its not my idea eddie, im just pointing out that the a99 always has a short counterpoise unless you dismantle it,
i don't subscribe to the idea that just because some people claim a 1/2wave can work with a short counterpoise even if that is true it also means we don't need to bother about common mode currents on the coax,
it matters not how little counterpoise you can get away with and still have a working 1/2wave,
common mode current does not say "hey ho chaps lets stop at 1ft from the feedpoint"
i know from experience that a99 can suffer from cm currents that whine in pc speakers, burn your lip, turn touch lamps on and off, cause tvi,
adding radials a fork handle and a properly wound choke has fixed the issue and increased signal strength a little on multiple local installs.
Bob, don't let my opinion confuse you like it does tha' Nav. IMO we really don't disagree here. We may make different points and say things differently, but based on what you say here I don't think we disagree, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...like you did me with your "...hey ho chaps..." comment. I also agree with you that an A99, can produce some terrible TVI and CM currents issues...but I've had several A99's that don't, and I think there are more that work as intended, than there are that don't. I also believe that most of what happens is due to Solarcon not getting the soldering right on every antenna the produce. Have you never bought a bad or lemon product?
In this thread I was just trying to describe what I see and what was on my mind regarding the A99's need for a feed line or not, while using my VA1 connected directly to the physical feed point where 99.9% probably believe is the real feed point, the SO239. I grant you that the electrical feed point is probably up inside the base mount at the coils.
I was trying to show that the condition of the match does not change without the feed line attached, or that the A99, will not fail without a feed line or a mast attached to the antenna. And thus there is a counterpoise that makes the A99, work, but it is not what we generally think..............
I referenced the work that Steve Yates reports, but when I originally tested my idea it was long before I ever heard of Steve Yates or his report. It was an observation that I made a long time ago and all I knew for sure then was the antenna worked and showed about the same match either way.
I don't think Northern35, believed me either, and I was not really convinced when he reported his results that suggested my testing was wrong. He didn't admit as much, but I knew that his results, right or wrong, might have left in the minds of others that my idea and test was dead wrong, plus he was using a more accurate analyzer so reports say and that might speak for more accuracy too. It was not a toy, like my VA1 that I got out of a Cracker Jacks box. Others no doubt viewed his results as being right on the mark, and many probably still believe that jumbled pattern supports the way this CBBS claim applies to just about every A99, made over the years.
Bob, you have to admit that in your area there is a whole clan of folks that make it their lives preoccupation to literally run the A99, into the dirt and without exception. Or, are you suggesting now that there might be some really creditable ideas and theory that comes out as ture blue in the CB world?
I don't have the skills or education that helps me to really know for sure, if what Yates reports is true or not, but it does seen to make sense to me...based on my understanding of what he reports. And it is also not my claim to be understanding everything he reports either.
You post:
Bob85 said:
i don't subscribe to the idea that just because some people claim a 1/2wave can work with a short counterpoise even if that is true it also means we don't need to bother about common mode currents on the coax,
I don't read Yates saying this at all. IMO, he suggested that the EFHW can produce CMC if the match is not resonant and resistive. He further adds that under the ideal conditions where the match is both resonant and resistive that the counterpoise only needs to be .05wl long. At this point Yates does not discuss CMC per se, but in his next example #8, he relates to Moxon's findings, and Yates says at first he agreed with Moxon. He did later recount he could see things different, but I took that claim was just saying the EFHW could be successful in several different configurations that accomplished the same balanced load.
Moxon's idea added an equal amount of length for the .05wl counterpoise to other side of the capacitor, and both men claim this will balance the load and mitigated the CMC's on the coax. Moxon and Yates also indicate this addition on both sides made the antenna a bit more reactive, and later Yates addressed that issue.
There is more, but you'll just have to read on from here. My testing idea was not trying to check anything that Yates or Moxon claimed in their reports.
From the original report that I made some time back, I received some comments that my results were not accurate. It was said flat out, just like the countless old stories we've all heard for years "...the A99 uses the feed line to complete the other half of the 1/2 wave antenna, and it won't work right without the other half, and as a result it produces CMC issues, etc...."
I take the old CB claims to possibly mean, the A99 will not work and the match likely goes to hell in a hand basket without the necessary feed line attached. That's all I was testing for, and that is all I asked anybody to try and confirm...one way or another...just to see if my test was duplicable.
Bob, I think my video proves I can duplicate the results, but you always raised some reasonable issues as to why what I reported could be wrong, and I considered exactly what you suggested. You told me you didn't understand what I asking for when I requested somebody for confirmation.
What do you think now, am I just talking "gibberish" like the Nav tells us?
35, tested the idea with his antenna isolated using his minVA, and that was a little different from what I had done initially, but he reported the match went to hell in a hand basket, and that doesn't confirm my findings after doing my comparions either way, with or without isolation of the mast.
At that point I figured it was possible that he could be right however, and that could be the way the A99, will respond without a feed line attached. I had the feeling that 35 was not really sure, but he offered to do the test over again, and I appreciate that cooperation.
If he get the same results...then what do you think folks will believe, including this old man?
Forgetting the issue you raised about where the feed point really is on the A99, and in light of what you claimed above, about your expectations being the same as mine. If you tested your analyzer the same way...what do you think 35, will report when he does it again?
Do you think 35's first report was good on not?
Do you think my video showed what I have been claiming?
Do you think if I were able to do the same type of test with my VA1 right where you suggest, using the guts for my exposed A99, that I would see some remarkable difference in results, compared to what I showed in the video?
Bob, I really do respect your opinion, but sometimes I have opinions too. I hope we can still agree to disagree on some issues, and still talk. I could care less what the
"one line wonders" on this or any other forum might think. I do still respect honest opinions of some however, even when I might disagree.
Thanks for your comments.
