• 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

I'll sum this up real quick Marconi. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON RELYING ON A EZNEC MODEL THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE RADIATION CURRENTS PRESENT IN THE FIELD???????????????????? Your model will fail any phase test conducted in the field because EZNEC has never displayed an accurate model of the design yet. Not MHO either. The program is off by 90 degrees and for you to keep reverting back to it as thought it proves you right is insanity.

 

I ask that you hold all opinions of the antenna to yourself until you have taken the time to confirm them in the field as others have done. I use to believe EZNEC too until nothing it predict could be made to work in the field and one simple change in the phase delay made all exposed elements radiate constructively.

 

STOP asking us to consider a model that will not work in the field tests because they reveal EZNEC has miscalculated the phase by 90 degrees in the stock antenna. Therefore it misses the gain from the cone and cannot predict the phase shift required to stack another section. It is that simple. Do the work to confirm you idea or take the word of others that have proved your theory wrong.

 

If anything you said in that paragraph were correct, the 180 degree phase delay would work in a collinear field test. I beg of you to seek advice from anyone you consider unbiased that might make this test for you like Dale said he would and for you to stop beating a dead horse. To suggest the cone doesn't contribute noticeable to the gain of this antenna is ridiculous once you see it only works with a 90 degree phase delay.