You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

Had I been vague I could understand but element lengths given at .82 and .25 wavelength are precise and not approximations. You need not be anywhere near this accurate to spot the inconsistencies between the program and working prototypes. The differences here are measured in feet not fractions of an inch. I thought the goal here was to prove whether or not EZNEC was capable of modeling the design. Something that this 90 degree difference in phase suggests the models we have seen in the program are not able to display.

Not to be disrespectful to anyone's thoughts or ideas here but I'm well past the point of needing more independent confirmation of this antennas performance. It's been forwarded to me by engineers filing CP's from Alaska to Guam for years now. Some of these broadcast stations have had to jump through loopholes in order to clearly define their radiated field strength to insure they met new regulations regarding everything from downward radiation at the site to second adjacent channel protection.

Today the only question I have left regarding this design is why has every model ever produced other than the one done in CST, failed to show the antenna as the patent and field tests show, the "entire antenna radiates constructively"? That's the only open end in the debate whose cause has yet to be determined. Now it all boils down to either everyone has built the model wrong or the software is deficient. Sadly the one person best qualified to answer this question entered a state of denial by saying his program is not capable of such error and expressed no interest in identifying the obvious discrepancies.

<blockquote data-quote="Shockwave" data-source="post: 479193" data-attributes="member: 10882">Had I been vague I could understand but element lengths given at .82 and .25 wavelength are precise and not approximations. You need not be anywhere near this accurate to spot the inconsistencies between the program and working prototypes. The differences here are measured in feet not fractions of an inch. I thought the goal here was to prove whether or not EZNEC was capable of modeling the design. Something that this 90 degree difference in phase suggests the models we have seen in the program are not able to display.Not to be disrespectful to anyone&#039;s thoughts or ideas here but I&#039;m well past the point of needing more independent confirmation of this antennas performance. It&#039;s been forwarded to me by engineers filing CP&#039;s from Alaska to Guam for years now. Some of these broadcast stations have had to jump through loopholes in order to clearly define their radiated field strength to insure they met new regulations regarding everything from downward radiation at the site to second adjacent channel protection.Today the only question I have left regarding this design is why has every model ever produced other than the one done in CST, failed to show the antenna as the patent and field tests show, the &quot;entire antenna radiates constructively&quot;? That&#039;s the only open end in the debate whose cause has yet to be determined. Now it all boils down to either everyone has built the model wrong or the software is deficient. Sadly the one person best qualified to answer this question entered a state of denial by saying his program is not capable of such error and expressed no interest in identifying the obvious discrepancies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shockwave, post: 479193, member: 10882"] Had I been vague I could understand but element lengths given at .82 and .25 wavelength are precise and not approximations. You need not be anywhere near this accurate to spot the inconsistencies between the program and working prototypes. The differences here are measured in feet not fractions of an inch. I thought the goal here was to prove whether or not EZNEC was capable of modeling the design. Something that this 90 degree difference in phase suggests the models we have seen in the program are not able to display. Not to be disrespectful to anyone's thoughts or ideas here but I'm well past the point of needing more independent confirmation of this antennas performance. It's been forwarded to me by engineers filing CP's from Alaska to Guam for years now. Some of these broadcast stations have had to jump through loopholes in order to clearly define their radiated field strength to insure they met new regulations regarding everything from downward radiation at the site to second adjacent channel protection. Today the only question I have left regarding this design is why has every model ever produced other than the one done in CST, failed to show the antenna as the patent and field tests show, the "entire antenna radiates constructively"? That's the only open end in the debate whose cause has yet to be determined. Now it all boils down to either everyone has built the model wrong or the software is deficient. Sadly the one person best qualified to answer this question entered a state of denial by saying his program is not capable of such error and expressed no interest in identifying the obvious discrepancies. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom