Regarding my Maco 103C post with taper included and without. I didn't intend to step on anyone's toes, due to my curiosity and wanting to see if taper made an obvious difference.
There are claims out there that tell us using taper in the version of Eznec that I use...does not work well. I repeat, when I found out about this I just stopped using taper, and I never tested the idea to see such ill-effects if any.
My words here are not intended to claim that the use of taper doesn't matter, but to try and be more informative on the issue as I see it right now. That said however, I continue to see little to no difference in my models...whether I use taper or not.
When I did the model with Henry's link I posted the other day, I had no idea what the comparative results would be. I thought maybe my model would not show similar results or maybe just fail due to geometry errors. However, I was surprised that the results were almost identical. That post is now worthless for comparison purposes, because Henry's link stopped working and there is no longer a model for comparison.
So Bob, no models this time, you'll just have to take my word for it. I just did a model of the Maco 103C, using Eznec 5, and I still get similar results whether I use taper or not. They'll probably deny it, but I fear I've upset DB and Henry already and I don't want anybody to get upset at my posting a model...if that is possible.
I plan to check some of my old vertical ground plan models to see if taper will produces similar results again. I'll be using my version of Eznec5, and that might tell me more...concerning this issue. I could be surprised again however. I think there is still something going on with issues around the AVG that we have not discussed here, (I could be wrong though.)
Bob I've said this before. Back when I did models, whether I used taper or not, most of them could have shown an unacceptable Free Space Average Gain results and I regret posting those flawed models. I really didn't understand much about Average Gain until late in 2012...and I think that was when you guys were taking privately about Henry's Sigma 4 report. I was also, at about that time right before he published his report, talking to Henry privately...and we had our disagreements...which we don't seem to be able to forget.
And, it was the last couple of years before I started to seriously check the AGR on all of my models. That said however and until then, I seldom checked and published the Free Space - Average Gain results for my models. I've heard folks claim, many times, that FS models are not worthy of consideration, and do not exist in or out of this world...but IMO these folks are unaware of the real purpose for Free Space models.
Also note in Henry's Sigma 4 report...that he talks about sure signs of issues concerning dissimilar segment lengths in parallel or near parallel wires and at narrow angle connections for sure. See page 10.
Another sign is, you'll also see this dissimilar segment condition in the Vortek published reports for their Mark 2 antenna on their Website if you look close and check the segment dots on the wires in the antenna view. IMO, this potential error in modeling published by Vortek shows a segment length difference of about 50% between the radials and the main radiator. Does this dissimilar segment length matter? I think this can be tested to see if it makes a difference for an antenna that also shows a perfect or near perfect AVG result in Free Space.
Until we hear or see more on-air results for the Q82 M2 from reliable operators, I would like to think Vortex could have come up with their modeling results the same way, unknowingly. DB told us, when he did a model of the Vortex Mark2, a while back, he saw similar results to my Eznec model.
I didn't see it, but I believe him.
