Since we are right back at step one in convincing Marconi CMC exists on the Sigma in a noticeably constructive manner, I say more of the same is just a waste here. Since no model has ever convinced Marconi the sigma is anything more than a 1/2 wave, I suggest nothing on paper is going to make a difference here.
It's simply too easy for him to ignore things he has never seen in his life like a 1/4 wave current with a peak in the middle as a mere anomaly. In order to fit his square peg theory into the round hole he must ignore many things that couldn't possibly explain what we see in CST or the field.
I suggest the ONLY way to convince anyone the cone is an effective radiator is to BUILD THE COLLINEAR test. That will end all debate for anyone with a basic understanding of antennas. There will be no possible way to argue the cone does not contribute to the gain once you find you MUST use a 90 degree phase delay.
The determining factor will boil down to if the phase delay that works is 100% too long as NEC says, or the antenna is a phase corrected 3/4 wave radiator making a 90 degree phase shift the ONLY possibility that works in the field.
I've been explaining the facts that CAN BE REPRODUCED for over two years and been called everything short of a liar the entire time by someone with nothing but a J-Pole opinion that has never stood up to a single field test.
Wanting DB to add the extra CMC wires as parasitic elements screams out that you don't understand the entire point of his model was to simulate the current and phase CMC would have to produce in this design. Something a parasitic element could never do since its phase must mimic that of the element which excited it.
How do you suppose DB was going to simulate a 1/2 wave CMC current that traveled from the bottom inside of the cone, folding over the top and back down? How would your idea be possible if the extra wires were simply 1/4 wave parasitic elements that could only be excited by the 90 degree 1/4 wave current on the outside of the cone?
These are the things that are pissing the people off that have done much more work to understand the antenna than you as well as the way you've managed to misinterpret or reconfigure the information we have told you.
It's almost amusing to see this "model" debate stretch on for years when the time required to prove this in the field would have been far less. Once you do this, I still doubt Marconi would believe it. He'll claim because you did it on 2 meters it's insignificant in some way. What's important is anyone who really wants to understand, can test it for themselves.
We don't need to struggle for years with models that the smartest people in this field have already claimed would be very difficult to reproduce using software. Once again this is why the software used to accurately model the design costs $2,500. On the other hand, all the parts you need to build a 2 meter field testable prototype can be had from Home depot's plumbing and hardware isles.
You could have your results in one weekend. At which point anything the J-Pole camp suggests will immediately become irrelevant. Someone please try this and spend less time with the software. It doesn't matter what the computer tells you if it can't get close to what we see in the field.
It's simply too easy for him to ignore things he has never seen in his life like a 1/4 wave current with a peak in the middle as a mere anomaly. In order to fit his square peg theory into the round hole he must ignore many things that couldn't possibly explain what we see in CST or the field.
I suggest the ONLY way to convince anyone the cone is an effective radiator is to BUILD THE COLLINEAR test. That will end all debate for anyone with a basic understanding of antennas. There will be no possible way to argue the cone does not contribute to the gain once you find you MUST use a 90 degree phase delay.
The determining factor will boil down to if the phase delay that works is 100% too long as NEC says, or the antenna is a phase corrected 3/4 wave radiator making a 90 degree phase shift the ONLY possibility that works in the field.
I've been explaining the facts that CAN BE REPRODUCED for over two years and been called everything short of a liar the entire time by someone with nothing but a J-Pole opinion that has never stood up to a single field test.
Wanting DB to add the extra CMC wires as parasitic elements screams out that you don't understand the entire point of his model was to simulate the current and phase CMC would have to produce in this design. Something a parasitic element could never do since its phase must mimic that of the element which excited it.
How do you suppose DB was going to simulate a 1/2 wave CMC current that traveled from the bottom inside of the cone, folding over the top and back down? How would your idea be possible if the extra wires were simply 1/4 wave parasitic elements that could only be excited by the 90 degree 1/4 wave current on the outside of the cone?
These are the things that are pissing the people off that have done much more work to understand the antenna than you as well as the way you've managed to misinterpret or reconfigure the information we have told you.
It's almost amusing to see this "model" debate stretch on for years when the time required to prove this in the field would have been far less. Once you do this, I still doubt Marconi would believe it. He'll claim because you did it on 2 meters it's insignificant in some way. What's important is anyone who really wants to understand, can test it for themselves.
We don't need to struggle for years with models that the smartest people in this field have already claimed would be very difficult to reproduce using software. Once again this is why the software used to accurately model the design costs $2,500. On the other hand, all the parts you need to build a 2 meter field testable prototype can be had from Home depot's plumbing and hardware isles.
You could have your results in one weekend. At which point anything the J-Pole camp suggests will immediately become irrelevant. Someone please try this and spend less time with the software. It doesn't matter what the computer tells you if it can't get close to what we see in the field.
