You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

Marconi, I patiently await the day for ANYONE to build a collinear version and field test it. When you find there is nothing you can do to make it work other than cut the phase delay in half to compensate for the "little" cone radiation, you'll instantly learn just how significant the radiation form the cone is. Little is a relative term you used to describe the radiation displayed from a faulty model. To many, 2dbd is a tremendous amount to achieve in a non directional.

Every field test you can imagine has been conducted to determine the cones impact on overall gain. The collinear test proves the 1/4 wave cone has virtually the same gain as any other 1/4 wave. Fields tests show when you use the 180 degree phase delay, 50% of the added 1/2 wave bucks the phase of the antenna below. It now takes the second half of the top collinear section just to return to the same gain as the stock antenna.

This shows an equal length of radiator is required to compensate for the 1/4 wavelength of cone radiation that has been ignored. The exact degree of phase EZNEZ has miscalculated in EVERY Sigma model we have seen thus far. Something to consider each time you complain the field tests are wrong in favor of a model that has easily been proven inaccurate.

<blockquote data-quote="Shockwave" data-source="post: 496746" data-attributes="member: 10882">Marconi, I patiently await the day for ANYONE to build a collinear version and field test it. When you find there is nothing you can do to make it work other than cut the phase delay in half to compensate for the &quot;little&quot; cone radiation, you&#039;ll instantly learn just how significant the radiation form the cone is. Little is a relative term you used to describe the radiation displayed from a faulty model. To many, 2dbd is a tremendous amount to achieve in a non directional.&nbsp;Every field test you can imagine has been conducted to determine the cones impact on overall gain. The collinear test proves the 1/4 wave cone has virtually the same gain as any other 1/4 wave. Fields tests show when you use the 180 degree phase delay, 50% of the added 1/2 wave bucks the phase of the antenna below. It now takes the second half of the top collinear section just to return to the same gain as the stock antenna.&nbsp;This shows an equal length of radiator is required to compensate for the 1/4 wavelength of cone radiation that has been ignored. The exact degree of phase EZNEZ has miscalculated in EVERY Sigma model we have seen thus far. Something to consider each time you complain the field tests are wrong in favor of a model that has easily been proven inaccurate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shockwave, post: 496746, member: 10882"] Marconi, I patiently await the day for ANYONE to build a collinear version and field test it. When you find there is nothing you can do to make it work other than cut the phase delay in half to compensate for the "little" cone radiation, you'll instantly learn just how significant the radiation form the cone is. Little is a relative term you used to describe the radiation displayed from a faulty model. To many, 2dbd is a tremendous amount to achieve in a non directional. Every field test you can imagine has been conducted to determine the cones impact on overall gain. The collinear test proves the 1/4 wave cone has virtually the same gain as any other 1/4 wave. Fields tests show when you use the 180 degree phase delay, 50% of the added 1/2 wave bucks the phase of the antenna below. It now takes the second half of the top collinear section just to return to the same gain as the stock antenna. This shows an equal length of radiator is required to compensate for the 1/4 wavelength of cone radiation that has been ignored. The exact degree of phase EZNEZ has miscalculated in EVERY Sigma model we have seen thus far. Something to consider each time you complain the field tests are wrong in favor of a model that has easily been proven inaccurate. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom