Thanks DB, I have some recollections of what you're telling us.
On this issue I remember asking you, "...if we could apply the Average Gain (AG) error value to both the Free Space (FS) models and the Real Earth (RE) models"? I think we both agreed it is acceptable to use the error correction value to adjust the reported gain...that is otherwise - either overstated or understated.
DB, this is the topic I was curious to see Bob describe more about, using his technique for measuring in dbm.
I recounted what I recalled of the dbm issue several years ago, soon after Bob published Henry's report. I don't remember much, but I saw for the 1st time the idea Henry presented on page #41, and I likely got some things wrong in my recent response to Bob. I should have continued to ask questions about that idea, but I was in trouble already for asking questions and giving my opinions at the time. For a reference, see "Room for Improvements" section of this report.
Db, can you tell us a little about what you later found out was the reason for making those results in 4NEC2 inaccurate?
Does this also suggest that Henry's presentation, in that particular case was likewise inaccurate?
Frankly I did not understand what the chart in Henry's report was showing us on page #41. I also recall that Henry did not respond to my question...instead saying something like, "...that idea was misunderstood,." and my posting that question on the forum...just got me into more trouble at the time.
DB just in case an explanation is uncalled-for at this point, did you ever model a Vector with 4 x 109" horizontal radials positioned right below the Feed Point?
If so, what kind of "regular modeling" performance results did you get comparing these 2 design ideas?
EDIT:
I noticed that the image of Henry's manual page #41 did not show up good. Here is the link to his report which is on page #41 of #43 pages. Use the elevator at the top left of the PDF file.
https://cb-antennas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Sigma-IV-1.01-Jan-2015.pdf
