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, that is sort of nonsense when you look back over the last few years. Not only have I proved the cone is an effective 1/4 wave radiator, I've detailed the specific test required to replicate the same results that show the 90 degree offset in phase between EZNEC and CST or real world tests.
Several hams have been sure it's just a 1/2 wave J-Pole and you know the same 4 wire test was posted in other forums where some claimed they would put it to the test. Notice we never hear back from them? I realize it may not be easy to do on 11 but it's simple on 2.

I don't want you to be confused that I'm opposed to sharing ideas or responding to other individuals. That's not the case at all. The issue is you consistently base and support your ideas with a model that is easily proven inaccurate in the field. The facts are there for anyone willing to put them to the test but you ignore this to accept the model that fails to simulate field tests.

Am I "OK" with that? Honestly, no but I think that's obvious by now.

<blockquote data-quote="Shockwave" data-source="post: 496748" data-attributes="member: 10882">Marconi, that is sort of nonsense when you look back over the last few years. Not only have I proved the cone is an effective 1/4 wave radiator, I&#039;ve detailed the specific test required to replicate the same results that show the 90 degree offset in phase between EZNEC and CST or real world tests.Several hams have been sure it&#039;s just a 1/2 wave J-Pole and you know the same 4 wire test was posted in other forums where some claimed they would put it to the test. Notice we never hear back from them? I realize it may not be easy to do on 11 but it&#039;s simple on 2.&nbsp;I don&#039;t want you to be confused that I&#039;m opposed to sharing ideas or responding to other individuals. That&#039;s not the case at all. The issue is you consistently base and support your ideas with a model that is easily proven inaccurate in the field. The facts are there for anyone willing to put them to the test but you ignore this to accept the model that fails to simulate field tests.&nbsp;Am I &quot;OK&quot; with that? Honestly, no but I think that&#039;s obvious by now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shockwave, post: 496748, member: 10882"] Marconi, that is sort of nonsense when you look back over the last few years. Not only have I proved the cone is an effective 1/4 wave radiator, I've detailed the specific test required to replicate the same results that show the 90 degree offset in phase between EZNEC and CST or real world tests. Several hams have been sure it's just a 1/2 wave J-Pole and you know the same 4 wire test was posted in other forums where some claimed they would put it to the test. Notice we never hear back from them? I realize it may not be easy to do on 11 but it's simple on 2. I don't want you to be confused that I'm opposed to sharing ideas or responding to other individuals. That's not the case at all. The issue is you consistently base and support your ideas with a model that is easily proven inaccurate in the field. The facts are there for anyone willing to put them to the test but you ignore this to accept the model that fails to simulate field tests. Am I "OK" with that? Honestly, no but I think that's obvious by now. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom