Well BM, I think, within reason, that a knowledgeable and proficient user of antenna modeling could possibly do approximately what you suggest here,
knowledgeable and proficient user of antenna modeling ................. no doubt that would help a lot
but based on the minimal differences likely to occur, why go to all that trouble.
maybe minimal difference according to the software , but folks report significant differences in their real world at home use that the models don't seem to ... well ... model
Even if modeling was perfect how would you analyze or compare the real world results to know the difference except by anecdotal accounts like we read here all the time.
it would see that some folks do better with a starduster or antron 99 than a 5/8 , and that others have the exact opposite results . real world results are what happens in the real world , that's where my stuff operates at
I would bet there are more errors made by humans in real world testing than there is in using the established science for antennas, including well designed modeling.
the science is only as good as the scientist conducting the experiment , their equipment used , and the environment it's conducted in . while i do respect and and appreciate your many many helpful post over the years , lately i've felt you put way to much emphasis on your modeling programs ... like they are supposed to be some kind of de facto truth that can't be questioned . it has been mentioned in other post you often leave out important elements of the antenna system , yet still insist that they're valid
As humans we have to have a little faith regarding things we can't see, test, or experience. You have spent a lot of time telling and showing us the efforts you made while building your Sigma styled antenna, and most of us had faith that it would work and you'd be successful, but as it turns out you tell us very little about your results after completion. Maybe I missed something along the line in this regard, but I've asked you before what kind of testing results you gotten with your new Vector design.
i've really grown to hate post that go one and on about how great a particular antenna does . there's typically just not that much difference unless something is very wrong with one of the antennas . i've said that my 4 hears %95 -%98 of what other around me seem to hear . the guy with the 3 element beam of course hears folks i cant detect at all ... and that's to be expected . talking seems to do well also , not always , but a good part of the time if i can hear someone they can hear me , and no .... i dont do the all mighty BOWL so i'm not competing with folks running thousands and thousands and thousands of watts . i probably wouldn't be noticed there anyway , not that i could understand 1/2 the folks there if they did come back to me with their %300 modulation . LOL . i'll add here that skip is a mixed bag .... sometimes i can hear or talk to someone that folks within several miles of me can't ... and some times they hear or talk to someone i can't
i know , it's no merlin putting out 15 s-units more signal than the other 5/8 around me ..... but it makes me happy .
I read your question the other day to Homer after he got his MFJ 259B analyzer. You asked him if he could report what kind of results he saw on his homemade Vector. To me, he seemed both a little surprised and troubled by his results, and suggested it needed some more work. He couldn't remember what his results were, except to suggest they were not good.
i read that too . but he always seemed very happy with it .. as badly tuned (according to the 259B) as it may have been . i'm very curious to read his comments on his results once he gets the 259B to tell him its more technically correct .
Have you considered trying to test your Vector using a borrowed analyzer?
if i knew someone with one to borrow from .. i'd love to . the shop here will loan me there's if i leave a check for $400 frickin dollars as a security deposit . no way in hell will i do that LOL . what if i accidently dropped it ?? a new on is only $240 + S&H .
Would that be a good idea?
it will be a excellent idea !!! if i pay shipping both ways will you lend me you'rs ?
With this all said as an example, what kind of difference does Homer's experience make here, considering his homemade Vector styled antenna works and probably shows good results with an in line SWR meter, and yet it doesn't look too good on his analyzer? If perfection or the lack of it lies within such a range of revelation as Homer notes, and his antenna still works OK, then what is the point you are trying to make regarding modeling?
i guess my point is the models iv'e seen (and i freely admit that i don't really understand) don't seem to reflect what really happens on a consistent basis . maybe folks don't understand them as well as they think they do or they are lazy or don't understand the programs enough to put all the relevant factors into them .
and of course there's the possibility that i'm an idiot or just thick headed . LOL
For sure, a less observant operator than Homer would be more likely to give us less reliable information in any anecdotal account they would make, and one report from Old Gut Buster down the road is of little value. Free space models are intended to reveal a fair semblance of the pattern of the physical characteristics of an antenna without any outside influences on the pattern, such as loss, Earth affects, and stuff on the surface.
i think most will agree here that very few folks are as observant as homer on their antennas ! he is such a huge credit and benefit to this and every other forum i've seen him on .
IMO ... there is no such thing as a "antenna without any outside influences on the pattern" those influences are what make the antennas behave the way they do ..... so if you don't include those factors ..... how can the models be considered accurate ?
BM, modeling is just a tool, it is not a Wizard, a Divining Rod, or a Crystal Ball, so considering this...where are you placing your faith today?
