Homemade Sigma 4 11 meter base antenna

[Marconi]

i was really going on faith and working in the dark on that one . and a good part of the thread is my ideas not doing what i wanted . but i eventually got what i wanted .

i highly suggest reading these three threads if you're at all interested in these type antennas .

http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/144592-vector-4000-remake.html

homers bottom x bracket looks to be about as strong as my plate bracket and allows the bottom of the basket elements to be off the bottom of the vertical the inch or so that they need . i think folks would be worried about their roof flying off before either of our bottom attachments fail in wind and homers is simpler to make and can be made with aluminum strips from lowes/home depot . and be sure to use his idea for pex for the gamma insulator . also be sure to double wall at least the two lower section of the vertical or use the 1/4 inch wall tubing . when i put mine back up i'm gon tripple wall the lower section and double the second and third sections . then the 2 inch O.D. bottom will fit perfectly in the 2 inch inside diameter conduit i use for mast

also , take your time reading these two threads .....

http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/31799-avanti-sigma4-alternative-view-point.html

http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/36412-modified-vector-4000-a.html

i've read through each several times and find new things that make more sense than it did before every time .

good luck with your build and be sure to do a thread with pics as you go so if i see you do something i like better than i do .... i can steal .... ummmmm , i mean copy your idea

my results didn't jive with what i was told at Eham ..... there was even a guy that said he used to work at avanti and wasn't a fan of my antenna LOL . but it gave me better results than any of my previous antennas so i'm sticking with it . my TX?RX results trump any comments made by anyone on any forum . and i'm fully open to these type antennas not being the best for everyone .... but i believe it could be the best antenna for most folks ... if it will hold up to their weather extremes .


BTW .... you should make a thread here about your tower explaining how you built it and some pics to show what you did

Hey Booty in your situation, I agree that your home brew Vector could provide the results you noted above in red. The way I read the Eham thread, I think WB6BYU, Dale, agrees as well. But Dale was trying to make a point, just like I do when I claim the advantage for the taller vertical antenna is primarily due to the additional height the design provides...in a similar installation as you use.

The only thing I might disagree about regarding the Sigma/Vector is how it works to provide such a difference, and for me that is amazing, in its own right and without applying some magical or mysterious function going on in the base of the antenna...that has a non-apparent collinear effect.

I think WB6BYU was alluding to this, without going into details, when he briefly described the issues with a 5/8 wave.

http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,75921.0.html

He just didn't go on to talk about the Avanti idea to make the typical 3/4 wave radiator work without showing a worthless radiation angle issue, and considering his thoughts for how the 5/8 wave was affected by the bottom of the antenna being out of phase.

I know your Vector results don't agree with what was said over there, but did the experience bring anything good to light for you?

Or, do you think you just happend to run across the same guy that Bob described as having also talked to Master Chief in the past, and was just a guy disagreeing...because he worked for Avanti, didn't like the Sigma 4 design, and was currently just working to make through glass mobile antennas?

 

[Lil'Yeshua]

Just purchased the Sirio Vector 4000 from DNJ. Was gonna buy one from H&Y but their's vanished from the menu. Also bought some conductive grease from Amazon by Redman CB. The fun part would be to set the gamma match without a antenna tuner/analyzer but that might change.
DNJ Radio

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

you may want to mount it so that it can be taken down when strong hurricanes come through your area . and don't forget ... PICS/THREAD on your assembly and install

 

[Lil'Yeshua]

you may want to mount it so that it can be taken down when strong hurricanes come through your area . and don't forget ... PICS/THREAD on your assembly and install

Thanks. My tower tilts so that helps. And yes,all the info you and others have provided and discussed are of an immense help. I also ordered the CRE-8900 to go with it.

 

[Lil'Yeshua]

Yes. I will.

 

[bob85]

Thanks Homer, this doesn't have any modeling info that I can use, but I did see the free space pattern of Cebik's J-Pole, and it looks just like mine. The skewed difference is so small as to make little operational difference, just as Cebik suggested and as I claimed earlier...the reason for my models in this case.

Again we see a case where it's all about very small differences...differences that are of little consequence, maybe even to real world experiences.

Not to be mean, but if I could model a feed line and a choke, I would bet I would likely find similar results.

why are you trying to use cebik's article as some kind of proof the radiation from the sleeve does nothing useful to the pattern?,
i posted the link to show how/why you can get radiation from the sleeve, clearly the magnitude of radiation in a typical j-pole is not significant but the cause of the radiation is explained,

it was cebik who talked about the effect when radials are swept up towards the monopole, do you think cebik had a brain fart and forgot what his j-pole article said?,

the arrl tells us the the sleeve radiates in phase with the upper 1/2wave compressing the pattern, cst confirms in phase radiation,
there is no magic to radiation from a sleeve, its has been understood since the early 40's,
how much effect it has in the vector design i don't know and neither do you but its there as cebik told me,

where is your alternative explanation of how the sigma/vector works?, i must have missed your post and id like to read it.

 

[Marconi]

why are you trying to use cebik's article as some kind of proof the radiation from the sleeve does nothing useful to the pattern?,
i posted the link to show how/why you can get radiation from the sleeve, clearly the magnitude of radiation in a typical j-pole is not significant but the cause of the radiation is explained,

it was cebik who talked about the effect when radials are swept up towards the monopole, do you think cebik had a brain fart and forgot what his j-pole article said?,

the arrl tells us the the sleeve radiates in phase with the upper 1/2wave compressing the pattern, cst confirms in phase radiation,
there is no magic to radiation from a sleeve, its has been understood since the early 40's,
how much effect it has in the vector design i don't know and neither do you but its there as cebik told me,

where is your alternative explanation of how the sigma/vector works?, i must have missed your post and id like to read it.

Bob, I realize this thread is about a homemade Sigma4, but at some point Shockwave and you started talking about a JPole, and he asked you a what-if question below...about slanting the matching stub element out at some angle other than being parallel.

Bob, I wonder if the J-Pole camp tilted the 1/4 wave leg on their J-Poles out wards from the vertical, what they would think of the increased lopsided effect in the pattern? Would they then connect the increase in radiation from the stub to the fact the elements are no longer parallel?

This is all I was trying to address in my post to Homer about the link he referenced. That report, you posted some time back, is 62 pages long and for sure I didn't re-read it all again.

I recall that you and Shockwave had been discussing pattern skewing for JPoles as though it was something significant and maybe bad. I didn't recall in my modeling...that being the case. So I made a model to support my words and I wanted to compare it to models others had made, and Homer responded by posting his reference.

I wasn't thinking or trying to prove how the radiation from the sleeve does nothing useful to the pattern...as you suggest. I was just trying to show that a JPole pattern, even one with a slanted out stub, is not as bad as you two were intimating. My comments to Homer were only intended to show how the Cebik's free space azimuth pattern for the JPole...was similar to my model.

On several other occasions you have presented articles on JPoles as examples or as technical support for how you claim the Vector might work. I've asked you this before, do you think maybe it is possible these J-Pole references you have used could be the same reason many others might have the idea the Sigma4/Vector is some form of a JPole, including Sirio?

Regarding the arrl topic on open sleeve antennas, I think I understand how the sleeve radiates in phase with the top half of the 1/2 wave, because the top of the sleeve is at a low impedance current maximum in the middle of the 1/2 wave radiator as noted below:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/ukmudduck/coax-1.png

In such cases the coax inside of the sleeve produces in phase common mode currents on the outside of the sleeve and it radiates.

However, as has been claimed before...such a setup is different from the Vector cone that shows a high impedance current node (high voltage point) at the top of the cone where the hoop is attached, and therefore how can there be in phase CMC's produced from the top of the cone at a voltage maxima?

Bob, here is how I see the Sigma4 showing an advantage in gain, and a simple explaination for how it might work...that I posted for Booty Monster in this thread earlier. See my first paragraph, you must have missed it.

http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-anten...ma-4-11-meter-base-antenna-14.html#post411638

 

[Shockwave]

This is what we get when we deal with things that are "non apparent". It's just as impossible to convince those that think its a 1/2 wave that they are wrong as it would be for me to convince the hundreds of broadcast stations that have replaced dipoles with the design that the increase in range they see is non existent.

 

[Shockwave]

Bob, I realize this thread is about a homemade Sigma4, but at some point Shockwave and you started talking about a JPole, and he asked you a what-if question below...about slanting the matching stub element out at some angle other than being parallel.



This is all I was trying to address in my post to Homer about the link he referenced. That report, you posted some time back, is 62 pages long and for sure I didn't re-read it all again.

I recall that you and Shockwave had been discussing pattern skewing for JPoles as though it was something significant and maybe bad. I didn't recall in my modeling...that being the case. So I made a model to support my words and I wanted to compare it to models others had made, and Homer responded by posting his reference.

I wasn't thinking or trying to prove how the radiation from the sleeve does nothing useful to the pattern...as you suggest. I was just trying to show that a JPole pattern, even one with a slanted out stub, is not as bad as you two were intimating. My comments to Homer were only intended to show how the Cebik's free space azimuth pattern for the JPole...was similar to my model.

On several other occasions you have presented articles on JPoles as examples or as technical support for how you claim the Vector might work. I've asked you this before, do you think maybe it is possible these J-Pole references you have used could be the same reason many others might have the idea the Sigma4/Vector is some form of a JPole, including Sirio?

Regarding the arrl topic on open sleeve antennas, I think I understand how the sleeve radiates in phase with the top half of the 1/2 wave, because the top of the sleeve is at a low impedance current maximum in the middle of the 1/2 wave radiator as noted below:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/ukmudduck/coax-1.png

In such cases the coax inside of the sleeve produces in phase common mode currents on the outside of the sleeve and it radiates.

However, as has been claimed before...such a setup is different from the Vector cone that shows a high impedance current node (high voltage point) at the top of the cone where the hoop is attached, and therefore how can there be in phase CMC's produced from the top of the cone at a voltage maxima?

Bob, here is how I see the Sigma4 showing an advantage in gain, and a simple explaination for how it might work...that I posted for Booty Monster in this thread earlier. See my first paragraph, you must have missed it.

http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-anten...ma-4-11-meter-base-antenna-14.html#post411638

There is confusion here. The fact you can only see a small amount of skewing on the J-pole in your models does nothing to suggest how much gain could be in the base of a Sigma. No 3/4 wave J-Pole does anything to address the out of phase radiation that would be in the lower 1/4 wave. They all allow the radiation from the tuning stub and the base of the main vertical to radiate freely and out of phase from each other.

Something altogether different occurs once you confine the radiation in the lower portion of the 3/4 wave and ONLY allow the outside cone to radiate at the base. Something I have never seen any EZNEC model ever demonstrate. Gain goes up noticeably over a half wave on the horizon with a clean omni pattern that looks more like a 1/2 wave over a 1/4 wave.

The reason your sleeve antenna examples have a low impedance point at the top and the Sigma does not is simple. They are not even similar. The typical sleeve antenna has the sleeve attached to the coax braid at the top of the sleeve where it then folds back down over the transmission line. This is the exact opposite condition we have in the Sigma.

 

[bob85]

eddie,
are you thinking about a coaxial dipole?
the arrl open sleeve antenna with a 1/2wave mono-pole and 1/4wave sleeve is fed at the base where the antenna mode impedance of the mono-pole is high so little current flows in the portion of mono-pole above the sleeve, most of the current flows in transmissionline mode,
when the mono-pole is 3/4wave significant current flows in antenna mode, the upper 1/2wave radiates in phase with the sleeve compressing the pattern, not a huge gain but it can't be ignored,
if its wrong then the arrl need to remove the article they have published in successive arrl antenna handbook publications,

even if we don't get the full 1/4wave equivalent radiation from the sleeve it is not a simple 1/2wave and inferior to a 5/8wave as was claimed,

we both know that the avanti guys admitted to not understanding how the astroplane worked, imho it works on the same principle,

i went through the j-pole claim with cebik, he did not think it was a simple j-pole,
he did warn me about the difficulty obtaining accurate results from eznec with that antenna.

 

[HomerBB]

There is confusion here. The fact you can only see a small amount of skewing on the J-pole in your models does nothing to suggest how much gain could be in the base of a Sigma. No 3/4 wave J-Pole does anything to address the out of phase radiation that would be in the lower 1/4 wave. They all allow the radiation from the tuning stub and the base of the main vertical to radiate freely and out of phase from each other.

Something altogether different occurs once you confine the radiation in the lower portion of the 3/4 wave and ONLY allow the outside cone to radiate at the base. Something I have never seen any EZNEC model ever demonstrate. Gain goes up noticeably over a half wave on the horizon with a clean omni pattern that looks more like a 1/2 wave over a 1/4 wave.

The reason your sleeve antenna examples have a low impedance point at the top and the Sigma does not is simple. They are not even similar. The typical sleeve antenna has the sleeve attached to the coax braid at the top of the sleeve where it then folds back down over the transmission line. This is the exact opposite condition we have in the Sigma.

Maybe there is something in this?

An OPEN transmission line termination (no termination) will return a reflected radio signal IN PHASE with the forward signal.

The two signals will SUPERIMPOSE, or ADD at the point of reflection. Since the forward and reflected signal amplitudes are equal, the VOLTAGE at the termination point will be twice what it would be if no reflection existed. You can actually see this with a Lecher Wire. Remember the Lecher Wire at the start of the chapter? You just KNEW we’d come back to that sooner or later, didn’t you?

Well, here we are!
What about the case of a dead short at the termination?
Again, we have total reflection, but the reflected wave is 180 degrees OUT OF PHASE with the forward wave. So the SUPERIMPOSED voltage will be the DIFFERENCE between the forward and reflected signals, which are, as mentioned above, EXACTLY equal (but opposite). The resulting voltage at that point will be zero, as the Superposition Theorem tells us it must be. But we already know that, because we ALWAYS have zero volts across a dead short! So, whether we’re treating our transmission line as a “lumped constant” (Ohm’s Law) device or as a “distributed” (wave) device, we come up with the same answer!

"SWR Meters Make You Stupid"

I was wondering . . .

There are three currents associated with the cone, the opposing currents contained within the cone, and the in phase current on the outside of the cone. The question was asked earlier in the thread regarding how the in phase current might be generated when the internal opposing currents within the cone cancelled. I was wondering if some of you deeper thinkers might have some thoughts about the possibility of this having a bearing.

I thought there was some resemblance to the theory put forward for the activity in/on the cone, and this Superimposed Theorem.

edited after marconi posted below me:
I am post-replying to Marconi's post right below mine. I bring back his statement to reference again what has been brought up before in this thread believing there could be some enlightenment in my quote in this post.

My current opinion differs because it is said the bottom of the Sigma4 is producing CMC to provide the in-phase currents on the outside of the radials. I find this idea implausible, because the source at the radial top for CMC’s lacks explanation, and that is what I have stated.

 

[Marconi]

This is what we get when we deal with things that are "non apparent". It's just as impossible to convince those that think its a 1/2 wave that they are wrong as it would be for me to convince the hundreds of broadcast stations that have replaced dipoles with the design that the increase in range they see is non existent.

Donald, I am not beyond convincing, and you may be the only one that has the information available to prove your points about your .82 wave FM antenna, and thus provide a clue as to exactly how the Sigma4/Vector currents really work.

If you had to reapply for FCC approval using CST modeling for your Dominator, after you discovered that Eznec did not produce good results...then I would suspect you have the CST info. I've asked you before about the actual data information, but I understand you have a business to run, so I can appreciate your reluctance. Not many folks are likely able to afford the cost of CST, nor the understanding how to use it properly…except maybe for the folks like Sirio, who you tell us builds your Dominator. I can understand their possible reluctance as well.

How were you able to get the animated image for the New Vector 4000?

My current opinion differs because it is said the bottom of the Sigma4 is producing CMC to provide the in-phase currents on the outside of the radials. I find this idea implausible, because the source at the radial top for CMC’s lacks explanation, and that is what I have stated.

I don't claim to have any specific knowledge for how the Sigma4 works, but I remain open to evidence that will settle the matter someday.

My personal experience with my Antenna Specialist’s made Sigma4 has shown to be very effective, and in many cases it performed better, with a small advantage in gain, when compared to my other vertical CB antennas that were mounted at or near the same feed point height. It is my opinion that this small advantage is due to the increased height of the 1/2 wave element that is elevated higher than the 5/8 wave and all the other shorter antennas I own.

My Eznec model of the Vector also shows a similar gain advantage when mounted at the feed point.

As soon as I can, I plan to do a modeling trick I recently noted from W8JI’s model of a 146 Mhz J-Pole. If I am successful I will post the model. Up to learning this trick, I could never get Eznec to show the proper phasing for a JPole I built, so I am hopeful the idea will work on the Vector model as well.

Donald, for lack of a better explanation, we have emailed and discussed this issue before, but we never reached a conclusion, likely due to the “non-apparent” nature of modeling correctly.

 

[Shockwave]

Donald, I am not beyond convincing, and you may be the only one that has the information available to prove your points about your .82 wave FM antenna, and thus provide a clue as to exactly how the Sigma4/Vector currents really work.

If you had to reapply for FCC approval using CST modeling for your Dominator, after you discovered that Eznec did not produce good results...then I would suspect you have the CST info. I've asked you before about the actual data information, but I understand you have a business to run, so I can appreciate your reluctance. Not many folks are likely able to afford the cost of CST, nor the understanding how to use it properly…except maybe for the folks like Sirio, who you tell us builds your Dominator. I can understand their possible reluctance as well.

How were you able to get the animated image for the New Vector 4000?

My current opinion differs because it is said the bottom of the Sigma4 is producing CMC to provide the in-phase currents on the outside of the radials. I find this idea implausible, because the source at the radial top for CMC’s lacks explanation, and that is what I have stated.

I don't claim to have any specific knowledge for how the Sigma4 works, but I remain open to evidence that will settle the matter someday.

My personal experience with my Antenna Specialist’s made Sigma4 has shown to be very effective, and in many cases it performed better, with a small advantage in gain, when compared to my other vertical CB antennas that were mounted at or near the same feed point height. It is my opinion that this small advantage is due to the increased height of the 1/2 wave element that is elevated higher than the 5/8 wave and all the other shorter antennas I own.

My Eznec model of the Vector also shows a similar gain advantage when mounted at the feed point.

As soon as I can, I plan to do a modeling trick I recently noted from W8JI’s model of a 146 Mhz J-Pole. If I am successful I will post the model. Up to learning this trick, I could never get Eznec to show the proper phasing for a JPole I built, so I am hopeful the idea will work on the Vector model as well.

Donald, for lack of a better explanation, we have emailed and discussed this issue before, but we never reached a conclusion, likely due to the “non-apparent” nature of modeling correctly.

I didn't have to reapply for listing on the FCC database, I had to reapply for patents on a collinear model of the design due mostly in part to EZNEC's complete inability to account for constructive radiation currents in the lower 1/4 wave. This did not become apparent until later that spring when several models were tested in the field.

Because EZNEC only sees the 1/2 wave radiator on top of the cone as being a constructive part of the antenna, modeling a collinear version will falsely peak gain on the horizon with a 180 degree phasing section between the collinear radiators. Field testing proves that this EZNEC model produces no gain over the standard version while the program claims a gain increase.

Unless every EZNEC model that has been shared with me in the last 10 years was constructed wrong, there is only one logical explanation for the field results. Although to understand what was proven with these field tests requires a reasonable understanding of how collinear antennas work.

For the EZNEC collinear model to show no gain in the field can only mean 50% of the added top collinear section is now bucking the constructive phase of the lower 1/4 wave cone. To prove this theory beyond any reasonable doubt, the test prototype was modified by changing the EZNEC phasing section from 180 degrees of delay to 90 degrees.

Only by doing this did the field test model begin to show the expected gain over a single section Sigma. Present this information to someone who knows much more than us like a L.B. Cebik and you'll undoubtedly find an agreement that the Sigma is an effective 270 degree 3/4 wave radiator.

I've explained a few times here that I requested the CST model of the radiation currents from the head engineer at Sirio that worked on the project whose company assisted with bringing the broadcast version to market. I can assure you that Sirio is not like Avanti in not understanding how what they sell works or having other people within the company promoting false information because they were never presented with the facts.

Sirio engineers have access to the "wish you had workshop" that includes things like network analyzers, field test ranges, anechoic chamber, and the latest software modeling tools to explain and perfect what they are working on. That's why we have products like the Gain-Master, P-5000 mobile antenna and Yagi's that are affordable today. I've shared all the CST information I requested and since my work didn't require more, I'm not going to pester these people over the topic again. I don't think it would change minds anyhow.

I hope I don't come off as sounding "cocky" but I've been working with this design for over 15 years and can tell you for sure the height difference in the current maxima points has little to do with the gain of the design. If you see different results it's probably due to your location.

The design has been installed on several broadcast towers that exceed 1000 feet in height. The equivalent in wavelength to nearly 3000 feet above ground on 11 meters! In more than one case the Sigma design was too long to fit in the existing space on the tower that supported the smaller unity gain antenna.

One was forced to pick the next vacant space on the tower nearly 100 feet lower and still kicked the snot out of the old system in the fringe zone. It's not just about getting the current maxima point higher. It's about recognizing the design has TWO in phase current maxima points that give it the gain.

 

[Shockwave]

I also had hopes that some of the people in the other forum this thread was started over might have some good technical information in which to support their 1/2 wave J-Pole opinions. Unfortunately things like "it looked cool" or "it's just a 1/2 wave" fall on my totally deaf ears after proving this theory dead wrong for years in the field.

With that in mind, I've posted a few very specific questions on that forum based on my field tests that will cause some to reconsider their previous thoughts, motivate some to test the phase angles so they can replicate what I have seen or turn a blind eye to anything that contradicts their thoughts. It will depend entirely on someone there understanding collinear design and having the willingness to speak up about what they know.

 

[HomerBB]

After watching the image, then stopping it for a closer analysis, I don't think it
shows anything different than EZNEC does.

Yes, current is maximum at the bottom of the vertical radiator (inside the bottom
"cage". But the currents are out of phase between the "cage" and the bottom
portion of the radiator: there is a high field strength in the space between them,
but not nearly as much actually radiated.

The field strength on the outside of the "cage" is much lower than inside, and
extends outwards more due to the proximity to the outside of the cage than
anything else. (So if you measure the field strength at a fixed distance from
the main radiator, it will appear to have a maximum near the top of the cage
simply because the cage extends out closer to the measurement point.) The
fact that the field strength around the cage is maximum at the top (a high
voltage point) rather than at the bottom (a high current point) would support
this. The display doesn't show the net effect in free space, or even
as much as 1/4 wave from the radiator itself, where I would expect the fields
around the bottom section to be much lower than around the upper half wave.

So, in spite of the high currents in the bottom matching section and the high
field strength inside the cage, the actual field strength that it contributes to
overall radiation appears to be rather low (though difficult to tell from the narrow
plot). That's what I would expect any good modeling program to show. At
that point you are down to analyzing how the exact construction of the cage
affects the phase and amplitude of the radiation from it relative to the main
conductor.

But from studying the plot I'd say that it does NOT support the being any
significant gain advantage over a half wave radiator.

Shockwave,
I am not a member over on eham, but I was reading your discussion with them about the V4k.
I don't know whether this quote of a post to the thread says the same to you on a single thought as it does to me, but it seems to say that the point is confirmed by this contributor that the out of phase currents within the cone are contained, and those on the outside of the cone are in phase with those on the upper 1/2 wave vertical. While he goes on to say that he does not see the lower cone in-phase currents accounting for much in the way of far field support for additional gain, I think that an opportunity to respond to the fact that despite a lower radiation strength from the cone there is still that undeniable reality that the out of phase currents are NOT a factor that contributes to a very high primary lobe usually seen from a 3/4 wave vertical, and that the radiation from the cone being in phase can only reinforce the toward the horizon gain of the 3/4 wave antenna as a whole.

I think this point, whether here in this thread, and in other places I've read, seems to be spoken to, but not appreciated.

Marconi likes to say that he sees only the additional height of the antenna from the feed point up as the only reason the V4k is a better antenna than a shorter vertical, yet this defies the long standing accepted proposition that the longer than 5/8 antennas have a single fatal flaw of casting their primary lobe too high into the stratophere to constructively contribute to communications on planet Earth due to the lower out of phase 1/4 wave where it matters - additional gain toward the horizon..

The V4k has resolved that issue. If that one solution has not contributed to the superior gain of the 3/4 wave antenna being cast toward the horizon regardless of how much additional radiation the lower in phase 1/4 section adds, then antenna theory older than any of us here on the forum must be cast aside as historically inaccurate, and a 3/4 wave antenna does not have superior gain over other shorter lengths.

Can we really have it both ways, or am I missing something that doesn't make these views self-conflicting and contraditory?
Just thinking out loud.

In fairness I have an Eznec model Marconi did for me of the V4k when I was discussing with him the Merlin, a 5/8, and the V4k at the same current maximum height. The V4k in his model was the least impressive of the three. However, there is nothing in my experience with the V4k that supports that Eznec modeling result. I am only just learning with the free Eznec program to model, and there is more I have to learn than I know, so I have no criticisms of the model.
However, that result only reaffirms to me that Eznec is likely deficient in its ability to accurately model this antenna.

I also have been under the impression that when comparing antennas at the same current maximum they have so little difference in sub-points of gain that they are practically identical. I accept this due to my personal testing of the 1/2 wave, the 5/8 and the Merlin against each other in this way. However, what I keep on the horizon of my thinking is that because there is this lower out-of-phase portion of the 5/8 wave, and that the Merlin, like the Starduster, has such a steep angle of droop in the radials that it presents itself as a 1/2 wave potentially, what we have is essentially three half-wave antennas being compared to each other. Eznec confirms this possibility.

Because the V4k eliminates this out of phase current as a player on the lower 1/4 wave of its 3/4 wave total length, and redistributes its current as being in-phase along the entire length, I tend to agree with the CST model, my experience, and the experiences of Bob and Shockwave, as well as the comments of Cebik regarding the weakness of Eznec to this antenna, and its non-apparent colinear nature. No other vertical has produced the results of this antenna for me.
There may be others, but I have not flown them, yet.