No way to do that. Try typing it in a word processor like Windows Writer or even note pad and then copy/ paste into the forum. Delete it when you are sure things are OK.
-
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.
Battle of the ground planes
- Thread starter 211inthamag
- Start date
I do that sometimes, but not this AM. I got Comcast to come replace the modem.
Thanks
OK Thanks.....yeah that does answer my question.I have done the same thing before as well, think things out in my head yet fail to type them out only to think that I had. I believe it is part of CRS Syndrome.
I did notice the 0.7 dB gain difference however i also saw that the TOA was slightly lower at 48 feet. The likely cause of slightly lower gain is most likely due to more power being delivered to the secondary lobe. It has to come from somewhere. In any event the 0.7 dB and one degree difference would never be noticed in performance.
Brother, I'm always happy to correct the errors of my ways. I see it as an honor and consider it as a virtue.
You're right Captain, the results you noted above are the facts as indicated in my report on a dipole dated 90/09/13, but I see an important, unusual, and unique distinction in these facts that you failed to mention. You just focused on the gain/angle differences, but I see a important trend in the facts in addition to the gain/angle.
I'm not trying to claim new theory here or that I discovered something special, but your response is exactly what I figure most CB guys would take away from checking out this report. They too would probably say, "...hey Marconi, that is not a difference we could even realize just talking on our 2 way radios."
When I compare the trends noted for both the vertical and horizontal models I seem to focus on the difference in the trends noted.
I'm not trying to change the world's ideas about antennas or 2 way radio, I'm just hoping for some discussion on the topics with the hope that somebody might just consider what I see. No matter if I'm right or wrong...maybe by discussing these issues on this forum the process might shed some light or create curiosity in thinking. I'm always looking to hopefully have my ideas confirmed by someone else, and then I figure I've learned something. I not the teacher here, I'm just a student that is curious.
At 42' for the horizontal model we see the gain jump up out of step with the other three models...a difference in the trend. This did not look to happen with the vertical models...where all the changes were trending in a linear fashion. I see the tipping point for this horizontal trend in the 42' foot model.
Does this suggest why I might have been amazed to learn many years latter that my old radio mentor was on-to-something when he told me there was something special going on in 11 meters, with a center fed horizontal dipole set at 42' feet?
Isn't this also basically the claim I made here in this thread?
eddie, i remember reading an article on horizontal dipoles using eznec pro that said gain peaked at .6w and every .5w increment above .6w,
it also said eznec pro gave a peak gain about .5db lower than the eznec version w8ji uses,
if its true you should see a little more gain if you lower the 42ft dipole about 2-1/2ft.
it also said eznec pro gave a peak gain about .5db lower than the eznec version w8ji uses,
if its true you should see a little more gain if you lower the 42ft dipole about 2-1/2ft.
Bob's idea
You are right Bob. Concerning Eznec Pro, you may be right there too.
I started this series of models from an old model of a horizontal dipole, and it had only 6 segments per wire. When I can I use a standard design idea that I picked up from an article by Cebik about the 5/8 wave mystique some time back.
So, I typically would use this idea. Length of wire in inches / 2.5 = # of segments...when I can. Doing so does make a difference in the results I see in the models, but I don't have a clue how much difference it really makes when compared to using Eznec Pro. Did W8JI go into detail about this difference?
I'd be surprised, but Eznec Pro could make the difference in night and day compared to my Eznec version out of a Cracker Jack's box.
I see what W8JI reported. I just wonder how my old buddy back in 1969 figured this out seeing as all he had to figure with back then was either his fingers and toes, or at best maybe a slide rule?
View attachment Bob's idea at 39.5' feet.pdf
You are right Bob. Concerning Eznec Pro, you may be right there too.
I started this series of models from an old model of a horizontal dipole, and it had only 6 segments per wire. When I can I use a standard design idea that I picked up from an article by Cebik about the 5/8 wave mystique some time back.
So, I typically would use this idea. Length of wire in inches / 2.5 = # of segments...when I can. Doing so does make a difference in the results I see in the models, but I don't have a clue how much difference it really makes when compared to using Eznec Pro. Did W8JI go into detail about this difference?
I'd be surprised, but Eznec Pro could make the difference in night and day compared to my Eznec version out of a Cracker Jack's box.
I see what W8JI reported. I just wonder how my old buddy back in 1969 figured this out seeing as all he had to figure with back then was either his fingers and toes, or at best maybe a slide rule?
View attachment Bob's idea at 39.5' feet.pdf
the article was not by w8ji, i will look for it and post a link if i can find it.
VOACAP Quick Guide: Squeezing the decibels out of a simple dipole
VOACAP Quick Guide: Squeezing the decibels out of a simple dipole
Last edited:
Bob, I don't know how I got the idea that W8JI was involved here. I know I can't see good anymore...my diabetes is taking care of that.
I don't know how much difference the real antenna modeling software, like the one Sirio uses and the Pro version of Eznec is from this cheap crap I've got, but I still don't think the difference would be much.
If you find the link, keep me posted.
Last edited:
the link is in the my post eddie,
i think the main difference is how pro handles ground, the author claims about .5db less peak gain than the version ji uses but as you know im no nec user, i won't pretend to understand how it works but i can usually remember what i have read.
i think the main difference is how pro handles ground, the author claims about .5db less peak gain than the version ji uses but as you know im no nec user, i won't pretend to understand how it works but i can usually remember what i have read.
Bob, I'll be reading the article again for more understanding.
When I dared to post my opinion about the height issue of a horizontal dipole in this thread, all the information I had was about this story of the 42' deal that my old mentor, Sanders, told me about years ago, and at some point much later, after I felt comfortable doing my Eznec models, I had the thought to test that old idea.
I picked out an old horizontal dipole from my file, and compared several typical heights where CBr's might mount their dipoles. I started at 9', then raised it to 18', 36', and 42' feet. Later I also raised the model to 48' just in case someone might suggest that the 42' feet was nothing special, and what I saw was simply due the height increase. I've already explained how I was amazed at the results I got back when this happened in 1969, and again a couple of years ago when I was able to get Eznec to work.
I did nothing else trying to test and compare for the best height like the guy in your link did, it just never crossed my mind.
When I read a post in this thread between Shockwave and Captain Kilowatt, I had the thought that maybe the question I had for a dipole being too low might be an issue. That reminded of the story and my experience with the model several years ago. So, I posted my infamous claim, and it as been all down hill with misunderstanding ever since.
It is true that I made a few mistakes in thinking this out, but now the message is lost in the confusion, and I'll likely never be able to make the point. I don't even care anymore.
Maybe you guys can pick the idea up from your link, I think this guy is trying to make a similar point...among other things.
Last edited:
Bob, I read the article again, and I believe it is supporting the idea that I tried to present here. I just didn't fully understand what was going on.
Do you think this is why some of us meet here on WWDX to try and discuss stuff, and in the process maybe understand better?
Thanks to your link, now some might see how this trend line that produces this peak/dip in gain is cyclical just like Jari presents.
I'm still amazed that my old buddy could have understood this so many year ago, and related it to me in such a profound way.
Back then, even if Sanders would have tried to fully explain...I would have likely never understood. And, without my modeling experiences and the revelation I got using Eznec...this conversation would have never happened...even as badly as it all went in the begining...when nobody wanted to consider such an idea.
Thanks for remembering.
Do you think this is why some of us meet here on WWDX to try and discuss stuff, and in the process maybe understand better?
Thanks to your link, now some might see how this trend line that produces this peak/dip in gain is cyclical just like Jari presents.
I'm still amazed that my old buddy could have understood this so many year ago, and related it to me in such a profound way.
Back then, even if Sanders would have tried to fully explain...I would have likely never understood. And, without my modeling experiences and the revelation I got using Eznec...this conversation would have never happened...even as badly as it all went in the begining...when nobody wanted to consider such an idea.
Thanks for remembering.
im glad that article was of use eddie,
i don't think a whole lot more has been discovered about the kinds of antennas we use since the 40's eddie so its no shock that a guy educated in antennas would know about horizontal dipoles back in the 70's, its nice you had such a mentor, they are rare on cb radio,
i had a mentor back in the late 70's early 80's that knew far more than i ever will about radio,
i don't know why others get into the antenna threads here but i do it because im interested in some types of antennas.
i don't think a whole lot more has been discovered about the kinds of antennas we use since the 40's eddie so its no shock that a guy educated in antennas would know about horizontal dipoles back in the 70's, its nice you had such a mentor, they are rare on cb radio,
i had a mentor back in the late 70's early 80's that knew far more than i ever will about radio,
i don't know why others get into the antenna threads here but i do it because im interested in some types of antennas.
Bob, like I mentioned to Captain Kilowatt earlier in this thread, I've heard other guys make similar claims to mine...regarding horizontal yagi elements. I guess my ignorance stalled my full understanding, just like Sanders told me back in 1969, "...lession #1, until you are better able to understand what this is all about." I never fully understood until a day or two ago, so I'm blessed.
It is a sad thing that we don't better utilize these Internet tools to better understand our hobby thru better skills at conversation. We humans too often fail to communicate, and instead let our pride and bias get in the way, and we see that happened with me...when I found I didn't explain my point well.
The Captain asked me a simple question, that was very appropriate, and to the point...in light of the fact that I did not tell my story well I went into more misunderstanding mode.
Sorry Captain.
Thank you too Bob.
It is a sad thing that we don't better utilize these Internet tools to better understand our hobby thru better skills at conversation. We humans too often fail to communicate, and instead let our pride and bias get in the way, and we see that happened with me...when I found I didn't explain my point well.
The Captain asked me a simple question, that was very appropriate, and to the point...in light of the fact that I did not tell my story well I went into more misunderstanding mode.
Sorry Captain.
Thank you too Bob.
Last edited: