In all fairness I think some of this animosity was directed towards me in response to the other thread on the Sigma. I say this because I had lost some patience at the time in responding to the topic and used many of the exact words Marconi refers to.
No one should feel opportunenities to discuss ideas in this forum come at some great risk or that anyone would receive the same aggressive responses you have at this point. It's only when you revisit the same troubled ideas of the past and expect a different response that a few members here with more experience on a particular topic will speak up loudly.
I have faith in software modeling of antennas any time we can build a model in the program that simulates what can be reproduced in the field. Problems have clearly been identified in how EZNEC interprets the radiation currents and phase in the Sigma design. If you built a collinear model in EZNEC and it showed another 2 dbd, how much faith would you have in the model once you got in the field and realized you had to remove over 8 feet of conductor in the phasing network that EZNEC produced?
Don't be paranoid, No one has set up a champagne against you to discredit most computer modeling. So far, this design is the only one I can find such huge discrepancies with.
I've admitted I'm no expert in using these software programs. Your geometry skills and how that relates to building models is probably far better than mine. However, we can't really connect that with stupidity and should not overlook my advantage with measurements in the field. Jumping all over ones ideas usually only happens when the idea has been thoroughly discussed and then recycled again looking for a different result.
Many ideas are worth considering Marconi. In doing so we should consider the entire picture and all of it's variables. The testing conditions you've outlined in the past open your results to the type of criticism you've seen. When your Vector model produces 3.5 dbi at 32 feet above real ground in EZNEC, you should ask yourself why the gain is less than unity once you take into consideration the ground gain EZNEC has already added. How do you think your 1/4 wave ground plane reached figures in excess of the 2.15 dbi unity gain when it was 48 feet over real ground?
I know how frustrating it is to not be able to find the answer when you can spot the problems. We both have brought Roy's attention to specific problems we've found using EZNEC. We got the same response which offered no help and appeared to show he was in denial. I almost wanted to send him the extra 8 feet of bent up aluminum phasing section I had to rip out of the prototype his program suggested would be perfect.
All we are asking is that you improve your testing methods if you intend to use them regularly in forum debates. Using modes like SSB and comparing antennas mounted several car lengths away from one another do not lend credibility to ideas that are already subject to skepticism.
Haven't you moved your vehicle a mere few feet over the years enough times to see what that can do to the signal? This is not exclusive to mobile antennas or areas of overhead wires and happens with base antennas too.
