Donald, this is pretty simple. You have your opinion and I have mine. I use to agree with what you claim, but I changed my mind and it has nothing whatever to do with my believing your claims in the field or not.In my opinion what you have reported doing in the field is just something else for us to consider. If I had more details on that work I might possible be more convinced, opinionated, or critical of that work, nothing more.
I've never once tried to defend my opinion at the personal expense of others...like you suggest, unless you consider my questions an insult that borders on disrespect like many other do all the time.
I have only expressed my opinion and tried my best to support that opinion with supporting information that I could present here on this forum.
I have been in the learning process all of my life, and I have changed my mind many times. Donald can you make the same claim?
Those words like any other...will stand on their own. I only highlighted what was said as I understand it. I saw two references to the antenna in the email and in both I also saw the reference to the currents producing small gain. Can you deny this?
Donald, I can and do get things wrong at times, and I can and do change my mind. You have at times criticized me for changing my mind about some issues. This happens for me, because I am not perfect. How about you Donald?
Donald in those cases I was giving my friends the best advice I knew how. They had a issue and I saw a potential problem for them not following the S4 design idea to the T. They both were trying to mitigate their problems with not getting a good match by changing the material mix for their gammas. I simply suggested they stick closer to what both Avanti and Sirio did to connect the radials to the bottom of the mast and create more offset. They may both deny this ever happened...but this is what I remember and obviously you remember it too. Else why would you mention the idea in your remarks?
This is a weak Straw Man argument you make Donald. I have acknowledge that my links, videos, and demonstrations we flawed, and you know it. What I did was likely similar to what other CBr's might do if interested in their antenna performance. I put the details out there for all to consider. I trust their judgment to whatever the feel. If they don't see it like I do...the so-be-it.
I do not disregard your field test results...I just ask for you to support that work with some reports that show some effort to do the work, and you do not like my asking. The same tactics have happened before between you and others here on this forum and on eham in Booty Monsters thread on his homemade Vector. Can you deny this?
I figure if another independent source makes claims or suggests an offer to test his ideas for us...in the task of trying to prove the truth about anything to do with antennas...I welcome the efforts and the reports. I am not afraid I will learn something new that does not fit with my preconceived notions about any issues that I have an interest in. I will say this however, if a promise is made and not accurate, incomplete, or pursued as promised...I might remind folks of the issues at hand.
So, I am waiting for DB to respond with the request I have made of him to give us more details about his 4Nec2 model...that shows us the nice gain he suggested earlier for his unmodified Vector model.
Yes Donald, I understand the distinction you make with your work being 10 wavelengths above ground for a much smaller wavelength antenna than most of us will ever use in 11 meters. Why don't you use 3 mhz examples for us to try and understand? You could be comparing for us apples and oranges.
Concerning your idea here that if I raise the current maximum for a vertical 1/2 wave up a quarter wavelength like the S4, I will not see results anywhere close to the S4, is something I can show using Eznec models. There might be still some difference with these models over Eznec Real Earth feature,,,but I still think it will be a small difference at best.
However, if I post these models in Free Space without Earth losses, I think you might see that the 1/2 wave produces a better pattern on the horizon at "0" degrees, and the gain for each at ZERO degrees will be about the same I speculate.
The S4 in Free Space suggests the model is ill-effected by the lack of symmetry we find in a CF 1/2 wave antenna. IMO, the cone tends to skew the maximum radiate pattern upward to 17* degrees for my FS model, and as I said I figure that is due to the attached cone. Radials typically seem to have an ill-effects of sorts on the pattern for GP antennas and 1/2 wave antennas do not show such asymmetry.
Now Donald none of us mortals can see this happening on antennas, so we must rely on some from of simulation in modeling. I can't say for sure whether Eznec shows this accurately or not, but I can show you what my models show, and I will be checking this out later today...and I will report if I'm right or wrong, or even close.
