Thanks marconi. It not just me then, I couldn't get the original to model real well either .
Well VK, my reason for trying to do the Siro beam was, because I like the more traditional spacing that looks to have been used on this Sirio beam.
I see this design resulting in a shorter boom, producing good gain, while manifesting better wide band rejection than many consider...the other 1/2 of the function for a beam.
I have one other consideration why this happens, but I think I will leave that explanation for another day. Too much information at one time is not good for the digestion.
Here are some clues though. Besides the fact that the antenna that I made resonates way down in 26 mhz, which IMO is just a mistake somewhere...this beam shows a very nice gain, and this is what I see mostly using the old traditional style of well balanced beam design.
I'm from the old school of antenna design that symmetry in design is very important if real performance is consider...and matching is only a means to an end, and in the real world matching contributes very little practical benefit to performance as long as the match is realistic and not off into the weeds.
In my book, I think I just proved my point that all this optimization stuff is subject to compromises that few consider, me thinks.
Sometimes it is better to let mother nature work as she intends instead of trying to force her to simply make your meter happy.
New is not always better, in my book.
Now all we have to do is figure out why my 27.205 mhz model produced results at 26.3 mhz instead of where it was supposed to.
VK, thanks for confirming that you found some dimensions from Sirio as whack-O too. I will go back and recheck all of my work however...just in case.
