DB, to answer your last comment first. I sure hope I read every word you have posted on the recent subject of adding wires to your Vector model hoping to prove there are CMC flowing on the outside of the radials. That was my intentions at least.
I also realize you have explained several times that things in the model you posted on page 10, were not right, but I was having trouble importing the wire descriptions into Eznec, so I could not see or tell what the model looked like.
I even asked Henry to help me understand how to import...after he suggested that he had done so and saw problems with the model. At that point I didn't even understand everything that Henry was describing.
After you reported your success in the beginning with very good numbers, supported by a pattern image comparing a 1/2 wave dipole with your Vector showing very good gain and low angle, I made my concession post. I really figured that you had a model that would show the gain that Sirio publishes in their specs. I was seeing the pattern compared to a dipole...and it was more than I had ever seen in my own work on the S4.
I do however agree with you that I was trying to relate the good numbers you reported with a model that you had not posted as yet. I think if you looked back, I asked you if you could post your Vector model...before you made any modifications for adding wires. I wanted to see what the model looked like before you added the wires.
Then you posted your model on page #10. After I finally got the model into Eznec, where I could manipulate the results and see how the antenna looked, I was very surprised at what I saw, and I said that in my posts above several times.
DB, this is when I started back asking questions. I did not understand why you made a claim that your new 4Nec2 Vector model showed some good numbers similar to what Donald was suggesting, and also showed similar numbers to what Sirio publishes in their specs, yet the model you posted did not show any such numbers after I got it into Eznec.
In my head, I was wondering why would you make a claim and support the claim with such a poor performing model. Maybe I did misunderstand that the model you posted had little to nothing to do with the new Vector model that showed higher gain...like Donald had been telling us.
I still have to ask...why would you post a model that had nothing to do with your previous claim of very good performance? I must have missed this explanation,
