ASTROPLANE best vertical antenna ever?

[Shockwave]

I do not assume anything.

I did not say "astroplane antenna is the best".

I wonder.Now what are the tests to ensure that the Gainmaster and V4000 are the best?

like that?

.64 Wavelength Secret - K3DAV - Amateur Radio Operator


hand drawings!!!




"Why Gain-Master™ has better performance compared to a conventional 5/8λ"

"This arrangement allowed us to increase the maximum gain of 0.6dB(in the free space, not a REAL ANTENNA!!) in comparison to a conventional 5/8λ antenna with equal length; also it allowed us to have a radiation pattern similar to a dipole which has its maximum gain on the horizon"

Gain-Master - Vs. conventional Antenna

The K3DAV website has very generic drawings of the antennas he talks about. They are not test results or computer models. On the other hand the Sirio description and CST model for the Gain-Master are specific and detailed for the antenna in question. The Gain-Master and Vector 4000 outperform other verticals in the distance because they concentrate more energy on the distant horizon.

Your reference to "free space" as though it were fake is far from an accurate assumption. The ability of a model to show gain in free space is very significant since it pinpoints the antennas actual gain before all types of other variables are added in to confuse you. One prime example is the exaggerated gain you see with models over perfect ground.

The decision to model antennas using perfect infinite ground is causing your models to be much more inaccurate then deciding to model with a mast and coax or not. Perfect ground is misleading you in every area from gain to the shape of the pattern lobes and nulls.

 

[nosepc]

A model shown landless true, perfect, imperfect, not including a mast, it sets an example for all, an antenna does not work in a vacuum.

An antenna works with real magnetic fields.

To say that a SIRIO Vector 4000 focuses more energy on the distant horizon, is very quick, perhaps you could say that in satellites.

The powerful radiation lobes of the SIRIO Vector 4000 is over 30 degrees.

 

[Shockwave]

A model shown landless true, perfect, imperfect, not including a mast, it sets an example for all, an antenna does not work in a vacuum.

An antenna works with real magnetic fields.

To say that a SIRIO Vector 4000 focuses more energy on the distant horizon, is very quick, perhaps you could say that in satellites.

The powerful radiation lobes of the SIRIO Vector 4000 is over 30 degrees.

Complete nonsense. What makes you think the primary lobe of the Vector would be at 30 degrees in any typical installation? The main lobe of the Vector is usually between 8 and 10 degrees depending on mounting height and ground conditions.

 

[nosepc]

Complete nonsense. What makes you think the primary lobe of the Vector would be at 30 degrees in any typical installation? The main lobe of the Vector is usually between 8 and 10 degrees depending on mounting height and ground conditions.

If THE ANTENNA VECTOR 4000 was as good If you like says, their manufacturers, advertising with us obliterates radiation diagrams, ........

....but it is that they are non-existent, not seen anywhere, not published anywhere, not are. : Confundido:

I have not seen anywhere radiation diagram of a real antenna.

why? <gotproof>

In any case, so there is a hand drawing :Fulgor:

 

[Shockwave]

If THE ANTENNA VECTOR 4000 was as good If you like says, their manufacturers, advertising with us obliterates radiation diagrams, ........

....but it is that they are non-existent, not seen anywhere, not published anywhere, not are. : Confundido:

I have not seen anywhere radiation diagram of a real antenna.

why? <gotproof>

In any case, so there is a hand drawing :Fulgor:

The manufacturer claims 2 db over a dipole. They have done field tests and computer models to back this up. If they had you on the payroll using perfect ground, they could probably boost these figures over 10 db. The CST computer model showing the antennas radiation is posted in several places on this forum.

The CST model is in free space. It may interest you to know free space models are the industry standard used in all FM broadcast stations. These are the figures used to determine a licensed broadcast stations Effective Radiated Power because they are the most accurate in terms of judging any antennas performance against another.

Free space gets a bad reputation for one reason. Dishonest manufactures would often combine the use of free space to compare their antennas against an isotropic radiator rather than a dipole. This automatically adds 2.15 db over a dipole. Many would not disclose using isotropic and mislead buyers into thinking the antenna had more gain.

 

[nosepc]

The manufacturer claims 2 db over a dipole. They have done field tests and computer models to back this up. If they had you on the payroll using perfect ground, they could probably boost these figures over 10 db. The CST computer model showing the antennas radiation is posted in several places on this forum.

The CST model is in free space. It may interest you to know free space models are the industry standard used in all FM broadcast stations. These are the figures used to determine a licensed broadcast stations Effective Radiated Power because they are the most accurate in terms of judging any antennas performance against another.

Free space gets a bad reputation for one reason. Dishonest manufactures would often combine the use of free space to compare their antennas against an isotropic radiator rather than a dipole. This automatically adds 2.15 db over a dipole. Many would not disclose using isotropic and mislead buyers into thinking the antenna had more gain.

Then we agree that free-space models are not very useful.

We agree that the manufacturer indicates 2 dB (4.15 dBi) over a dipole.

I think you are a user and an advocate of the Vector 4000.??

Then you have models that I provide for comparison??

You have models that we use in our software 4nec2??

You said that there, but I can not find them anywhere.

I am not professional computer programmer or designer antennas.

I'm just a ham, curious experimenter, and distrustful of the manufacturers.

Thank you.

nosepc

 

[Shockwave]

We are in complete disagreement over free space. Free space models are exactly what government agencies such as the FCC will accept to determine a commercial broadcast stations Effective Radiated Power. When comparing one antenna against another we want to remove the exact variables you have exaggerated by using perfect ground.

Your models will not be considered reliable until you switch to free space. Who cares about the ground gain that would be added to any antenna when you mount it over ground? Why bother with a variable that will change with every foot you elevate the antenna above the ground? We are testing the antennas gain, not the ground gain.

The CST model for the Vector is posted at least 4 or 5 times in this forum. Checkout the Sigma threads. I've seen many models of this antenna built in other programs. Some will dispute what I'm going to say but no other model I've seen has produced a result that resembles the field testing.

They have all shown an inability to recognize the cone as an effective 1/4 wave radiator. Something both CST and my field tests can prove beyond any doubt. For that reason I don't waste time with the Vector in other programs.

 

[HomerBB]

I like to see models. I find them informative and useful for understanding an antennas potential. I, however still believe the proof of the effectiveness of a particular antenna, and it comparative usefulness to other antennas is in the real world application. I unequivocally support the Vector4k as the best performing vertical I have ever mounted.
Seeing the modeling programs that have been used to demonstrate its RF handling characteristics have failed to reflect my experiences with the antenna except for the CST model, I also can not agree with points of view based upon misapplication of old conventional arguments that can not be proven by old conventional means.

 

[nav2010]

A model shown landless true, perfect, imperfect, not including a mast, it sets an example for all, an antenna does not work in a vacuum.

An antenna works with real magnetic fields.

To say that a SIRIO Vector 4000 focuses more energy on the distant horizon, is very quick, perhaps you could say that in satellites.

The powerful radiation lobes of the SIRIO Vector 4000 is over 30 degrees.

:bdh:

 

[nosepc]

We are in complete disagreement over free space. Free space models are exactly what government agencies such as the FCC will accept to determine a commercial broadcast stations Effective Radiated Power. When comparing one antenna against another we want to remove the exact variables you have exaggerated by using perfect ground.

Your models will not be considered reliable until you switch to free space. Who cares about the ground gain that would be added to any antenna when you mount it over ground? Why bother with a variable that will change with every foot you elevate the antenna above the ground? We are testing the antennas gain, not the ground gain.

The CST model for the Vector is posted at least 4 or 5 times in this forum. Checkout the Sigma threads. I've seen many models of this antenna built in other programs. Some will dispute what I'm going to say but no other model I've seen has produced a result that resembles the field testing.

They have all shown an inability to recognize the cone as an effective 1/4 wave radiator. Something both CST and my field tests can prove beyond any doubt. For that reason I don't waste time with the Vector in other programs.

From my point of view, the Vector 4000 is an antenna Zeppellin. (Or J-pole invented according to denomination now)

It is a half-wave radiant + fourth wave of adaptation.

Nothing more.

The fourth wave can not radiate because the currents is canceled by parallel skirt.

nav2010

The antenna does not work in a vacuum.

As you give him power??

How will you extract signals?

by telepathy??



Explain.

:bdh:

 

[AudioShockwav]

More than ever I see the wisdom of Cebik.

"pages of meaningless argument such antennas can generate because most people don't understand how they operate" that he said he did not wish to get involved with,

nosepc, if you take some time please use the search feature of the forum and search for

vector 4000
avanti sigma 4
lw150
tagra bt-104

There has been a lot of debate, information sharing and discussion about the vector/avanti sigma 4/lw150/tagra bt-104 style of antenna.
The topic has much more input than just a single model of the antenna and if you read through some of the threads they provide a lot of info.


73
Jeff

 

[Robb]

http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/31799-avanti-sigma4-alternative-view-point.html

http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/144592-vector-4000-remake.html

http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/143396-sigma-iv-details.html

 

[nosepc]

It sometimes happens, even in science, that one man can be right against the world.

Professor Fessenden was that man. He fought bitterly and alone to prove his theories. It was he who insisted, against the stormy protests of every recognized authority, that what we now call radio was worked by continuous waves sent through the ether by the transmitting station as light waves are sent out by a flame.

Marconi and others insisted that what was happening was a whiplash effect. The progress of radio was retarded a decade by this error. The whiplash theory passed gradually from the minds of men and was replaced by the continuous wave, with all too little credit to the man who had been right.

Reginald Fessenden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Because the J-pole and Zepp are electrically identical in function, and are similar to all other end-fed antennas in problems, pages on J-poles, Zepps, and end-fed verticals overlap." W8JI

From my point of view, the Vector 4000 is an antenna Zeppellin. (Or J-pole invented according to denomination now)

It is a half-wave radiant + fourth wave of adaptation.

Nothing more.

The fourth wave can not radiate because the currents is canceled by parallel skirt.

No magic. is radiofrequency

 

[Shockwave]

Reginald Fessenden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Because the J-pole and Zepp are electrically identical in function, and are similar to all other end-fed antennas in problems, pages on J-poles, Zepps, and end-fed verticals overlap." W8JI

From my point of view, the Vector 4000 is an antenna Zeppellin. (Or J-pole invented according to denomination now)

It is a half-wave radiant + fourth wave of adaptation.

Nothing more.

The fourth wave can not radiate because the currents is canceled by parallel skirt.

No magic. is radiofrequency

The J-pole does not confine out of phase radiation taking place in the lower 1/4 wave of the vertical radiator. The matching stub on the J-pole skews its radiation pattern. The radiation on the cone of the Vector is omni-directional and nearly equivalent to that of a 1/4 wave monopole. This radiation is in phase with the upper 1/2 wave that extends above the cone.

To see this performance with computer modeling has required the use of CST Microwave Studio. So far, no one has been able to demonstrate a working computer model in any other program. To see the Vectors performance in the real world simply requires you to replace a 1/2 wave with the Vector design and watch what happens to signal in the distance. This is precisely what I have done hundreds of times for commercial broadcast customers over the years.

You are far from the first person to try and sell the false J-pole idea in this forum. Thankfully, there are a few people here with many years of experience working with this type of antenna that have come to understand it is a "non apparent collinear". That makes it very special. Today this can be proven with CST and in the field experimenting with phase delay sections driving a second 1/2 wave element.

Since you claim to be a new ham learning, it might interest you to know one of the brightest minds in the history of antennas, L.B. Cebik was the man who termed the phrase "non apparent collinear" in his description of this antenna. You would be wise to recognize he knew the difference between a J-pole and this antenna and figure out why rather than support a false myth.

 

[Robb]

nosepc, have you ever built, installed, or used a j-pole? They aren't a very stable design. They are prone to CMC's, need RF isolation, and tend to be somewhat directional. Actually, a j-pole can be a real 'dolor en el culo' to install with success. Try to build one yourself and see if you don't experience the same irregularities.

A j-pole is not an antenna design that I would recommend to anyone either. I would recommend a vertical dipole because of its simplicity and lack of ground loss with a near flat radiation pattern before choosing the j-pole. However, even the lowly dipole can have CMC issues if not dealt with correctly. But still far better than a j-pole - IMO.

I used to think the same as you, that the V4K was nothing more than a hyped-up j-pole. But the V4K does not behave like a j-pole and neither does it radiate like a j-pole. The V4k keeps the currents in phase unlike a j-pole. Its even distribution of radiated energy and especially the lack of CMC prove that it isn't a j-pole. I think that if you realize that lack of CMC is real, that in itself should be your real clue.

Comparing the two is no comparison at all. Perhaps you would benefit by reading the many discussions we've had on this forum as I think you can get some interesting insights into how it operates. BTW - I am not an antenna guru, but reading those articles did help me immensely to understand how it works. The anecdotal evidence of users is overwhelmingly in favor of the V4K too.