As someone who uses the modeling software of the model posted above, I had concerns on the accuracy of how it was being presented and what was being said about it.
I noticed right off the bat that its not the full image of the models output, but cut off. Then statements were made since that I was also concerned about, so I tried to duplicate the models in that image, although I used the CB band as that is more relevant here. As long as I adjust the lengths of the modeled antennas for the CB band it won't make much of a difference in the output.
This is closer to what it should look like before it was cut off. (20 radials were used, not the 16 claimed by the op)
[photo=medium]6650[/photo]
Now, normally I would let something like an image being cut off pass, just assume that it was due to inexperience or lack of knowledge of the person posting it, but the op has a recent history of misrepresenting things to try and say what he is saying is true. For example, in another thread he used a quote from M. Walter Maxwell's "Another Look at Reflections" to say something, but conveniently left out an important line of context that that changes the entire meaning of what the M. Walter Maxwell was actually trying to say. Further, much of the document itself actually disagrees with the op's position on the subject. Additionally, the op posted a link to an album I made on this forum to claim something that the models clearly showed the opposite of as evidence of what he was trying to say. Because of these and other things the op has posted recently, I find myself being suspicious whenever something he posts strikes me as out of place.
So with this I decided to do some modeling and came up with the above models.
There are two things to talk about when it comes to claims made and the models in question.
When it comes to the elevated 1/4 wavelength antenna requiring the mast to produce that pattern, my model almost perfectly duplicates said pattern without the mast. I added a mast just to see, and while it did increase gain (very slightly), it made effectively no difference to the shape of the pattern. You do not need a mast to ground with this antenna for the pattern in question to exist.
Initially, when it comes to the number of radials, I was curious as to the number needed for the op's models, but this was not mentioned, so based on the results and prior experience I assumed that it took something like 60 radials to get that strong of a signal as compared to the elevated antenna that was 1/4 wavelength up. This is plausible as adding radials on a ground mounted antenna has the effect of increasing its gain. However, it was then claimed that this is the result with just 16 radials???
In the models that I posted I used 20 radials, and both ground mounted antennas showed a weaker signal comparatively speaking than the op's model which supposedly used 16 radials? Based on, again prior modeling experience using this software, I would estimate that you would need something like 60 radials, give or take, to get the results that the op is posting.
The DB
