• 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.
  • Click here to find out how to win free radios from Retevis!

New thread to debate V-4000

Matching the impedances isn't particularly efficient: it actually gives a 6dB loss in a ideal circuit. In a REAL WORLD is much more.:whistle:

CST whitepaper

https://www.google.com.ar/url?sa=t&...oK4y8UHWqP5NoFU7z5c47yw&bvm=bv.56988011,d.cWc

Did he just say that a gamma match will have 75% in losses? Does he realize the magnitude of this claim?

Also, what does your link have to do with the rest of your post, did you just add it because they mention CST in the .pdf file itself?


The DB
 
Did he just say that a gamma match will have 75% in losses? Does he realize the magnitude of this claim?

Also, what does your link have to do with the rest of your post, did you just add it because they mention CST in the .pdf file itself?


The DB

No time to study it take?Losses are taken for voltage drop in the antenna to the adapter, transmission lines and transmission equipment itself.
Just read a little and learns.
It is easy to discredit without any support, also need not go to any library, everything is on the Internet, the only thing on the internet is not like SIGMA 4 does radiate in phase for the cone with the radiant, not just words some vendors, but no scientific evidence, just drawing some marinated with many words.
 
Did he just say that a gamma match will have 75% in losses? Does he realize the magnitude of this claim?
The DB

YES! Can you imagine? With some of my broadcast customers operating in excess of 12 kilowatts ERP, we would have fireworks on the towers with 75% of that power heating the gammas!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
No time to study it take?

Exactly right, not a bit of time taken on your part to study any of this. All misinformation you learned from people who knew what you do....nothing about this antenna.

Losses are taken for voltage drop in the antenna to the adapter, transmission lines and transmission equipment itself.

Losses are heat, Break it down anyway you want and it's still impossible for you to prove 75% loss in any well designed gamma match. If you even had a clue you would know the vast majority fail from RF voltage breakdown and nothing to do with heating related to loss.

Just read a little and learns.

Yes, there is even the slightest chance you could follow your own advice. You just need to recognize how badly you need it first.

It is easy to discredit without any support, also need not go to any library, everything is on the Internet, the only thing on the internet is not like SIGMA 4 does radiate in phase for the cone with the radiant, not just words some vendors, but no scientific evidence, just drawing some marinated with many words.

It's even easier to discredit a fountain of misinformation like yourself by actually getting off my ass and building the 90 degree phase shifted collinear version. Once you do that in the field and understand the information it provides, opposing opinions from those not educated on the topic are nothing more than filler. The very "meaningless pages of debate" Cebik suggested guys like you would create discussing the antenna.
 
I don't even have to look at your links anymore because in the rare event this one supports anything you think, it would also have to support the Sigma design as now having 8 db more than found in the "ideal circuit". How else could it consistently produce not less than 2 dbd in field tests that still happen regularly?

Hey Donald, the first time I opened the link, it was a CST white paper. I tried to open it again and it opened a Google index I think.
 
Take a look at this picture, when you figure out what is wrong with this one apply the same logic to the picture you posted twice now... They are both in error for the same reason, and that reason has already been mentioned in this thread...

frame_000.jpg


Both pictures above (yours and mine) are being used out of context. I'll let you try and figure out what that means... I'de love to hear your explanation...

For bonus points, show me one or more of the four frames from the animation the pictures above came from that accurately show how this antenna works, and explain why.

Good Luck...


The DB

An electromagnetic wave consists of energy being transmitted down the transmission line or antenna.
This energy is in two forms, an electric field and a magnetic field, which fluctuate constantly, with a continuing exchange between electrical and magnetic energy.
In a traveling wave, the magnetic and electric fields that simultaneously peak at he same places and simultaneously go to zero at the same places.

I read somewhere the word "wave constructively". Never heard that in radio frequency, rather it is civil architecture ??.


If this is the example that ensures that the antenna radiates as collinear??.

I see the "constructive" Current 2.37 VERY CONFINED IN THE MEDIA AND WEAK UPPER WAVE, and current alleged "in phase" BETWEEN 0.00535-0 - And -0.00535, ie WITHOUT ANY PROFIT.

no see
 
Last edited:
Ignore the pictures you think are important and look at CST frame 21 that has been pointed out to you like 10 times already. None of the frames you pick matter because the currents have not fully formed yet. It's like complaining about a car that won't go faster than 15 miles per hour while everyone is yelling at you to get the damn thing out of first gear!
 
lol the article nosee posted is talking about bandwidth at 6db return loss,
he can't read english so he makes his own version up as he goes along,

nobody could actually believe a gamma match has 6db loss in an ideal circuit and more in the real world,

what does w8ji say

"The gamma match capacitor can only cancel reactance, it can not modify the "real part" (resistance) presented to the feedline.
It is the most simple form of matching, and has the lowest operating Q and loss of any system (when it is useable)"


its true a gamma match has to handle circulating currents and antenna currents but the great loss is a figment of nosee's imagination,
on a par with vortex q-section claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
NoSee is one of the least informed people to preach about antennas and he's also the least aware of his limitations.
 
An electromagnetic wave consists of energy being transmitted down the transmission line or antenna.
This energy is in two forms, an electric field and a magnetic field, which fluctuate constantly, with a continuing exchange between electrical and magnetic energy.
In a traveling wave, the magnetic and electric fields that simultaneously peak at he same places and simultaneously go to zero at the same places.

I read somewhere the word "wave constructively". Never heard that in radio frequency, rather it is civil architecture ??.


If this is the example that ensures that the antenna radiates as collinear??.

I see the "constructive" Current 2.37 VERY CONFINED IN THE MEDIA AND WEAK UPPER WAVE, and current alleged "in phase" BETWEEN 0.00535-0 - And -0.00535, ie WITHOUT ANY PROFIT.

no see

You actually took a stab at what was wrong with the image I posted? You are wrong of course. But you gave the appearance of an attempt... A week after it was issued.

I issued a challenge, and gave you the answer in the very same post, I basically gave it to you and you still do not see. Hmm, I guess that is where nosee comes from.

Of course the currents are low, this picture, as the one you posted that I was responding to, is in the process of changing phase. Those moments in time when the antenna is changing phase is the time the displayed currents are going to be the weakest. If you are going to use any one image of a time based set of images of an antennas radiation pattern there is one and only one thing to look for, and that is the picture that shows a current maximum, or the strongest field strength, which conveniently happens at, get this, the current maximum... Go figure... Any other image is at best a manipulation, at worst incompetence.

You did manage to say one accurate thing about the picture, but in the process completely missed the reality of what is happening...

For the record, the correct answer was, and is, context. The picture you posted, and the one I posted in my reply were both out of context with how the antenna works.

Hmm the word "wave constructively"? That isn't one word, that is two words. What likely happened is your translator failed miserably at translation. I have checked this entire thread and those words aren't next each other at any point before your post mentioning them. The word "wave" is generally used to refer to "wavelength" although it can be used in other ways within the field, or even other descriptions. The word "constructively" is basically a fancy word for "add". Those words being used together would likely be a reference to a wave of some sort, and how it constructively adds to something else. I suppose context would be the ultimate decider here... Oh look, there is that word again...


The DB
 
Last edited:
No time to study it take?Losses are taken for voltage drop in the antenna to the adapter, transmission lines and transmission equipment itself.
Just read a little and learns.
It is easy to discredit without any support, also need not go to any library, everything is on the Internet, the only thing on the internet is not like SIGMA 4 does radiate in phase for the cone with the radiant, not just words some vendors, but no scientific evidence, just drawing some marinated with many words.

That 75% in losses I mentioned is accurate. 6 dB in power losses equals 75%. I don't need to study to know that. I was stunned that someone would make such a claim. Perhaps you don't understand the decibles system as much as you seem to think?

Even if you are talking about voltage instead of power it only changes it from 75% in losses to 50%, which is still some serious losses. However, when it comes to the feedpoint of an antenna a mere mention of it referring to voltage alone quickly becomes irrelevant as losses at that point are measured in power.

If you don't believe my numbers, numbers that I didn't need any help in figuring out, check out any number of decibel calculators on-line. Even if you assume you were referring to voltage instead of power (that would be a serious error on your part) your still talking about 50% in losses simply due to a gamma being used. And that is assuming the translator screwed up and it didn't mean how it first read to me, that any matching network would have those losses...


The DB
 
Last edited:

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ Mark Malcomb:
    Hello BJ. Been a long time since I've been on. You doing well? Mark Malcomb
  • @ Naysayer:
    I’m
  • @ kingmudduck:
    Hello to all I have a cobra 138xlr, Looking for the number display for it. try a 4233 and it did not work