested. Until recently I have not to my memory been exposed to anything short of a random person in random forums occasionally stating different on the subject. This thread is the first time I remember you mentioning that yourself, and doc saying something similar. I personally try and stick with published information (by published I am referring to books, not web pages) as there is a lot of mis-information around and this is my way of sifting through that information. One thing that has frustrated me on this specifically is charts that are listed as "calculated" yet I have yet to find any mathematical equation that can be used to confirm the calculation.

Because of the evidence that you have shown with your modeling data I have changed my understanding of that bit of information from fact to assumed fact, at least for the time being. Yea, its not much, but its something. Part of my problem here is I personally don't have a complete understanding of modeling, a fatal flaw I know, but I intend to change that lack of knowledge some day. There are benefits, but the results can and have been manipulated on occasion, sometimes unintentionally. You yourself have found errors in your work in the past and corrected them, which I think says a lot about you persoanlly. When I encounter something that I don't expect in modeling (or any claim in this field for that matter) I view it with skepticism until I can verify the information. Sometimes I even learn something in the process.

I'm wondering if there is something that we are missing somewhere that explains both sides of this. It could be something as simple the width of the antenna, or how much separation is between it and that "perfect" ground plane below it, or perhaps even how modeling programs model the feedline connection in this instance (even if you factor out feedline losses and such)...

The DB

<blockquote data-quote="The DB" data-source="post: 441372" data-attributes="member: 21346">I simply scanned and quoted the information from said book that you requested.&nbsp; Until recently I have not to my memory been exposed to anything short of a random person in random forums occasionally stating different on the subject.&nbsp; This thread is the first time I remember you mentioning that yourself, and doc saying something similar.&nbsp; I personally try and stick with published information (by published I am referring to books, not web pages) as there is a lot of mis-information around and this is my way of sifting through that information.&nbsp; One thing that has frustrated me on this specifically is charts that are listed as &quot;calculated&quot; yet I have yet to find any mathematical equation that can be used to confirm the calculation.&nbsp; Because of the evidence that you have shown with your modeling data I have changed my understanding of that bit of information from fact to assumed fact, at least for the time being.&nbsp; Yea, its not much, but its something.&nbsp; Part of my problem here is I personally don&#039;t have a complete understanding of modeling, a fatal flaw I know, but I intend to change that lack of knowledge some day.&nbsp; There are benefits, but the results can and have been manipulated on occasion, sometimes unintentionally.&nbsp; You yourself have found errors in your work in the past and corrected them, which I think says a lot about you persoanlly.&nbsp; When I encounter something that I don&#039;t expect in modeling (or any claim in this field for that matter) I view it with skepticism until I can verify the information.&nbsp; Sometimes I even learn something in the process.I&#039;m wondering if there is something that we are missing somewhere that explains both sides of this.&nbsp; It could be something as simple the width of the antenna, or how much separation is between it and that &quot;perfect&quot; ground plane below it, or perhaps even how modeling programs model the feedline connection in this instance (even if you factor out feedline losses and such)...&nbsp; <a href="http://hittman.us" target="_blank">The DB</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="The DB, post: 441372, member: 21346"] I simply scanned and quoted the information from said book that you requested. Until recently I have not to my memory been exposed to anything short of a random person in random forums occasionally stating different on the subject. This thread is the first time I remember you mentioning that yourself, and doc saying something similar. I personally try and stick with published information (by published I am referring to books, not web pages) as there is a lot of mis-information around and this is my way of sifting through that information. One thing that has frustrated me on this specifically is charts that are listed as "calculated" yet I have yet to find any mathematical equation that can be used to confirm the calculation. Because of the evidence that you have shown with your modeling data I have changed my understanding of that bit of information from fact to assumed fact, at least for the time being. Yea, its not much, but its something. Part of my problem here is I personally don't have a complete understanding of modeling, a fatal flaw I know, but I intend to change that lack of knowledge some day. There are benefits, but the results can and have been manipulated on occasion, sometimes unintentionally. You yourself have found errors in your work in the past and corrected them, which I think says a lot about you persoanlly. When I encounter something that I don't expect in modeling (or any claim in this field for that matter) I view it with skepticism until I can verify the information. Sometimes I even learn something in the process. I'm wondering if there is something that we are missing somewhere that explains both sides of this. It could be something as simple the width of the antenna, or how much separation is between it and that "perfect" ground plane below it, or perhaps even how modeling programs model the feedline connection in this instance (even if you factor out feedline losses and such)... [URL="http://hittman.us"][COLOR="Black"]The DB[/COLOR][/URL] [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom