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

Shockwave, I wouldn't get too concerned and question what you see in the example you made. It is natural for guys to make an argument when they just give us words.

I did the same thing you did and my results were similar, except my 50' foot model didn't develop all the narrow lobes and nulls until I reached about 100' feet. My 500' foot model looked almost identical. Could that be the difference in Eznec5 and Eznec5+.

Did you include a mast with your model over real Earth? And did you set your model to zero for all losses before running the free space pattern? That could be some of any difference I might have noted. I didn't set the models side by side, so there maybe be more difference that I suggested, but IMO, they looked alike.

I don't know how Eznec handles the issues that QRN noted, so maybe he can give us some examples of his contention in this regard. I might just learn something new, and that would be good.

<blockquote data-quote="Marconi" data-source="post: 282385" data-attributes="member: 903">Shockwave, I wouldn&#039;t get too concerned and question what you see in the example you made. It is natural for guys to make an argument when they just give us words.&nbsp;I did the same thing you did and my results were similar, except my 50&#039; foot model didn&#039;t develop all the narrow lobes and nulls until I reached about 100&#039; feet. My 500&#039; foot model looked almost identical. Could that be the difference in Eznec5 and Eznec5+.&nbsp;Did you include a mast with your model over real Earth? And did you set your model to zero for all losses before running the free space pattern? That could be some of any difference I might have noted. I didn&#039;t set the models side by side, so there maybe be more difference that I suggested, but IMO, they looked alike. &nbsp;I don&#039;t know how Eznec handles the issues that QRN noted, so maybe he can give us some examples of his contention in this regard. I might just learn something new, and that would be good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marconi, post: 282385, member: 903"] Shockwave, I wouldn't get too concerned and question what you see in the example you made. It is natural for guys to make an argument when they just give us words. I did the same thing you did and my results were similar, except my 50' foot model didn't develop all the narrow lobes and nulls until I reached about 100' feet. My 500' foot model looked almost identical. Could that be the difference in Eznec5 and Eznec5+. Did you include a mast with your model over real Earth? And did you set your model to zero for all losses before running the free space pattern? That could be some of any difference I might have noted. I didn't set the models side by side, so there maybe be more difference that I suggested, but IMO, they looked alike. I don't know how Eznec handles the issues that QRN noted, so maybe he can give us some examples of his contention in this regard. I might just learn something new, and that would be good. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom