@Shockwave...you have mail, im hopoing it will answer the questions..if not let me know.
@Marconi...concerning your last post.
Upfront..you know, if i misinterperted something..please do correct me or forget about it.
1- Changing impedance on a antenna can only done by physical making the antenna different That means length, heigth, feedpoint, etc etc..
There inst anything in eznec to “figure out”.
2-As earlier metioned the manual says:. Baluns and other technics have 0 effect on the model. Unless it represents a physical large construction. Say a gamma-match with a tube of 2 meter long...But then it has influence cause it is large, the same a supportstructure can have influence on a antenna..
3-No model requires a matching device. (it migth be smart to do so but thats a different thing.
However, your SWR plots wont be representive simply cause you havnt add one.
What you could do is change the Ohm value of the SWR “reading”value to the resonant ohms.
Below 50ohms as the Vector 400 is a gamma-match will show equal results.
4- About that collinear effect, people are "holding on" to cebik his words, and ofcourse i understand that. But perhaps one could place it in a different perspective.
The question is how do we interpertate it.
Yes the bottum part radiates..sure it does..but how much and is that a real plus?
He didnt mention: never seen this before! its abolute something new wich is not know before!! etc.. No, he just mentioned "there seems to be a non-apperant collinear effect..just wanted to have it said...nothing ment with it..keeping a open mind.
Im also aware that with his statement about the difficulties in Enzec, he is (as i see it) refering to the "close spaced wires". Yes that is a bit tricky..but as stated before i dont see what the problem is...as you know how to handle it.
5- Have you thought of that what bob is doing might influence earth losses,and his TOA? And therefore shows different results.?
6- Im dissapointed you keep refering each time to that first model.
But then again it is partly my mistake for sharing it. So Im guessing, for the fourth time.
That model was only to show the antenna could be made in Eznec. It was made in a couple minutes and by far not representive and not correct, again it was only there to show it could be done. So if possible please stop refering to that, I wish I had done things differently from the beginning..
7- It is completely understood if it is your first antenna it gives a lot of error.
If you read the chapter sources and close space wires in the Manual.
You will find out, that the biggest issue is to get the segment lengths equal then its more or less set to go.
8- pse stop refering again to that first model...now your mentioning the gain..that gain isnt real as it was full with faults..(fifth time lol..).
9- A model of the sigma 4 will show almost equal to that of a 5/8 wave vertical...but im guessing some do not want to hear that as people have a higher expectation..
10- The best way to verify your results is to run “the average gain test”.
11- Agreed on that model of the Starduster yes i found them ready for improvement.., mostly cause they were introduced as "THE models". but then again, Mr Suburban has to start somewhere it is always easy to kick people.. to motive them is anohter thing..
And yes, im guillty aswell! Man i have always trouble expresing things correct!
For instances take a look at your self.
Not long ago, if im not mistaking you were doing your thing with the demo version aswell you had many "errors" But here you are setting words in RED to expres yourself
"all my models are free from error"..
I was under the impression i told you that you cant dot hings with just the demo version?..
so pathetic is perhaps not the right word. If you (we all) want to stimulate mr Suburban...
Perhaps a bit more carefull word choice is appropiate...though im sure you dont intend anything with it.
EDIT: ...wasnt it CST stallion instead of mr Suburban??with that eznec file??
12- My appologise if I didn’t make clear at least I am interested in your effort to model, so your not alone!
13-The negative words is one of the reasons why I kept (try to keep) away from this tread.
Im not expecting a end result from this all..
Each situation will be different each contact will be different...heck I can show you a ¼ groundplane antenna wich will outperform a 3el yagi on DX..but does the antenna have more gain…no it doesn’t..it has however under that specified angle.
To my believe as earlier mentioned that is what people are searching for with theire effort concerning the Sigma antenna..now, don’t get me wrong I highly appreciate the effort…but it’s a story without a end.. Its simple..Gain can only come from length in one way or another..collinear effect or no-collinear effect. It is under wich angle you put it and where the receiving station is located that will claim results.
14- The way I read Shockwave, he agrees with you that the antenna will not show that amount of gain and so is everybody else I guess..
My apologize for not making a beautifull good to read story.
But there were so many points and a quote would made a real large story..so i hacked it up a bit.
Thank you for your effort as always !
Kind regards,
Henry
www.dx-antennas.com
