Marconi, Mr. Reynolds probably didn't update his article because a simple unphased 3/4 wave does not put more gain on the horizon than a 1/2 wave. The non apparent collinear 1/2 wave over a 1/4 wave does. There was no need to mention his article excluded ALL phased collinear antennas as that is just common sense.
A 5/8 wave antenna is considered by many to be a collinear, simply because it has two current maximums, all-be-it the currents are out of phase. Where does that leave your argument?
Donald, it is probably true that Ballentine considered the 3/4 bad for low angle communications. I said the same thing. You don't seem to even know the history and/or time line for how this all went down. Check the history and the dates of these events in the article. The foot notes are there.
Since you like to speak your mind, I will too. Sirio ignores you for the same reasons I should. You flat out called us both everything short of an outright liar many times before we lost patience with your insulting implications. You wonder around aimlessly missing every important detail while you belittle the RESULTS of those who got off their asses and did the tests to confirm CST.
When folks make claims Donald, it is quite appropriate for others to question what is claimed. That is all I did, ask. If a claim proves to be embarrassing for the folks making such claims...I say "so-be-it." If you can't respond to such questions as might arise...except to complain about being asked, then there looks to be a problem with the truth.
Do you have any idea how rude and ignorant that behavior is when you spew your misinformed opinion over fact? You're glued to a shitty model that doesn't even show the phase delay you see in CST and the field. Did you even own a Sigma? I thought you told us all you had that gold copy with the non adjustable gamma tap???
Being embarrassed does provide a sense of rudeness by someone to the embarrassed. That is part of the shame felt when we get caught.
We should all remember that Marconi has made no attempt to determine if the Sigma is a 1/2 wave or a 3/4 wave phase corrected radiator in the field. He bases all of his "humble opinion" on a model that fails to display what we see in the field but he'll never know this because he's unable to test his ideas or afraid to be proven wrong.
You state the obvious Donald, but I use to do a lot of work with antennas. I have clearly stated my opinions are based on my Eznec models. If you have proof that shows Eznec does not work right in this case, why don't you send me your model of a stacked collinear 1/2 wave on top of your S4/NV4K.
I welcome someone who can clearly, with good evidence, prove how this antenna really works, including DB.
I'm open to any truth of this antenna...whether I'm right or wrong, and you are only open to your truth for this antenna Donald.
On the other hand, everyone here now has access to a simple field test they can perform on their own by adding the 4 collinear wires to a field testable antenna. When the 1/2 wavelength 180 degree phase delay fails in the field, you'll know EZNEC is wrong. When you cut the phase in half to a 1/4 wave 90 degree shift and it works, you'll prove to yourself it's a 3/4 wave radiator with 90 degrees of phase correction.
That sound like a good test idea to me Donald...I encourage it too.
Can you describe a field test that will prove your ideas Marconi? Of course not because you cannot prove the impossible. Look in the mirror next time you tell me I only provide words and nothing to back them. Those words describe the field test where anyone could prove you wrong and that's why you have to resort to implying others are untruthful.
Nope, or I would have tried it by now. When I first learned to model, I did it hoping to prove exactly what you and Bob are claiming. I asked Bob to join me in that effort, but he refused. That surprised me.
Very sad to say the least but you'll still carry on until someone you respect confirms you're wrong. Or you may just stop respecting that person like you've done in the past. Would you trust DB if he ran this test and proved NEC missed a 1/4 wave of constructive current from the cone by confirming only a 90 degree phase delay can stack another 1/2 wave in direct contradiction to NEC?
Donald I changed my mind about the results that Bob told me, that's all. I still believe he told me what he saw. I just can't prove it, and neither have either of you thus far.
Donald are you speaking for DB now?
Of course I would consider what he has to say and report, but he will have to make a better effort than he usually does with his 4Nec2 models. If he does real world testing...I hope to see some real work and reporting...not just words. A good video would also be great too.
Would you still be in denial or imply DB was a lair too? If not, I'm willing to supply DB with any parts he may need to make a field test antenna. Things like the base hub and a 2 meter gamma match with some scrap tubing might expedite a conclusion for you once and for all. This is how sure what I've done can be replicated in the field. How sure are you that cone doesn't have significant radiation on it?
Wait a minute Donald. I think I remember, among other objections with the guys on eHam...that you objected to his making a high frequency model to test. If I'm right, and you are having someone else do the testing, are you sure you have a willing participant in DB? If so, I'm anxious to see the work get started.
If you're going to do a real antenna, why do it at 2 meters where line loss could possibly shroud the results, like one of the articles Bob recommends, "The Skeleton Sleeve Fed Monopole" where the author, Richardson, makes just such a claim for a line loss issue in his 2 meter antenna?
I don't use the word "liar" generally...unless I'm passionate and sure. But I do often claim that you can tell what is in a man's heart by his fruits or a lack thereof.
Donald, based on what I see and understand...I don't see much far field currents flowing from this cone.
I encourage DB to take your challenge, do the work, and report his results. I encourage him to also shows us a full layout of his 4Nec2 model of the S4/NV4K that you claim shows the kind of gain advantages you talk about.
I've seen nothing yet that disproves what I've seen in my real world testing using my real Antenna Specialists Sigma 4, and my Eznec models. If that wasn't the case I probably would not be in disagreement with you guys. Yes, I have an original Antenna Specialists version of the Sigma4.
Bob, the CST image is the new 3/4 wave Vector with the extended radials you and myself use.
I think I've heard Bob state that his Vector Hybrid used radial lengths that were similar to the radials on his original Vector, and the Sigma 4...they were not extended and less than 100" inches. I'm either right or I'm wrong on the issue about Bob's radial length. If I'm right...then you are wrong in your statement Donald. I rely on Bob to set this matter straight.
