@Marconi
This is a photo of my V4k at 36' mount point with a hickory shovel handle between it and the mast providing about 6" of isolation. You should be able to see the coax choke in the photo, too. The radials are right at the 1/4 wave length, so it should be operting as close to your model as a real earth install could be.
This is the antenna that allowed me to talk better than any other monopole antenna mounted at the same tip height.
Your model shows 8 degrees to horizon at 4.34 DBi.
Homer, you could be right. Do you think this antenna in a Free Space model will show us the same gain? If my models you refer to above in post #171, over Eznec's idea for Real Earth, are anywhere near correct...this is what Eznec predicts for this design.
This 4.34 dbi @ 8* degree result my Vector model shows, that you find is proving Henry and I are talking out of both sides of our mouths, is a misunderstanding on this point at least. This value is what I get over Real Earth using Eznec. Donald has contended that Sirio's published gain for their NV4K of 4.15 dbi without any angle reported...is in Free Space and that the CST image is what Sirio used to determine how it worked.
Does this clear the issue up for you?
Regarding my other models I posted about the same time, I think I made two posts of models yesterday to be clear.
They were both models over Eznec's idea for Real Earth, but I also added a Free Space result for my Vector 4000 as an overlay to try and explain a point regarding Henry's models in his report. The Real Earth models were to help me explain what I saw with the models concerning CMC's and the gain difference using 3 or 4 radials. Maybe I did not explain well why I did that.
Again, two things were on my mind during the time frame. It all seemed logical to me, but I can understand others not getting the ideas presented.
1. my purpose was to compare what I was getting with my Eznec Free Space models, compared to the results that Henry posted in his report using Eznec Pro/4, Mininec3, and CST.
2. to compare Donald's and Bob's claim about gain differences with 3 or 4 radials for the Sigma 4 vs. New Vector4K designs.
My FS model for a CFHW dipole using Eznec and Henry's same model using Eznec Pro/4 both produce 2.14 dbi @ 0* degrees. That said, we were right on the money with our dipoles compared, but with the Sigma4 we were not close enough...
and I just wondered why.
Henry's Eznec Pro/4 model showed 2.27 dbi @ 23* degrees for a Sigma 4, and I was showing 2.23 dbi @ 16* degrees for my S4. Again I wondered why the difference, and I asked Henry to explain. He may have answered me, but I missed it.
I was also concerned that the other two program results showed no angle for comparison at all. So, I guess we are to assume their free space gain results were at 0* degrees too.
It is pretty hard for two modeler's to get a very simple dipole model different enough to make a difference in results, but I guess you might agree...the Sigma 4 and Vector are much more complicated models to build.
I was just curious about the difference, like always...but you guys take my intentions wrong...and IMO that is just because I don't agree with your idea in this case.
If you look back at that post and the models and try and discern these differences...I think you will see the models are either entitled with FS at the end or they are not. There is a distinction intended in this use. I realize that is easy to miss however, I even do it my self. The Eznec data-field for the titles of models is limited to about 30 characters including spaces, so we have to be brief. Sometimes I forget what I meant in my efforts to truncate these titles.
Either I didn't explain well enough, which makes for more words, or I just took it for granted you guys might tell the difference by now, between a free space model result and a Real Earth model result.
My next posted models, were an effort to demonstrate about CMC and Isolation effects on the same two models I posted earlier...the subject of this report. I wanted to show the difference that Eznec predicted for 3 and 4 radials also, and how adding 1 more radial on the Vector might or might not be making to this design better.
Homer, I do not know if we can demonstrate or see CMC in a Free Cell model, and for you to make a judgment about my intent or talking out of two sides of my mouth...this distinction has to be understood.
Homer, I hope this clears this up.
I do not consider the S4 a J-Pole...that is ridiculous. As I recall, I have never said that either. IMO however, they do operate much the same way the S4 design is just much better at solving all the issues and rendering an otherwise worthless 3/4 wavelength radiator to work very well.
IMO, the principals go way back to the old Zepp antenna design, and in some ways much for the same reasons, to mitigate problem areas on an antenna with problematic and errant currents flowing.
