Jazzsinger, naturally I tend to agree with Wavrider's points, I think he feels the same regarding your idea using the statement "...blow away the Imax."
I also don't consider anything I do as beyond all doubt, I'm trying to learn through conversations on this forum, and I've changed my methods for testing based on much of what I've heard here on the WWRF. I might be more curious than others about the details, so I look to evidence and what others might say in the process, you included Jazzsinger. It is easy to always agree, and just look at the pictures.
But, that said, I also agree with most everything else you said here, but it is a little unfair for you to make the determination you did as being right-on, vs. my determination as being off base...when we're both held to similar limitations in nature. When you test quickly on the same install, and see a difference or no difference, it's about the same as I do a different way. We report what we think we see.
In my case I just try to show others what I see, and in the process that exposes me to whatever I do...only when it stimulates comments. When I see something in a real life experience I try and see if modeling will support my thinking, so I started using my models to clarify my thinking for others, and sometimes, even when it doesn't work out like I expect.
We both have to experience all the limitations you noted here and I have worked my Imax by itself and compared it to other reports with it stacked side-by-side with another antenna, and there's just not that much difference, and my antennas are 36' feet apart. I know your argument makes a good point though.
I also did not consider the Imax being, on par or not with other 5/8 wave antennas in the receive department, like Booty suggested. For me it is a forgone conclusion that the Imax is generally noisier.
I don't think that is what you meant using the statement, "...blown away", but if it was then we could all agree. I was surprised you didn't take me to task on the models for the Imax model that was not isolated. I thought it only fair to post both the good results along with the bad results. I don't think any of us believes an Imax mounted directly to a support mast is really as bad as the pattern indicates. I also don't think we would find many Imax antennas physically isolated from the mast, so something in the matching area of that antenna is working to isolate the antenna from the mast, because when I isolate it in the model the pattern returns to what might be considered a normal pattern, and there I see a big difference. I would be surprised if I just isolated a real Imax, and the pattern went to heck in a hand basket like this model suggested. If it did, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Did that particular model catch any body's attention, probably not? Likely few, really even looked at the model for information.
So Jazzsinger, all is good, I consider most of your remarks here appropriate
