Any Astro Plane Fans ?

[Marconi]

I cannot explain the difference in antenna gain between our models for the examples above, but I have models that produce similar gains to yours when I use two wires for the hub instead of the 5 wire design I use...that simulates the A/P antenna's hub at 2.50" x 6" inches.

This I am curious about, could you explain what you did and why here?

DB, I think you are asking me to explain my comments in the post above, right?

If so, This is why!

I recall a while back when you first posted your model with 2 wires for the A/P mounting bracket and the discussion about the blue line was being discussed...I had the thought to take one of my A/P type models at 32' feet over real Earth and remove 3 of the 5 wires from my mounting bracket. The idea was to make my bracket similar to the 2 wire bracket for your model.

Here is what I did as best I recall.

I don't think I did anything else to the model, I just deleted 3 of my 5 wire mounting bracket leaving 2 wires. This was similar to what I noted on your model with the feed point on one of the wires. I also had to lower the radiator and the top hat down the 2.50" inch space left by the part of the bracket I removed.

When I scanned the model to produce the pattern...the model showed much more gain...similar to what your were reporting then. Right then I changed the name on the model and put DB in the title so I could find the model again.

In the pattern overlay you just posted in the link below I still see noticeably higher gain than any of my models show at 32' - 36' feet high as noted in my PDF file at the bottom of the page.

http://hittman.us/pictures/6-10-17/ap-10k-comp.jpg

Again, I can't explain the difference...except to say maybe the 2 wire model is what produces this higher gain. When I saw your patterns today indicating the high gain we see in your overlay above...I was reminded of seeing this before. I think I even questioned you on this earlier in this thread maybe, but I don't recall your response.

I hope my words here are clear enough for you to understand what I did and why I ask the questions about gain.

 

[HomerBB]

2 wires or 5 wires I can't deliberate on, but the AP bracket is 3" x 9" however many wires used. I've seen 2.5" x 6" referred to...

 

[Marconi]

2 wires or 5 wires I can't deliberate on, but the AP bracket is 3" x 9" however many wires used. I've seen 2.5" x 6" referred to...

You may be right Homer based on the dimensions posted in metrics on the Internet. The bracket overall looks about 9" inches long. However if you measure from the center of element to the center of the element you will see it too is 6" inches.

The guy that made that dimension take off realized the distinction all those little measurements meant.

Exposed wire length is what is important in modeling and it probably is on the shop floor too.

 

[HomerBB]

@Marconi
Ok. I went back and checked the tube spacing. Seems you're right.

 

[Needle Bender]

OK. I suggest you should be careful of such claims in the future.



I would say that Avanti's gain data would match both antennas being mounted at the same mounting height. If that is the case, the model you are falsely accusing me of handicapping was a different story all together. With that model, I compared it to a 5/8 wavelength antenna as the Astroplane patent said the Astroplane antenna should be mounted, and low and behold, as per the patent, the Astroplane had a higher gain. If you think following what the Astroplane patent says how one should mount this antenna being used in a comparison model (and by extension getting a result that is also in line with what the Astroplane patent says will happen) is "handicapping" then with all due respect, I disagree.

I guess this needs to be said. When it comes to modeling, I DO NOT HANDICAP MY MODELS, EVER. I take offence to this accusation.

The best part? You, who has claimed multiple times that you don't agree with the modeling results for this antenna, are now accusing someone who modeled this antenna of "handicapping" this antenna over another? That sounds like your trying to have your cake and eat it to...

Yes, I think the Astroplane antenna has an interesting design, and I think I might have a chance of learning something about antennas in general from it, but that is not a reason for me to handicap this antenna in a comparison with another. If anything that is a reason for me to want as fair comparison as I can get...


The DB

DB, I merely surmised you handicapped that model in favor of the AP for some reason, since you .are the person who entered the info into your modeling program and came up with a green line (representing the I-10K) which you wrote was "under reporting its gain".

- I'm not trying to offend you, just attempting to figure out what the fat is your meaning.

On that model graph you offered (for clarifying the AP pattern) you claimed the patterns are the same for the I-10K & the AP,
- then you wrote the green line is under reporting its gain,
- then in a later post you imply .the company who designed & marketed both the AP & a 5/8 must have taken improper measurements by not correctly using an antenna test range where the readings are taken at the height where the current node is strongest for maximum possible gain readings in order to maximize advertising-based sales,
- then you claim the Avanti AP has more gain than the antenna Avanti claim beats it,
- then .you claim I made an "Accusation" to which you "Take offence"...

Huh?

 

[Needle Bender]

NB,

suggesting DB somehow handicapped the I-10k is laughable,
he is not building antennas for profit, nor I'm sure does he have a hard on for astroplanes or p500's with old adverts on his bedroom wall,
so where is his Horse ? How does he benefit from handicapping the 5/8wave ?
This is the kind of attitude that chases the people you could learn from away from this forum,

DB is not brainwashed by old advertising & sentimentality about 5/8waves blocking his ability to learn,

Let me clear something up.
I don't care about how people on forums talk to me so don't think you or anybody else upsets me in that way,

if trying to bust bullshit comes across as me been a bully to some its not meant to,

what irritates me is somebody constantly making up their own laws of physics & disrupting threads with technobull,

Not because they are saying I'm wrong but because it makes it difficult for anybody wishing to learn something to determine who is talking technobull unless they go read articles from respected sources that often are not easy to understand for average Joe,

Its not my fault that you don't understand WHY a 5/8-.64wave is said to have more gain than a 1/2wave or that the advantage more than vanishes once you raise the 1/2wave to the same tip height,
I explained it multiple times in multiple threads,
you won't find anybody that understands antennas arguing with me on this point.

Current distribution on 5/8 dipoles is basic stuff that you really should understand before arguing about it,

inventing voltage chokes that don't exist is basic stuff, chokes resist changes in current,
maybe you mean self resonant chokes but that's not what you are saying,

The astroplane is not basic antenna theory when you add the mast inside the basket.
It may look like a simple dipole but its not,
that does not mean it whoops a dipole at the same feedpoint height or that I ascribe GOD like properties to it,
the advantage the astroplane has is height of current maxima, that's physics, not religion,

I don't expect you to be able to separate Zt from Za or recognise both impedances are there in parallel in the astroplane when you add the conductive mast, I'm trying to learn that stuff myself,its not easy like basic dipoles.

OH!

 

[HomerBB]

It may be a good time to remind everyone that the point of the thread since its current ressurection has been to explore the AP with a view toward understanding it better.
All of us have speculated along the way to some degree, and have posted our musings. It's about evolution of thinking AS WE GO.
Differences of personal opinions exists between each of us, especially from the beginning. As a case in point, I have over time since before this current thread said I think the AP is basically a fat dipole. Bob says he thinks it is not a dipole, but something more. Despite my originating point of view about this "dipole" with some modifications, I have steadily maintained for several years now that I saw remarkable performance from this antenna. I credited that performance to comparisons to other antennas when I followed the manufacturers recommendation of mounting it at the same tip height as longer antennas.
As the discussion has unfolded I have learned that I was coincidentally mounting the AP at what may be the optimum setup for maximizing its performance over average earth - isolated at a given point, mounted at a given height.
On some points of my preconceptions I may have to be changing my view. On others I may be able to stand pat, and for coincidences I can take no credit but for the favors of Lady Luck.
Everyone has said things and held to things as we've moved along that are being challenged, and honest people will shift as the facts emerge.
What won't change is physics. What will change is our understanding of how this particular design handles the laws of physics that are handed to it... maybe.

 

[bob85]

Homer,

i do see a dipole within the astroplanes construction, in parallel with something that's not a regular dipole,
imho its performing similar to a dipole but doing it in a different way,
i don't think it has any majic sauce nor does it need it once i get the tip at the same height as my 5/8waves,

the avanti advert is claiming the astroplane outperforms 5/8waves when you have height restrictions, they never claim the 5/8wave sigma2 beats it, only that the 5/8 has more raw gain,

when was the last time you saw a dipole installed at the same tip height as a 5/8wave & in a way that the mast & coax won't spoil the pattern ?.

dipoles work better than most people would imagine.

 

[The DB]

DB, I merely surmised you handicapped that model in favor of the AP for some reason, since you .are the person who entered the info into your modeling program and came up with a green line (representing the I-10K) which you wrote was "under reporting its gain".

Its not like I did it intentionally, the model is just being a pain in the ass when it comes to dialing it in.

The problem is when it comes to AGT, which is more accurately called "Average Gain Test". The optimal AGT result is 1. Results higher than one over report gain, and results lower than one under report gain. The two Astroplane models in that comparison have been dialed in to an AGT of 1, but the closest I can get the I-10k model is .965. Now, when it comes to the 4Nec2 documentation, .965 is between .95 and 1.05, which means for all intents and purposes it is still within range of the model being considered accurate. However, I have higher standards than the software's documentation. The difference between where it is and where it should be will be very small.

I called it "under reporting" because I couldn't get it dialed in to my standards. The difference is small, and as I said above, it is within the range of the software documentation of still being considered accurate, which is why I used it.

Playing with the model some more here is the lowest over reported gain figure I can get, 4.91 dBi, as opposed to the original under reported reading of 4.3. When it comes to the choice of under reporting and over reporting, I will universally choose to under report, and even then only if it is within the range of 4Nec2 being considered accurate. So the actual gain is in between those two readings somewhere. Also as a final note on this point, as you can see, even with the over reported 4.91 dBi in gain, it still doesn't match one of the Astroplane model's gain, so going in either direction here wouldn't have mattered, and their would be a claim of over reporting.

- I'm not trying to offend you, just attempting to figure out what the fat is your meaning.

On that model graph you offered (for clarifying the AP pattern) you claimed the patterns are the same for the I-10K & the AP,
- then you wrote the green line is under reporting its gain,

If you were that concerned about it you should have asked, I would have been happy to give you the details behind it, instead you clearly made an accusation of intentional manipulation. If I had that chance to do it over again knowing what your response would have been, I would have explained it better. Why didn't you simply ask for more information, its not like I have a history of hiding what is going on with modeling, I would have given you all of the details you wanted about every one of those models.

Also can you show me where I said the "patterns are the same for the I-10k & the AP"? That is at least the second time you mentioned I said that, and I did not. Looking at the image in question, it is clear that the patterns are not the same. What I said was that one of the Astroplane antennas was mounted at the same tip height as the I-10k, and the other was as the same mounting height as the I-10k. That is a far cry from saying that the patterns are the same between the two antennas.

- then in a later post you imply .the company who designed & marketed both the AP & a 5/8 must have taken improper measurements by not correctly using an antenna test range where the readings are taken at the height where the current node is strongest for maximum possible gain readings in order to maximize advertising-based sales,
- then you claim the Avanti AP has more gain than the antenna Avanti claim beats it,

With the first point here, I haven't said or implied anything of the sort. That being said, I don't know how Avanti got their numbers, which is why I wouldn't have said or imlied anything of the sort, and anything anyone who doesn't have documentation on the part of how said readings were obtained by said company could not say for sure, as far as I know, that includes you. Why would you make the assumption that said readings came from a test range?

Seriously though, if you are going to take Avanti's advertised claims for said antennas into account you also need to take into account all of their advertisement claims for said antennas, some of which refer and paraphrase the patent. The patent clearly states that if you mount the Astroplane in a certain way (the same tip height) that it will outperform any said ground plane antenna because its radiation will be higher than said ground plane antennas. These claims are from the same company that have the advertised gain claims that you are referring to, and are contradictory to said claims, so which claim from them should I believe? Honestly, with a contradiction like that I will throw out all of the claims and see what I can figure out on my own.

- then .you claim I made an "Accusation" to which you "Take offence"...

Huh?

Well, you did make an accusation, and made it with both bad and incomplete information on your part, as well as assumptions based on that information. So when it comes to your apparent surprise to my response, I have a reaction as well...

Huh?


The DB

 

[Needle Bender]

Did you seriously post that?

Wow.

I don't know where you got that AP models showing a 32° angle of radiation, but it wasn't from any model I posted, and I don't recall any of Marconi's models showing that either, and between the two of us that will by far be the majority if not nearly all at least in this thread. If you include Marconi's models from other threads, that will likely put the two of us at over 90% of the models of the AP posted on this forum.

The only thing I can imagine that would cause a 32° angle of radiation is if one of us was showing a worst case scenario, which wouldn't be a fair comparison to a best case scenario, or even a regular model, of another antenna, would it? Long story short, this is nothing but a BS claim, period, end of story.

I can show you almost any antenna with whatever angle of radiation I want, it isn't even hard to do, you simply change the height of the antenna. That is it, no voodoo or anything strange, the higher the antenna the lower the angle of radiation. Because of this, antennas do not have a single angle of radiation, so any claim that any one antenna will always have a, say, 8° to 9° lobe regardless of the circumstances only shows how much you don't know about what you are talking about. If you want I can post an AP with an angle of radiation of 2° to demonstrate this.

For example, here is an image that I posted I don't know how many pages ago that directly shows a comparison between the AP and the I-10k, and this I-10k model includes a matching system and full tuning, so it is a direct antenna to antenna comparison. I should also point out that the AP is mounted at two different heights in this comparison, one with the same tip height as the I-10k and the other at the same mounting height.

So I will leave it to you to tell me which AP is mounted at the same tip height as the I-10k, actually I'll give you a hint, its the one with more gain than the I-10k and the same angle of radiation...

NOTE: As I pointed out when I posted this initially, the green line model is under reporting its gain. If you want to know more go back and dig up the original post.

The only other thing I can think of is you are referring to models I haven't seen and know nothing about, and with all due respect, that isn't very likely.



If you bring it through the basket, I would recommend less than six feet per choke. Remember when you tried to model a quad then build it? Why was their such a big difference in length from the model that didn't factor in the covering on the wire used? In the area of the basket I would go more like two or three feet per choke until about five or six feet below the ring to avoid an issue with the VF caused by the material on the outside of the feed line.


The DB

NB,

suggesting DB somehow handicapped the I-10k is laughable,
he is not building antennas for profit, nor I'm sure does he have a hard on for astroplanes or p500's with old adverts on his bedroom wall,
so where is his Horse ? How does he benefit from handicapping the 5/8wave ?
This is the kind of attitude that chases the people you could learn from away from this forum,

DB is not brainwashed by old advertising & sentimentality about 5/8waves blocking his ability to learn,

Let me clear something up.
I don't care about how people on forums talk to me so don't think you or anybody else upsets me in that way,

if trying to bust bullshit comes across as me been a bully to some its not meant to,

what irritates me is somebody constantly making up their own laws of physics & disrupting threads with technobull,

Not because they are saying I'm wrong but because it makes it difficult for anybody wishing to learn something to determine who is talking technobull unless they go read articles from respected sources that often are not easy to understand for average Joe,

Its not my fault that you don't understand WHY a 5/8-.64wave is said to have more gain than a 1/2wave or that the advantage more than vanishes once you raise the 1/2wave to the same tip height,
I explained it multiple times in multiple threads,
you won't find anybody that understands antennas arguing with me on this point.

Current distribution on 5/8 dipoles is basic stuff that you really should understand before arguing about it,

inventing voltage chokes that don't exist is basic stuff, chokes resist changes in current,
maybe you mean self resonant chokes but that's not what you are saying,

The astroplane is not basic antenna theory when you add the mast inside the basket.
It may look like a simple dipole but its not,
that does not mean it whoops a dipole at the same feedpoint height or that I ascribe GOD like properties to it,
the advantage the astroplane has is height of current maxima, that's physics, not religion,

I don't expect you to be able to separate Zt from Za or recognise both impedances are there in parallel in the astroplane when you add the conductive mast, I'm trying to learn that stuff myself,its not easy like basic dipoles.

Bovine defecation.

Its not like I did it intentionally, the model is just being a pain in the ass when it comes to dialing it in.

The problem is when it comes to AGT, which is more accurately called "Average Gain Test". The optimal AGT result is 1. Results higher than one over report gain, and results lower than one under report gain. The two Astroplane models in that comparison have been dialed in to an AGT of 1, but the closest I can get the I-10k model is .965. Now, when it comes to the 4Nec2 documentation, .965 is between .95 and 1.05, which means for all intents and purposes it is still within range of the model being considered accurate. However, I have higher standards than the software's documentation. The difference between where it is and where it should be will be very small.

I called it "under reporting" because I couldn't get it dialed in to my standards. The difference is small, and as I said above, it is within the range of the software documentation of still being considered accurate, which is why I used it.

Playing with the model some more here is the lowest over reported gain figure I can get, 4.91 dBi, as opposed to the original under reported reading of 4.3. When it comes to the choice of under reporting and over reporting, I will universally choose to under report, and even then only if it is within the range of 4Nec2 being considered accurate. So the actual gain is in between those two readings somewhere. Also as a final note on this point, as you can see, even with the over reported 4.91 dBi in gain, it still doesn't match one of the Astroplane model's gain, so going in either direction here wouldn't have mattered, and their would be a claim of over reporting.



If you were that concerned about it you should have asked, I would have been happy to give you the details behind it, instead you clearly made an accusation of intentional manipulation. If I had that chance to do it over again knowing what your response would have been, I would have explained it better. Why didn't you simply ask for more information, its not like I have a history of hiding what is going on with modeling, I would have given you all of the details you wanted about every one of those models.

Also can you show me where I said the "patterns are the same for the I-10k & the AP"? That is at least the second time you mentioned I said that, and I did not. Looking at the image in question, it is clear that the patterns are not the same. What I said was that one of the Astroplane antennas was mounted at the same tip height as the I-10k, and the other was as the same mounting height as the I-10k. That is a far cry from saying that the patterns are the same between the two antennas.



With the first point here, I haven't said or implied anything of the sort. That being said, I don't know how Avanti got their numbers, which is why I wouldn't have said or imlied anything of the sort, and anything anyone who doesn't have documentation on the part of how said readings were obtained by said company could not say for sure, as far as I know, that includes you. Why would you make the assumption that said readings came from a test range?

Seriously though, if you are going to take Avanti's advertised claims for said antennas into account you also need to take into account all of their advertisement claims for said antennas, some of which refer and paraphrase the patent. The patent clearly states that if you mount the Astroplane in a certain way (the same tip height) that it will outperform any said ground plane antenna because its radiation will be higher than said ground plane antennas. These claims are from the same company that have the advertised gain claims that you are referring to, and are contradictory to said claims, so which claim from them should I believe? Honestly, with a contradiction like that I will throw out all of the claims and see what I can figure out on my own.



Well, you did make an accusation, and made it with both bad and incomplete information on your part, as well as assumptions based on that information. So when it comes to your apparent surprise to my response, I have a reaction as well...

Huh?


The DB

No, not at all DB, in fact you wrote, "So I will leave it to you to tell me which AP is mounted at the same tip height as the I-10k, actually I'll give you a hint, its the one with more gain than the I-10k and the same angle of radiation..."

Now, I expect you'll feel a strong need to correct me .by reminding us all of how you can have somewhat different patterns with the same angle of radiation, and I'll remind you of the opposite perspective and how your two patterns in question (AP & I-10K) which I look to for determining "the angle of radiation" are actually quite similar, more similar than different, especially if overlaid with the max gain points aligned, and could easily be considered basically the same though not identical, but then I'm on a CB forum, not a commercial engineering forum so I presume it's the main point in question we readers would be interested in, not the micro engineering details, such as what name is used to describe different chokes where there is either high current or high voltage, but these micro-details seem so important to you & Bob85, perhaps you two should spend more time in those other forums where you won't be so apparently irritated & frustrated by CBers,
- even though neither of the two of you ever did come up with an answer as to why Sirio spends the extra money to use 16T, not a mere 5T, coax choke at the high voltage .point on their Gain Masters, other than something to the effect of 'Aesthetics?'.

So to wrap this up, I simply don't have any more time for it and I also don't believe we are adding to this thread by the ongoing bickering, so I'm bowing out.

All yours, have at it -

 

[HomerBB]

Homer,

i do see a dipole within the astroplanes construction, in parallel with something that's not a regular dipole,
imho its performing similar to a dipole but doing it in a different way,
i don't think it has any majic sauce nor does it need it once i get the tip at the same height as my 5/8waves,

the avanti advert is claiming the astroplane outperforms 5/8waves when you have height restrictions, they never claim the 5/8wave sigma2 beats it, only that the 5/8 has more raw gain,

when was the last time you saw a dipole installed at the same tip height as a 5/8wave & in a way that the mast & coax won't spoil the pattern ?.

dipoles work better than most people would imagine.

The only way I manage a vertical dipole install that doesn't seem to have mast coupling issues is as a sleeved center fed. I have made numerous of those for myself and others. Perhaps, as you've mentioned, the bottom skirt should be examined with the coaxial (transmission line) concept in mind. . .

 

[bob85]

"such as what name is used to describe different chokes where there is either high current or high voltage"

you need to understand that the voltage node is not there until you put the choke there creating the voltage node,
the same applys to winding a choke near the feedpoint,

current & voltage nodes along the coax braid are NOT determined by how far away from the feedpoint they are,

i did come up with a POSSIBLE answer more than once, a self resonant choke which gives the highest impedance,

you are disrupting threads with made up laws of physics.,
if people think setting the record straight is bickering they don't really want to know the truth, they want a quiet life.

 

[bob85]

Homer,

i imagined the sigma acting similar to a coaxial dipole or like the sirio cx series antennas,
reading barkleys paper on the open sleeve antenna made me realise its not quit the same due to radiation from the whole of the central monopole that is not present in the coaxial sleeve setup.

 

[The DB]

No, not at all DB, in fact you wrote, "So I will leave it to you to tell me which AP is mounted at the same tip height as the I-10k, actually I'll give you a hint, its the one with more gain than the I-10k and the same angle of radiation..."

OK, so they have the same angle of radiation, and to you that means the patterns are the same? Good to know.

Now, I expect you'll feel a strong need to correct me .by reminding us all of how you can have somewhat different patterns with the same angle of radiation,

So you are aware of this, then you don't need to be corrected, that is good enough for me.

and I'll remind you of the opposite perspective and how your two patterns in question (AP & I-10K) which I look to for determining "the angle of radiation" are actually quite similar, more similar than different, especially if overlaid with the max gain points aligned, and could easily be considered basically the same though not identical,

Ahh ha, I see now, your definition of the same is not the same as my definition of the same. I see four developed lobes for the Astroplane model in question and three for the I-10k model... Definitely not the same to me...

but then I'm on a CB forum, not a commercial engineering forum

Yes, a very technical CB forum, that includes engineers as some of the people who follow it, at least one of which has told you that you were wrong about the topic you are dragging me back in to...

so I presume it's the main point in question we readers would be interested in, not the micro engineering details, such as what name is used to describe different chokes where there is either high current or high voltage, but these micro-details seem so important to you & Bob85,

So now you are going to drag me back into that discussion? I intentionally didn't get back into it when bob85 mentioned you. You are right about one thing, I am interested in the details because the details inform you of the truth. I am also careful with my wording most of the time to try and make it is correct and understandable for people of as many skill levels as I can.

perhaps you two should spend more time in those other forums where you won't be so apparently irritated & frustrated by CBers,

I'm on six different CB forums, all of the others less technical then this one, as well as several ham radio forums. If it were common CB'rs who bugged me I honestly wouldn't be on any of the other ones. It must be something else that is "irritating and frustrating" me here, in this thread...

- even though neither of the two of you ever did come up with an answer as to why Sirio spends the extra money to use 16T, not a mere 5T, coax choke at the high voltage .point on their Gain Masters, other than something to the effect of 'Aesthetics?'.

Is that really your big point from that whole discussion?

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter how they achieve a parallel resonant circuit, it works the same, a high impedance resists the flow of current. When you force current to a minimum and voltage and current are 90 degreed out of phase, what do you expect to happen with voltage? It peaks. This is what causes the voltage node at the end of not only the Gainmaster antenna but other designs as well, such as the t2lt. This statement is true beyond RF as well, and even beyond AC circuits.

You seem to assume that their will always be a high voltage point at that spot. Even if you incorrectly use the feed point as the determiner of where voltage and current nodes are (you did in the past, I'm not sure if you changed this idea or not), that doesn't necessarily mean that their will always be a voltage node at the point you put the choke, so even if their were a way to resist or impede voltage, their wouldn't necessarily always be a voltage node where you put the so called "voltage choke" idea of yours.

- even though neither of the two of you ever did come up with an answer as to why Sirio spends the extra money to use 16T, not a mere 5T, coax choke at the high voltage .point on their Gain Masters, other than something to the effect of 'Aesthetics?'.

If you really want to know why Sirio decided to use that specific coax, why don't you ask them. After all, if they respond and you are correct wouldn't that support your cause? Are you not even going to do the basic legwork to get reliable data to support your cause? In reality, the worst a different diameter coax means (and this would be true even if you are correct, which you are not) is it takes a different amount of turns on a given diameter form to achieve a similar effect. That is all.

Means how you are bringing up things that you think we never addressed...

1. I should also point out as an example that you have yet to find one source that is backing up your claim or even mentions the words "voltage choke".
2. You never explained why you are treating voltage in a way that disagrees with the actual definition of the word, and that is it is nothing but potential energy.
3. You are violating rules taught in electronics 101 classes, and true no matter where in electrical and electronics engineering you look, and that includes antennas.
4. You never explained why people have successfully used a standard five turn choke on their home made Gainmaster antennas, as well as t2lt antennas, and the antennas worked just fine, unlike your prediction.

Should I go on here? This will get us nowhere.

The thing is, every thing that you accused bob85 and I of doing on this topic (the so called voltage choke), you have done to an extent far beyond either of us.

So to wrap this up, I simply don't have any more time for it and I also don't believe we are adding to this thread by the ongoing bickering, so I'm bowing out.

All yours, have at it -

I agree with this. Hey, we agree on something, I knew their must be something out their...

I want to point out that it is interesting to note the things that you do address vs the things that you don't... Just an observation, and not only about the post I am responding to here.


The DB

 

[Riverman]

Hot on the trail of two of the original designers of the Astro Plane who used to be hams in the Chicago area and routinely checked into the local nets. w9cll resides there and is going to ask around about them and see what he can find. Wouldn't it be cool if one or both would join in this discussion?