VORTEX Q82 mk2

[bob85]

This is different, in the 3rd youtube vid Dave shows the eznec plots for the mk1 & new mk2 antennas,

i would put the spreaders lower down away from voltage node to make the very long radials less floppy,
http://www.vortexantennas.co.uk/shop/vortex-quasar-q82-mk2/

fixed it with two spreaders.

 

[Marconi]

Bob, I wasn't planning on getting back to modeling and that still may not happen, but I was intrigued by your report and how much gain this modified model promises to produce. I don't believe it for a minute, but I could be wrong.

Thanks for the report from Dave, but you need to check out closer the obvious differences between these models settings that are clearly noted in the video details.

Frequencies are not the same.

Difference in models segment lengths for the radials and radiator in the cone area. These segment lengths need to be as close to the same length as possible to insure proper current distribution in this area. Proper segments in this area also effect geometry calculations and help prevent errors.

The locations for the sources are different.

No mast indicated.

There may be other differences as well...like antenna heights.

I've asked Dave for antenna dimensions which he has promised to include in another video.

 

[bob85]

i also find it hard to believe without some independent confirmation, If it is true Eddie, the Q82 would be the new king of the verticals,

all i can tell you is when i extended my radials longer than 1/4wave signals went down, i never extended them to anything like 3/8wave.

 

[Tallman]

Hello Marconi,
Glad to see you back on the board. How did you do with the hurricane that went through Houston? Any damage or need help?

 

[Marconi]

i also find it hard to believe without some independent confirmation, If it is true Eddie, the Q82 would be the new king of the verticals,

IMO, Dave is not comparing these two antennas, but he seems to be suggesting a comparison of sorts...and for me it is based primarily on the modeling provided him.

all i can tell you is when i extended my radials longer than 1/4wave signals went down, i never extended them to anything like 3/8wave.

I think my model of the Vector 2K with 107" inch radials shows a bit more gain than my Sigma4 model with 90.5" inch radials, suggested to be 1/4 wavelength in the CB range.

I have no idea what radials 13' feet long will do for this design, but if Dave can give me some good dimensions I might try a model. Then I will also be able to test the idea for a very wide bandwidth as reported.

By the way, I have model my Sigma style antennas with no hoop at the top of the radial cone...and as best I recall I saw no difference in performance. It may have caused a little difference in the match however.

Half the segments in the S4/V2K hoop are (+) and the other half are (-), thus any currents noted will cancel due to phase differences. The currents in the hoop are also very small in magnitude...so small the hoop can probably be eliminated...except for a lack of stability when not an issue.

 

[Marconi]

Hello Marconi,
Glad to see you back on the board. How did you do with the hurricane that went through Houston? Any damage or need help?

Thanks Tallman.

I check in sometimes.

I live in one of the highest areas in the county. We had power the whole time, but cable and Internet went down for several days.

 

[Tallman]

Thanks Tallman.

I check in sometimes.

I live in one of the highest areas in the county. We had power the whole time, but cable and Internet went down for several days.

Glad to hear no flooding! Several members missed seeing you on the board and I always enjoyed reading the results of your antenna modelling.
Glad all is well.

 

[BJ radionut]

Interesting twist on an old design...BUT $500+USD...
Holy over the top Batman
All the Best
Gary

 

[JAF0]

What strikes me as odd is they're showing a 7/8 wave in the first (before) pic and the 3/4 wave shown in the second (after) pic given in cm height in the specs below as 834cm for 27.5 mhz or 27' 4.34", nowhere near a 7/8 wave.

Edit:
Then when I flip back and forth between the two eznec models it appears the 7/8 shows higher current lobing which seems to me it should have more energy and higher output.

I like their build quality but I'm not sure I'd trust that company for accuracy in gain ratings after witnessing them compare a 7/8 to a 3/4 while making it seem like they were the same except for the taller radial cone.

 

[BOOTY2]

howdy Bob85

sooo , finally somebody decided to sell a beefier version of my fav omni i'll bet mine is physically stronger , but i had to custom make every part except for the tubing . did they use thicker tubing for the lower sections or double up the tubing on the lower sections like i did ?

 

[bob85]

Hello booty2

Vortex use thicker wall 6082-t6 tube on their antennas, it's claimed to be stronger than 6061-t6 & 6063-t8 and thicker walled too, BUT they don't stock enough tube sizes to make a fast enough taper for my liking,

The whole thing is fatter & about 3x the weight of a sigma4 or i-10k,

FUGLY!

 

[BOOTY2]

the basket ring looks smaller in the videos . seeing it sway in the breeze it's not as sturdy as i expected . mine is also much fatter and heavier than the other retail versions .



pretty dinky looking actually , way overpriced !

 

[bob85]

The ring is a little smaller than the other versions, Fat 3/8wave radials & spreaders make it look smaller than it is.

 

[Marconi]

Bob, I never got any dimensions from Dave, but below is my model of the Vortex M2 with my guessing again.

The model is not to specs, but I think based on what I've heard...it is close.

I was hoping to see the very wide bandwidth reported but it barely reaches 28.000 Hz. The model shows a very good bandwidth at 2.20 MHz and compared to the New Vectors reported 1.40 MHz it is pretty good. My model also reads the match at the feed point...and most will have to take the reading at the end of their feed line.

I included an overlay of my latest Vector to specs model that is ISO and compared to the Vortex. Very little difference.

I posted an image of Eznec's control center showing the Average Gain in Free Space at the bottom of the page for the Vortex model I started with. The Average Gain results noted = 1.015 a little over 1, and you can't get any better. So IMHO, the model shows good accuracy in construction. I also tried to stay very close to the dimensions as I understood them.

I posted a full view of the model so we can see the current distribution noted by the red lines. I included a close up view of the cone area to note the feed point (O). You will also notice a red square in the same segment. This is my capacitive load for the gamma...used to reduce the inductive radiator.

There is a pattern image for the model, including an SWR scan with bandwidth indications as notes.

The matching data (source data report) is last sheet.

The model also has a hoop that is about 25" inches in diameter. However, I don't recall deliberately setting that specific dimension.

The radial elements are not 13' feet long either and the radiator is a little short of 28' feet from the radial hub to the tip...as you will note in the dimension notes I added.

 

[bob85]

Eddie,
Dave recently had a stroke so there won't be any info for a while,

i don't know who or where Vortex got their mk2 specs from,
if it worked as they claim it would be worth modifying the old style twigs with longer radials,
im not sold on the idea at this time.

Thanks for the model