Marconi compares Eznec to AnSOF

[bob85]

I sold my BIG-MAC to a friend about 32 years ago eddie,
if i still had it i would have posted info when i talked about the BIG-MAC.
Its an old design out of production since the 80's'

The Highlander is a different idea not a clone,
I don't have measurements nor would i share them if i did.

You are free to make models of similar looking antennas or come up with your own design, massage the model until you get what you want and post dimensions for people to build Eddie,
If its any good don't be surprised if an ugly english version turns up using your data In their advertising.

 

[Marconi]

Fair enough Bob.

 

[Marconi]

Fair enough Bob.

You know me Bob, and if I feel good enough, I won't leave a discussion with the likes of the simple post above. I have more to say!

You are free to make models of similar looking antennas or come up with your own design, massage the model until you get what you want and post dimensions for people to build Eddie,
If its any good don't be surprised if an ugly english version turns up using your data In their advertising.

If anybody knew what I do and why I do it in modeling, it would be you. I didn't start learning about modeling for the reason you mentioned. So, I'm not concerned with anybody getting and idea from my words or the models I'm able to produce using Eznec or in my Real World work and my Marconi 5x design.

As you know, I primarily started modeling with Eznec because I thought it might help lead me to an answer to your lingering question about how the Sigma 4 antenna works. Secondarily I was curious about your claim...how one could improve the performance of the Sigma 4, by making the 3/4 wave version into a <> 7/8 wavelength antenna. I also wanted to know if the results of such a mode could benefit us in performance to the degree you also claimed when using your Hybrid idea.

Should I be concerned that some ugly English antenna maker would copy my model of the Big Mack antenna? Do you think I should stick my head in the ground over the worry of that...or should I just take the model down? Bob, I'm not worried about any of it.

Apparently, I don't need the dimensions from you or Henry.

Thankfully we finally got the answer to your old question. Henry didn't prove your claim, but his report answered how the Sigma 4 works, and it is not a non-apparent collinear antenna.

Surprisingly, Henry was not overly concerned about folks learning his views and the work he had done to finish that project:

"The Avanti Sigma 4"
A vertical with some collinear gain?
by Henry Poleman 2014
PG0DX 19PA348
​

At least he convinced you and answered your question.

Thanks for responding Bob,

 

[bob85]

Yes Eddie Henry showed that the sigma does outperform a 5/8wave as i claim. It may not be exactly how i imagined.

He explained what we are looking at in Donalds CST model.

Henry also did the lower 1/4wave of the antenna terminated with a dummyload giving a good vswr.

There is very little radiation when terminated with a dummyload as you would expect of a transmissionline terminated with a dummyload regardless of vswr.
what radiation there is would be due to the elements not been parallel.
As you know i wanted to know how much radiation was due to the none parallel setup

In the antenna as in the j-pole the load is not balanced & the vswr on the 1/4wave line is high.

I don't expect you to understand the implications of that but maybe you can figure it out with that fandangled EZNEC software and a virtual ground.

 

[Marconi]

Bob, I'm feeling better.

Sometimes our imaginations can be great, and we often think they are real. Do you still think your idea, that the Sigma 4 is a non-apparent collinear, is a viable device?

Or did you change your mind on that?

I don't recall Henry testing the base of his scaled down Sigma 4 with a dummy load. Did he also write about that in his article?

I recall Henry using a feature in his Eznec Pro 4, that he later warned DB to be careful with unless he first checked his 4Nec2 results. Is this what you are referring too?

 

[bob85]

Read my sig Eddie.
I don't think the cone radiates enough to be classed as a co-linear but it does radiate and its not out of phase like a 5/8wave.

Transmission lines or coax cable does not radiate when terminated with a resistor regardless of vswr unless the conductors are not parallel or not closely spaced relative to wavelength.

The very low radiation in Henrys model is as i would expect.
Its not connected to an unbalanced load so any radiation would be from the conductors not been parallel or the source not been symetrical.

You should read all of Henrys article.
I find it amazing that you have not.

 

[Marconi]

I don't recall Henry testing the base of his scaled down Sigma 4 with a dummy load. Did he also write about that in his article?

I went back and checked Henry's report and found on page 26, in Section #4, where he did create a dummy load of sorts at the top of a Sigma 4 model of the cone, and he posted the results as a MINUS (negative) -28.99 dbi of gain. I guess you were thinking those were pretty good numbers for CB...that somehow justified your non-apparent collinear idea, right?

I just wasn't convinced, I said so, and you guys just went blind to any truth of the matter.

What a deal, you hanging your hat on this claim about the cone producing currents that benefited/created this arguable idea, and all the while, you, Donald, and others were saying all kinds of nasty words to me. You were all claiming Donald's commercial FM antenna was producing <> 5.23 dbi gain, and my puny insignificant little S4 model was only showing about 4.03 dbi and 4.16 dbi for the New Vector...and thus could not be anywhere near correct. Two other points I would argue are the fact that Sirio called their NV4K a coaxial J-Pole, and they showed it with gain of 4.17 dbi. Both were discounted as misunderstanding and ignored by your group. Plus Donald argued that the 4.17 dbi gain was for Sirios Free Space results...and my similar gain for my model was over Real Earth.

At the same time your group of no-J-Pole guys were claiming <>5.23 dbi for any modified versions of the Vector from 28' to 31' feet in length as superior by design.

You guys were just stuck in your egos...and could not see the truth, and that is the long and short of this saga.

You can spew your high tech mombo-jumbo all you want trying to justify your discredited idea here and muddy the waters of our discussion...but the fact is Bob...YOU GUYS WERE ALL WRONG FROM THE GET-GO, AND YOU WERE LISTENING TO THE WRONG GUY...JUST BECAUSE HE WAS SAYING WHAT YOU WANTED TO HEAR.

I have more to say about Henry and me too, but I promised him I would not disclose what was going on between us during all ya'ls off-forum discussions...trying to settle the matter over how the Sigma 4 works and convince Donald of the truth. he he

 

[Marconi]

Read my sig Eddie.
I don't think the cone radiates enough to be classed as a co-linear but it does radiate and its not out of phase like a 5/8wave.

Yes Bob, I'm well aware of your claims. The fact is however, that was your thinking after you saw the light of truth, not before. I don't remember how many times I told you guys the cone was heavy in currents, but that 99% of those currents were opposite as to the phase and nearly equal in magnitude...thus they cancelled out. Not being perfectly parallel is just another meaningless argument in this case, because the results are still similar.

This idea works out to be very much like coaxial theory predicts and I made that claim too, many time. I further stated, but no one listened, saying any currents left over after cancellation would be radiated no mater how small the magnitude. I also said the effect can vary as to advantage (- +) depending on the environment and construction and is not categorically always in phase as you note.

One way this time and the other way the next...applies here.

I disagreed with Henry's assessment on the entirety of page #27, that the very small currents flowing on the cone is what gives the S4 its small advantage in gain. IMO, the advantage it likely RF from the supporting mast below the antenna that is in phase with the top 1/2 wave radiating element. Those currents I can prove are much stronger than the currents Henry talked about on page #26, as coming from the cone.

There is not much current on my model below, but check it out and you might see the red line for currents on the mast...where I have currents turned on for the model. The highlighted segment #74 is at the middle of the 144 segment mast included in this model and you will notice the maximum current of 0.20724 (a) which is 1/5 of an ampere...many time greater than the puny little current Henry raved about in his cone model with no radiator and some dummy loads.

Don't be surprised though, these currents have always been on my models.

Maybe you just didn't look at them with an open mind, before you saw the light of truth.

Click on the currents to expand the view and you will see the maximum currents on the mast that are in phase with the top radiator. This tells us the old story of a guy that called Solarcon complaining he had currents on his mast...the tech told him those currents help the antenna not hurt it.

Bob, If there is such an effect on the 1/2 wave radiator which Henry explains makes for more current and gain, then which makes more sense, Solarcon being right about the mast doing its thing or Henry almost infinitesimal amount of current making the difference?

Click on the image to expand it and look for the maximum in phase currents...that is highlighted. This might to simple for you to understand Bob, but segment #74 is approximately the middle of the 144 segment mast.



For the uninitiated in the high science of antenna theory...this simply means...WHATEVER THE RESULTS IN THE CURRENTS FRON THE CONE WERE/ARE...IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THE MAGNITUDE IS SO INSIGNIFICATE IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO MEARURE.

Transmission lines or coax cable does not radiate when terminated with a resistor regardless of vswr unless the conductors are not parallel or not closely spaced relative to wavelength.

Yes and again...little differences IN...means little differences OUT.

The very low radiation in Henrys model is as i would expect. Its not connected to an unbalanced load so any radiation would be from the conductors not been parallel or the source not been symmetrical.

To be honest, I have a model just like Henry posted and long before he did his work in this matter. I could only tell the cone was again producing very little net currents and to be insignificant. NET means what is left over.........

Bob you heard me talk about such things, but it did not agree with your thinking...thus you ignored the message, SIMPLE.

You should read all of Henrys article. I find it amazing that you have not.

I'm not perfect yet, and my memory fails me ever once in a while. What is your excuse for missing the truth of this issue for so long? I at least returned and posted that I was in error...more that your ego will ever let you do.

Below is the rest of my Vector model with a gamma matching device included. I expand and exaggerated the currents a bit in order to see them better. All current in red on the same side of the image are in phase.








This model is a work in progress and the more it was tweaked the better the results got. That did not mean however that the gain was always increasing. Bad model produce bad results...and that does not always mean performance shows to be better.

Sorry Bob, if any of the trends using Eznec goes over your head at times.

 

[The DB]

You guys were just stuck in your egos...and could not see the truth, and that is the long and short of this saga.

You can spew your high tech mombo-jumbo all you want trying to justify your discredited idea here and muddy the waters of our discussion...but the fact is Bob...YOU GUYS WERE ALL WRONG FROM THE GET-GO, AND YOU WERE LISTENING TO THE WRONG GUY...JUST BECAUSE HE WAS SAYING WHAT YOU WANTED TO HEAR.

Maybe you just didn't look at them with an open mind, before you saw the light of truth.

What is your excuse for missing the truth of this issue for so long?

Aren't you being a bit hard on Bob over something that has been resolved a while ago? What did he do to get this kind of treatment all of a sudden? He is a good guy, he deserves better, doesn't he?


The DB

 

[bob85]

Eddie.
my ego is in good order. Read my signature its been up for a long while.
and my numerous posts saying im always willing to learn if somebody posts something that males sense.

You are starting your repetative senile old man with too much lip routine again.
Im thinking somebody may have injected your insulin with an old gramaphone needle.
I don't care how ill you are. there is no excuse for been a bellend. Be civil or fuck off.

Is there any wonder you are left out of antenna discussions.

Thanks for responding.

 

[Marconi]

Yea probably DB.

Nobody supported me when I was getting the where-what-for over the several years we debated these ideas. I was called all sorts of things. I felt like a lone voice in the wilderness.

Were you asking the group the same question when I was on the receiving end of their sometimes hateful words to me? You were there, but I don't think you stood up and asked them a similar question, right?

None of us deserved what we all got in that battle of ideas.

I just feel good, at least, that I was on the right side of the issue. In spite of my old age and ignorance, I guess I was just lucky, right?

Maybe I too said some things I should not have said, but the group did the same for sure and after a point...it was a constant drum beat and a few others chimed in too, some who were down-right nasty in their comments.

At some point Henry had the balls to asked me to not post anymore, because he said I was creating bad vibes...stating my opinions to the group. He was having a real hard time convincing Donald for sure and if you look back you will see how nasty it was for Henry too.

Maybe you should ask him what I told him in response, but he won't respond. He is delicate and above the personal fray it seems. I'm just an average Joe...and I don't care about the feelings of others anymore. I do try and be civil if I'm treated respectfully though.

I knew Donald would be adamant in the error of his ways...and that is exactly the way it turned out. Apparently, he could not separate the success of his professional antenna design from that of the Sigma 4, and he viewed my comments as being destructive to that end. I never talked about his Dominator, but he sure did, and it was not me that created problems for that idea either.

Personalities should have never entered into those discussions, but it did and nobody cared, so neither do I.

I thought Bob and I were friends for a long time after we met here on the WWDX, and I use to dream of getting some results he use to tell me about with his Vector Hybrid. I had an Antenna Specialists original Sigma 4, but I was never able to see the kind of results that Bob told me about. I tested several summers, trying to get that monster to work 90 miles to the Gulf Coast, while nobody around me could do the same...but it just never happened for me.

I took up the challenge to start working with Eznec hoping to somehow prove what Bob was telling me, but that too just never happened, and after a while of my not showing any good results, I began to question what I had heard...and here we are.

DB, I wouldn't let this thread bother you too much. Bob is a smart man, and I would never ask him to give up on his dream. I'm a bit over 200 miles from San Antonio and I use to talk to guys down there of a morning, day after day after day for several summers and I was not by myself in those cases.

The difference is I don't think my Starduster mounted 60' feet in the clear...was what made those contacts happen. I use to talk regular to Galveston 65 miles away, and Freeport 70+ miles away. I have dreams too, and the only difference is I have Eznec models that tend to support much of what I claim. And if my model does not support what I claim...then I might just be inclined to change my mind, and that is what I did Bob. he he

 

[The DB]

I was in this discussion, although not from the beginning. I wasn't a member of this forum yet in the beginning.

I to learned modeling, at least in part because of this ongoing discussion, although I learned it with very different preconceptions than you. Our goals with modeling are, and always have been, very different.

I was in that "private conversation". I remember it well. Bob had an idea and asked me about it, and his timing was perfect because I had a similar idea that I had just started a model for. Donald was added later as I wanted more input when making said model. Henry was added even after that, although didn't contribute much. The whole point of that conversation was to ensure that I was duplicating their ideas. All I was doing was testing their idea of there being different currents on the inside and outside of the basket area radials, and it worked beautifully, just like they said it would.

Somewhere along the line I think Donald talked about it on an open forum, unfortunately, I was still playing with the model and wasn't ready for an open forum discussion. Because of this it was brought out incomplete, and you proceeded to trash it with bs arguments that often had no truth to them, for example, the bogus claim the it was mounted over a perfect ground. Honestly, the difficulties between us all started right with that model. I've seen a side of you that I didn't like, and that was the first time that I nearly put you on ignore permanently. You didn't even have the decency to try and understand what it was I was saying about the model, although this was secondary to the flat out lies that you made about it along the way. I get that it was likely the biggest and possibly strongest challenge to your stance on the Vector antenna up to that point, at least in your eyes, after all, here was a model that did exactly what they said it should do. You lashed out like you were backed in a corner. Still, weather it was an accurate reproduction of the Vector design or not (I never said that it was), it is a very interesting model. There are things happening with this model that I have not seen in any other model out there, and I have said as much and was promptly ignored.

• After adjusting for converting it to aluminum it is the closest model I have seen to the actual size of the Vector antennas, from the vertical element length, the radial element lengths, down to the mounting tube length below the antenna itself, an odd coincidence at worst.
• It is also the only model I have ever made that 4Nec2 shows a significant amount of "Imaginary Currents", something I would like to learn more about but haven't been able to find anything on anywhere. The closest analog I can think of is what we see is with the R and X variables when tuning an antenna as the R is real and the X is imaginary.
• It showed that it might possible to build an antenna within these size constraints that has noticeably more gain than another antenna of similar length.
• I can go one here, however, I am not interested in discussing this antenna in an open forum at the moment, I am just using it as an example here.

You may see yourself as ultimately having won the argument, however your mind was just as if not more closed, than Donald's. Who was it that more often than not brought out some piece of evidence for discussion? It was Bob. Bob was a man actively searching for an answer, I would hardly call that a symptom of being close-minded.

I, personally, think the frustrations of the Vector debate should be left in the past where they belong. In my opinion, talking to Bob as you did in those two posts I quoted about a topic that has been "settled" says more about you than it does about him. Whatever it is that brought this side of you out I think you should rethink, you guys are no longer in said "us vs them" situation, and there is no need to bring that destructive scenario back now.


The DB