Marconi, for some time now I've wondered why you choose to offend those trying to teach you by defending an opinion based on a model that can easily be proven wrong in a field test? Do you have any idea how ignorant that appears to someone who has done te testing and knows EXACTLY how much the cone radiates? This is confirmed by determining how much of the additional collinear 1/2 wave is required to compensate for the cones gain when you ignore it like EZNEC and yourself have done. Exactly half or 1/4 wave.
When will you stop preaching your humble opinions and start learning? When you have the chance to converse with people who understand more than you on this antenna, you insult them as soon as you hear something that debunks the J-Pole camp. Sirio has stopped responding to you because of the consistent manner in which you choose to question honesty rather then provide an opposing theory with any validity.
You still try and stuff words in the companies mouth by suggesting the information I've shared with you says something other than what it does. You've tried to make it appear the cone has little radiation when the amount has been clearly identified as 2dbd. The "little radiation" is from the small amount of residual common mode currents descending on the mast or coax. You should note the engineer points out they are also in a constructive phase over the first portion of the mast, adding to the gain.
That residual CMC is the "small current" as it should be. That's why the antenna is very easy to tune, taking a matter of minuets to achieve a perfect match. You try and compare professional results with people making their own gamma for this application the very first time. Not even close to a fair comparison.
Since you mention your "real world testing", I have to remind people that is your humble opinion too. You want us to take your SSB signal tests done with the antennas in different locations and up at the same time? It understood you did the only thing you could do under the conditions but you fail to realize how impossible it would be for you to spot a 2dbd difference in antennas like this.
To add insult to injury, you completely disregard the years of testing I've done with calibrated field strength receivers that measure microvolts and decibels in favor of your S meter on SSB. You can't even wait for an independent source to confirm anything before you before you consistently spread the myths behind your opinions. Even if DB gets his model to reflect exactly what we see in the field you'll toss the info out the window as an anomaly just like you do with CST and my field tests.
How many more times are you going to repeat the same myth that adding a 1/4 wave of mast to another end fed 1/2 wave would produce the gain the Sigma does on the horizon? If you could only relate to some first hand experience you would grasp how ridiculous that thought is. The vast majority of dipoles I replace are more than 10 wavelengths above ground due to the higher frequency. They are also more than 100 feet above average terrain. You think .25 wavelengths or 5 feet on top of that is going to make 2dbd? Lets get real here for once please.
