The more you assume, the more ignorant you portray yourself as. Not only do I know what AGT is, I also spotted the slight misunderstanding between you and DB and recognized he provided you with the actual gains over various grounds simply based on the high numbers that he has confirmed. You on the other hand assumed his model had an error in excess of 12db rather than 0.02db.
Marconi, are you that deeply rooted denial? I base this conclusion on the fact CST shows you a pair of constructive 1/4 wave currents on the 1/4 wave cone WITH their 90 degree offset in phase. I base this on the fact when you ignore this as your EZNEC model does, you CANNOT constructively stack another 1/2 wave element using the delay the program indicates will work.
What I could give a hoot less about is some know it all that has never done a constructive thing to support anything he thinks he knows. The person who has become so thoughtless of the work others have done in favor of his "humble opinion" that can never be proven in the field.
Once again I have to ask the opinionated man, before you can claim the model is not showing a pair of currents on the cone as I describe, you'd better be prepared to back it with a test that can prove it and not some pile of shit twisted words that mean nothing and lead us to no way of proving anything you say. The complete opposite of where my words lead you.
Perhaps it is thinking outside the box. It is better than not thinking and just using a cop out like calling it an "anomaly". I don't give up when confronted by the abnormal, it just makes me dig deeper to get to the "why" behind it rather than pretending to know. Don't say "no", ask "why" and ignorance fades into knowledge.
Ask someone who understands how two separate RF currents might look on the same radiator if they were a 1/4 wavelength long and separated in phase by a 90 degree offset. It's obvious you've never even seen two different waveforms combine together in any way before by your denial in this case.
You're actually starting to make me sick of the way you do exactly what you claim others are doing. DB, I'll gladly accept any reasonable reduction in gain as a result of line loss in your test. I could care less about a tiny fraction of a db more loss at VHF. Just don't use 100 feet of RG/174 and everything will be cool without the need to build a 50 foot HF monster. You can skip that wild goose chase!
The crux of the issue is not a tenth of a db here or there. It's the fact the EZNEC models we have seen missed an entire 1/4 wavelength of constructive radiation from the cone. One so significant it causes the program to incorrectly report the length of phasing sections used in collinear version to be 100% too long and for field tested version of the EZNEC collinear to achieve virtually ZERO gain over the stock antenna.
When you find 50% of the added 1/2 wave bucks the cone and the other 50% of that same added 1/2 wave can only return the gain back to the value of the stock antenna, you have proved the cone is a 1/4 wave in phase radiator.
