Marconi was wrong about how the Sigma 4 works.

[Marconi]

DB, I have to agree with you now, the model does show to be over real ground, and thus my claim that your model was incorrect is wrong. Good work DB, I think this answers the questions about the S4 design that Donald and Bob have been claiming for a long time

I took a chance on what I though you might have done, and I obviously thought wrong, and in the course of this debate...I said some bad things about my friends.

My apologizes for questioning your work DB.

I am now convinced that you guys solved the mystery about the S4 design, and it does look to have currents on the added wire that would added gain due to CMC...just like Donald has been telling us, and Bob told us about a long time ago.

I also agree that Eznec may not be able to generate a model that shows us what 4Nec2 clearly does. I banked my whole conclusion about an error on the fact that I felt confident that DB had the environmental ground type set on Perfect and not Real ground.

Sorry guys, Old Grampa was wrong.

 

[Shockwave]

Since you have retracted this post, I thought it would be helpful to review how many times your "opinion" has changed over the years. Long ago you appeared to agree with FreeCell that the antenna was more than a 1/2 wave. Then you viewed the inaccurate EZNEC software that changed your opinion. Then DB did experiments that allowed EZNEC to show CMC on the cone where you changed your opinion. Then Henry made some comments that caused you to change your opinion again.

What's really nice is not having to update ones own opinions based on the work of others. To be able to analyze your own theories and prove them in the field is what provides me with the unshakable information I provide in contrast to your opinions. You mistake my being certain as me being biased because you cannot accept the reality that I've proven your opinion inaccurate. More important is the fact you have been provided with the information on the 4 wire test to prove this to yourself so that you might learn something too.

Each time you're tempted to repost the 1/2 wave J-Pole lie, remember that 4 wire test you think I need someone to do for me as if I haven't confirmed it myself many times prior to reporting it. Remember you're unable to perform or describe any field test to support your false opinion. Never forget in order to prop up your "opinion" you have to ignore everything from Cebik's "non apparent collinear" comments through CST, and the 4 wire test. Don't you find it ironic that you're asking all of us to take your inexperienced opinion over that of Cebik or is that why you need us all to think he was incapacitated and unable to think clearly when he offered this valid opinion?

 

[Shockwave]

Rather than just tell us you changed your mind or opinion multiple times, why don't you share with us exactly the reasons the mind changes so much? What could cause you to finally see how CMC travels over the top edge of the cone and back down the outside? Better than that, we would all like to know what caused the constructive current you saw on the outside of the cone to simply disappear now? When you get that sorted out you could touch up on your explanation of that 1/2 wave current on the 1/4 wave cone. If you've come up with another "opinion" on that current being formed any other way than with TWO CURRENTS, these are the things we want to know. This is what could transform your views from erratic to sensible if only you could do it.

PS: You'll find the mind changes less when the foundation you place it on is stronger than unfounded opinion.

 

[Marconi]

Since you have retracted this post, I thought it would be helpful to review how many times your "opinion" has changed over the years. Long ago you appeared to agree with FreeCell that the antenna was more than a 1/2 wave. Then you viewed the inaccurate EZNEC software that changed your opinion. Then DB did experiments that allowed EZNEC to show CMC on the cone where you changed your opinion. Then Henry made some comments that caused you to change your opinion again.

Yep Donald, at some point I disagreed with FreeCell, and I've told this forum how, when, and why.

I've also told this forum that I use to agree with Bob.

When you first came on the forum, I agreed with you. If back then I would have disagreed with any of you, I would have argued my case. That wasn't the case, so I made no arguments at that time.

What's really nice is not having to update ones own opinions based on the work of others. To be able to analyze your own theories and prove them in the field is what provides me with the unshakable information I provide in contrast to your opinions. You mistake my being certain as me being biased because you cannot accept the reality that I've proven your opinion inaccurate. More important is the fact you have been provided with the information on the 4 wire test to prove this to yourself so that you might learn something too.

You have told us about your testing and I have discussed this idea with you too, albeit was obviously not productive.

Each time you're tempted to repost the 1/2 wave J-Pole lie, remember that 4 wire test you think I need someone to do for me as if I haven't confirmed it myself many times prior to reporting it. Remember you're unable to perform or describe any field test to support your false opinion. Never forget in order to prop up your "opinion" you have to ignore everything from Cebik's "non apparent collinear" comments through CST, and the 4 wire test. Don't you find it ironic that you're asking all of us to take your inexperienced opinion over that of Cebik or is that why you need us all to think he was incapacitated and unable to think clearly when he offered this valid opinion?

Donald, why don't you try and argue the evidence that I have posted where I try to support some of the stuff I do claim. Or, better still why don't you post some of the stuff you did with your 4 wire test, so I can attempt to consider and understand more precisely what you did, and then we could have some back and froth discussion trying to better understand our differences.

A while back I did start an email conversation with you on Eznec and currents...even thought I felt at the time...you were talking about one thing, and I was talking about another. I still have those emails.

Don't you think if we did this rather than throwing daggers at each other, our discussions would be more interesting?

Sometimes I ask Bob to give me his point of view on some topic he has raised, so that I can specifically check the link he provides and we could talk. For sure sometimes we have done this, and had a nice discussion. Wouldn't that be more interesting than our just blasting each other with accusations Donald?

I'm game.

 

[Shockwave]

Marconi, I have described the 4 wire test in great detail many times. The issue is you would rather hold on to your opinion rather than do any of legwork required to learn anything. Do you deny I have explained how to add the 4 wires? Do you deny I have provided a drawing of the 4 wires to add to any EZNEC Sigma model including the ones you work with now? Or discussion in this area is not productive because you refuse to take my word for the tests performed and are unable to apply the proven concept to any of your own field tests. Each time you repost empty opinions which contradict proven facts, you should expect the type of rebuttal you have been receiving. Your words accuse me of being dishonest because I have not shared opinion, I've shared the facts I've found in the field and you deny them with nothing to support your implication. That places us in on unfriendly ground because you doubt my honesty just like you do with Sirio when you pester them or Bob when you question his conversations with Cebik.

 

[Marconi]

Donald, we make our claims, and they are what they are. Then we take our chances hoping we can prove something if asked. If we have no proof some still believe and some do not.

Fair or not Donald, I accept that is the way the World works.

 

[Marconi]

Marconi, I have described the 4 wire test in great detail many times. The issue is you would rather hold on to your opinion rather than do any of legwork required to learn anything. Do you deny I have explained how to add the 4 wires? Do you deny I have provided a drawing of the 4 wires to add to any EZNEC Sigma model including the ones you work with now?

Donald, I did my model for your idea based on what I thought you described. I asked you if you had an Eznec model, and IMO my asking set the bad tone for any cooperation in such a project. You claimed that Eznec could not model this stacked idea. If that was the case then I figured you had a model, so when I asked you refused to send it, and that surprised me a little. If you remember all that went on back then in this regard, then you will likely know what happened. I do not have any desire to go back to that fruitless effort, or try and get up to speed on that project.

Donald, you may have posted an image, but I don't remember any drawing that you posted. What I do remember is, I modeled two S4's attached together at the tips. That alone might suggest exactly what I was thinking regarding your idea, and it is obvious I got it wrong. That is why I asked you for your models.

I also posted my results and I hope you remember what that was, because I won't be going back to try and recall what happened that was to no avail.

Or discussion in this area is not productive because you refuse to take my word for the tests performed and are unable to apply the proven concept to any of your own field tests.

Guys make claims all the time. If I can ask questions and get some exhibits of the work or results...I figure I may be able to understand and explain if the information is right or not. Then I can state my agreement or argue my objections. You just don't work that way Donald. That is OK, but for me that is not very convincing.

Each time you repost empty opinions which contradict proven facts, you should expect the type of rebuttal you have been receiving.

If we lived in a world like you just suggested...this would be a really boring World, and I'm not too sure what or how we would learn.

Your words accuse me of being dishonest because I have not shared opinion, I've shared the facts I've found in the field and you deny them with nothing to support your implication.

That places us in on unfriendly ground because you doubt my honesty just like you do with Sirio when you pester them or Bob when you question his conversations with Cebik.

What else Donald, your last two claims are just argumentative slap trap. It's like telling me to shut up.

 

[Marconi]

Marconi recants the admission made in the first post of this thread.

Respectively, DB never supported his claim that his Vector 4000 model showing the higher gain he reported early on...when he posted his overlay pattern image of his Vector vs. a 1/2 wave.

I took all the added wires off of his modified Vector model to see for myself what his starting model reported for gain, and it reported about the same gain as my Vector model even though his model did not have dimensions even close to what the antenna should have. The radiator was close to a full wavelength long, like Henry reported, and his radials were less than 90" long for 1/4 wave radials in the CB band.

I was banking on DB to have made a 4Nec2 model of a NV4K that showed gain like Sirio reports for their antenna on their Website...and that did not happen and he has refused to publish any added details for his model where he claimed to show a little <>6.00 dbi gain.

I'm back and continuing with my quest to try and figure out how the S4 design really works...and without using mysticism, or smoke and mirrors.

 

[Marconi]

Below is my Eznec model of DB's Vector without the wires he added trying to prove that the radials had CMC's flowing on them.

This ill-fated idea came from DB, Donald, and Bob discussing an article on adding feed lines to Eznec...that I posted from the Eznec Manual. They completely misconstrued what the instructions that Roy Lewallen provided, on the subject for the feed line feature in Eznec, and what it really meant.

This feed line feature was never intended to have wires added directly to the antenna radiating elements. This feature is a feed line coax thing, if one does not let their imagination run away with just words. These guys were on some ill-fated enterprize...where they all had some common belief they were on to something new. DB tells us about all the off line conversations between them in this or another thread on the S4 design.

I asked DB for more details on his Vector model, the one he started with. The one he also reported early on, an overlay he posted of his unmodified Vector compared to a 1/2 wave, just like I described above in my recant statement.

Maybe DB never intended for his project to turn out the way it did, based on his original idea...which might have had some merit. But, we just can't violate the common sense rules of Eznec, 4Nec2, or any program, and then expect anything reliable to be reported out...garbage in garbage out.

I have a few notes on the following Eznec models. I imported the model by hand for DB's only model he posted in this discussion. I never ask him for his modified model, I wanted the model he started with...which is represented in the 2nd attached model below. I acknowledge that I also scaled the model to 27 mhz leaving all the dimensions he posted the same. I then changed the units to feet from mm, which for some strange reason he had his model set, but telling me the numbers his model showed is his wire descriptions were actually measured in meters. This took a lot of figuring and DB refused to answer questions from me at some point.

This does get complicated, trying to explain, and it will be hard to understand, but IMO DB' modified model tells us nothing about how the cone works...much less help us understand how the S4 design works.

The 1st model below is the model that DB posted...where I had to fix things to make the model work. I imported his wire definitions by hand. In order to get his model to work even close to being correct...I had to change the important wire diameters he used from .0001 m, to .50" inch. Most might agree that a .50" inch is close to a bare minimum for real antennas that use aluminum tubing in the real world or with modeling. The diameter he used is way too small even for wire antennas, and its use will generally not produce good results in modeling at these wavelengths.

DB this antenna model is for a radio antenna not a precision watch.

The second model is the actual model he posted without my fix.

The 2nd model is before I changed the wire diameter.

See these models below.

 

[The DB]

Why oh why am I letting myself get dragged back into this...Some facts need to be pointed out, and some discussion points made...

Below is my Eznec model of DB's Vector without the wires he added trying to prove that the radials had CMC's flowing on them.

You simply removed some of the wires? Really? Those wires were part of what made the model work, simply removing them will only break the model, nothing more. There is nothing to be shown by doing so.

This ill-fated idea came from DB, Donald, and Bob discussing an article on adding feed lines to Eznec...that I posted from the Eznec Manual. They completely misconstrued what the instructions that Roy Lewallen provided, on the subject for the feed line feature in Eznec, and what it really meant.

This feed line feature was never intended to have wires added directly to the antenna radiating elements. This feature is a feed line coax thing, if one does not let their imagination run away with just words. These guys were on some ill-fated enterprize...where they all had some common belief they were on to something new. DB tells us about all the off line conversations between them in this or another thread on the S4 design.

This is not true. The model came to be before said discussion ever happened. Actually, if you take a look at the date on picture of the initial plot that I posted, you will see the initial model was completed before that discussion ever happened.

Also, just because that statement was made, that does not invalidate the use of additional wires to simulate common mode currents on that design. You have not, anywhere, explained why such common mode currents cannot exist on this antenna design.

Still further, no one has demonstrated to any degree that that idea is "ill fated".

I asked DB for more details on his Vector model, the one he started with. The one he also reported early on, an overlay he posted of his unmodified Vector compared to a 1/2 wave, just like I described above in my recant statement.

Yes you did ask for info on a model that I started with. I have news for you, I built that model from the ground up for the purpose of testing the common mode currents theory. There is no original Vector model to show you as none exists. Also, the very first one I started with no longer exists. You cannot simply remove a few wires on my posted models to get anywhere close as everything has changed during the process of working with the model, that includes the length and angle of the radial wires, both inner and outer. Any attempt to get to get to an equivalent Vector model without said wires is pointless and irrelevant. You are essentially putting garbage into your modeling software, and you know what the output from such input will be, you mentioned it below.

Maybe DB never intended for his project to turn out the way it did, based on his original idea...which might have had some merit. But, we just can't violate the common sense rules of Eznec, 4Nec2, or any program, and then expect anything reliable to be reported out...garbage in garbage out.

You need to explain how the data that I put in was garbage. You also need to explain what common sense rules were violated. I need more than an opinion here, so links to sources will be required if you want me to pay any attention to what you have to say.

I didn't come up with the idea out of thin air, it was based on accepted antenna theory that is right out of the ARRL Antenna Book, among other places. This data has been provided to you and referenced by Bob85 on any number of occasions.

I have a few notes on the following Eznec models. I imported the model by hand for DB's only model he posted in this discussion. I never ask him for his modified model, I wanted the model he started with...which is represented in the 2nd attached model below. I acknowledge that I also scaled the model to 27 mhz leaving all the dimensions he posted the same. I then changed the units to feet from mm, which for some strange reason he had his model set, but telling me the numbers his model showed is his wire descriptions were actually measured in meters. This took a lot of figuring and DB refused to answer questions from me at some point.

One model I posted? The fact is I posted two... Have you not seen the second one, which was modified for aluminum, and posted with a plot, current table, and phase data? All of this data are in the same post, although the gain data is inaccurate, but then you are a modeler, I'm sure you can figure that out and why, and what it should be...

So you did adjust for size good, you did something right... Why did you need to adjust for size, why not simply use the frequency that the model was designed for, less chance of errors and easier to accomplish.

Also, why is it strange that I choose to use meters to design my models? I can use either system equally, and I personally think that meters is easier for me to make models with. That is my opinion based on first hand experience, and if you think that is something strange then I could just as easily ask why someone would use the imperial system to design their antennas over metric... In the end such things are pointless and distracting, nothing more.

This does get complicated, trying to explain, and it will be hard to understand, but IMO DB' modified model tells us nothing about how the cone works...much less help us understand how the S4 design works.

Really... Have you not seen the several anomalies I noticed in both models, some of them I posted in said thread. You never talked or even mentioned any of them. There are other anomalies as well, but by then it was pointless continuing the discussion. Perhaps I'll revisit the model at some point, but I doubt I'll make any findings public. And, en the end, even if the model is shown to be completely irrelevant to the Vector design, the model is still relevant if only because of the anomalies I noticed. There is an avenue to me to learn more about NEC2 modeling, and perhaps antenna theory itself.

Also, I think I've shown actual evidence of something that Bob85 mentioned several times, of course, you categorically disagree with that theory of his, even though it is published in one of the most reputable source books on antenna theory in the history of the theory...

The 1st model below is the model that DB posted...where I had to fix things to make the model work. I imported his wire definitions by hand. In order to get his model to work even close to being correct...I had to change the important wire diameters he used from .0001 m, to .50" inch. Most might agree that a .50" inch is close to a bare minimum for real antennas that use aluminum tubing in the real world or with modeling. The diameter he used is way too small even for wire antennas, and its use will generally not produce good results in modeling at these wavelengths.

DB this antenna model is for a radio antenna not a precision watch.

The second model is the actual model he posted without my fix.

The 2nd model is before I changed the wire diameter.

See these models below.

I was not trying to build an antenna from the model or I would have used thicker elements. This, however, does not invalidate the model, it simply would need to be adjusted for the thicker elements, that is all. To say anything else shows, with all due respect, a distinct lack of understanding of antenna theory.

You choose to use a different diameter simply, well, because you wanted to? And it wasn't even close to the original? Did you make any further adjustments to account for this discrepancy you introduced into the model? Actually, don't answer that, I can already tell you the answer to that is no, if you did you would have noticed at least two of the anomalies I noticed when it comes to adjusting the dimensions of the model.

A note about your .pdf file. You note an error message. Did you ignore me addressing the error message that came up, and explain it on more than one occasion? I talked about the error message, and and how small the differences were from a version of the model that didn't have it. I also clearly pointed out, on more than one occasion, that the error message itself was in error. To say the elements have unequal segmentation when the wires in question were exactly the same length and had exactly the same number of segments? Also, if you bothered to take a look at the second model I posted, the one that was modified for being aluminum, the error message was corrected and no longer exists.

In conclusion, I need more than your opinion on why this idea is an:

ill-fated idea

You have put forth opinion as fact on this matter, now you need to back it up. Again, I need reputable sources, and words from you simply do not count as such. I'm sorry but your reputation proceeds you.

And finally, Eddie, did you really think I was going to lie down and let you trash my work with nothing more than an ill-informed opinion that you spout as absolute fact? The fact is I left the discussion because of you Eddie. And it wasn't your criticism that caused it. It was saying things were wrong before you had anything to go on, asking questions that if you bothered to read what I have posted you would not have had, and other crap like that, and that isn't a complete list. Now I find myself having to defend myself against you and an opinion spouted as fact? You claim you want to know how this antenna works, and that is fine, but you will NEVER get there by doing crap like that.


The DB

 

[Marconi]

Why oh why am I letting myself get dragged back into this...Some facts need to be pointed out, and some discussion points made...

DB, when I posted my "I was wrong" post I was willing to take a break from the discussion too, because I had confidence that you may have tripped onto something with 4Nec2 that could model the S4 and show the gain...Donald and Sirio have claimed. Later I also felt that I was seemingly dragged back into the discussion too. I posted the same to Bob earlier.

I too had the feeling some facts needed to be pointed out, but you see where that got me, and you said you would stand down for a while maybe. I took that to mean...maybe until I shut up. That didn't happen either.

Disagreeing is one thing, but IMO nothing is ever settled when folks stop talking or start fighting. I also consider a sensible argument is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, and to sensibly argue is the best method of settling differences.

It is also possible that you had something entirely different on your mind at the time and took my questions as being a distraction. I mentioned that in my previous remarks also.

You simply removed some of the wires? Really? Those wires were part of what made the model work, simply removing them will only break the model, nothing more. There is nothing to be shown by doing so.

My only purpose in removing the wires was to try and see what you started with that gave you the nice gain that you reported when you posted your overlay of your Vector and a 1/2 wave compared.

I understand now that you were doing and thinking something different. I talked about my earlier confusion on this score earlier on, but you missed it or disregarded my point just like you've disregarded or missed some of my earlier questions.

You made claims, I wanted to talk about it, and you did not want to be questioned. Maybe you did have your reasons, but I did not understand your reasons at the time. A few days later when our discussion sort of blew up, I was surprise when you even talked about my not understanding what you were up too. I recall that I did not realize what you were doing even then. Why would I ask questions if I fully understood you DB? I still don't think you made yourself totally clear at the time. What I've learned since is where I started to pick up the pieces.

Regarding you last comment about breaking the model. You no doubt have something on your mind, but I do not fully understand it at all to date. Earlier I told you why I removed the wires you add to the radials. Again, right or wrong, I was thinking that behind your modification model was the Vector model you started with...and in my thinking I was hoping to see your original Vector...where you showed us all early on...the overlay where you compared a 1/2 wave vs. your Vector, nothing more I promise.

As a matter of fact, I did not ask you for your modified model where you posted the wire descriptions on page 10. I figured you would tell us about what you found in due time. I might have gotten your idea all wrong, but I was just looking for your model that showed the nice gain, and I referred to it as the "Vector you started with," and that is all.

This is not true. The model came to be before said discussion ever happened. Actually, if you take a look at the date on picture of the initial plot that I posted, you will see the initial model was completed before that discussion ever happened.

I think I've already explained that this idea was your idea before you talked to anybody. We talked about your project when I complained about some model that had 500 segments for very short wires. Now, I assume you were doing the models you posted on page 10 & 13, back then, or at least were considering the idea. I think a check of the dates you suggest might also support my recollection here too, and I was aware of both models. However, I had no clue what they both were all about. You did later talk about the model on page 13, but even then I missed your specific point.

DB, I had two rapid fire type conversations going on at the same time, and I ask you to consider that I missed some of you points in your remarks from the beginning of your thread. I saw the overlay and was thinking, boy howdy maybe DB can help me to get my Eznec model to do the same, and show the nice gain you reported. However, the more I said...it seemed the more agitated you got, and that really did surprise me, because I did not understand why.

Also, just because that statement was made, that does not invalidate the use of additional wires to simulate common mode currents on that design. You have not, anywhere, explained why such common mode currents cannot exist on this antenna design.

Still further, no one has demonstrated to any degree that that idea is "ill fated".

Again, I am still trying to peace this all together, to see where I might have gotten off on the wrong foot. Some of this, I admit, was my frustration due to misunderstanding your earlier comments. Is this a fair statement of my admission on this particular point?

Yes you did ask for info on a model that I started with. I have news for you, I built that model from the ground up for the purpose of testing the common mode currents theory.

There is no original Vector model to show you as none exists.

Also, the very first one I started with no longer exists. You cannot simply remove a few wires on my posted models to get anywhere close as everything has changed during the process of working with the model, that includes the length and angle of the radial wires, both inner and outer. Any attempt to get to get to an equivalent Vector model without said wires is pointless and irrelevant. You are essentially putting garbage into your modeling software, and you know what the output from such input will be, you mentioned it below.

DB, at that point only Henry was able to open up your text file. To me that was not the point of my confusion. You never spoke about the model with the 500 segments per wire or why you did it that way. Only after I was able to open your file in Eznec, is when I cautioned you that might be ill-advise...and I guess that might have set us off on the wrong foot.

DB, if you never had a Vector model and/or it no longer exists, then what was the model that generated the overlay model you posted earlier showing the Vector compared to a 1/2 wave with a nice gain over 6 dbi?

You need to explain how the data that I put in was garbage. You also need to explain what common sense rules were violated. I need more than an opinion here, so links to sources will be required if you want me to pay any attention to what you have to say.

Well, Henry reported that your model was nearly a full wavelength long and had short radials as I recall, and that was well before I saw it for the first time.

When I saw the model you posted on page 10, after I put it into Eznec it was much later. For a week I asked Henry how he imported your model. I tried but I could not get my Eznec to import the model correctly. However, when I finaly did get it entered by hand, I noted that you set the frequency for your model at 30mhz, and that makes the full length of 31+ feet even more out of whack at 30mhz. I was really confused by then, and that is when I went back and started rereading your thread.

I was thinking you would be doing a model close to CB not 30mhz. It might not matter what band is used being that close together, but IMO this area of the forum is considering 27mhz ideas and CB antennas. That is the section at least.

It is also fine to model in mm/meters, but I don't "think" in meters, sorry. So, I changed your model to the units and frequency that I'm familiar with. These are the common sense ideas I was referring too. So DB, I won't be giving you links to that support some idea that you have, unless I have a lot more understanding for what you have in mind. This why I was asking you questions...don't you understand this by now.

I never gave the idea what you are thinking about a second thought...I did not know what it was, and you did not tell us as best I recall. I figured you would tell us sooner or later...if you had a mind to do so.

You don't seem to me to pay much attention to what I say anyway.

I didn't come up with the idea out of thin air, it was based on accepted antenna theory that is right out of the ARRL Antenna Book, among other places. This data has been provided to you and referenced by Bob85 on any number of occasions.

Yep, and again you sound much like Bob here. Giving us your ideas that you claim or in accepted antenna theory and books, and expect us to find exactly what you are thinking in what is sometimes pages of material is not realistic.That would be hard to do even if my crystal ball was not broken. Bob does this at times, but I also understand how this can happen...I sometimes do the same, take folks understand of what I'm talking about for granted

DB, I could be wrong, but I believe we cannot push Eznec models beyond their limitations, and I think that is what you are doing here...expecting us to believe anything that reports out of such a model that you yourself claim is not a Vector and not even close.

You also claim that the setting the model is set to at this time provided you a very narrow range of in dimensions...or else the model will fail. If you read your 4Nec2 manual I'm pretty sure you will see some words that caution against that sort of approach in modeling. My Eznec manual shows such warnings, and more.

One model I posted? The fact is I posted two... Have you not seen the second one, which was modified for aluminum, and posted with a plot, current table, and phase data? All of this data are in the same post, although the gain data is inaccurate, but then you are a modeler, I'm sure you can figure that out and why, and what it should be...

So you did adjust for size good, you did something right... Why did you need to adjust for size, why not simply use the frequency that the model was designed for, less chance of errors and easier to accomplish.

Also, why is it strange that I choose to use meters to design my models? I can use either system equally, and I personally think that meters is easier for me to make models with. That is my opinion based on first hand experience, and if you think that is something strange then I could just as easily ask why someone would use the imperial system to design their antennas over metric... In the end such things are pointless and distracting, nothing more.

 

[Marconi]

DB, continued from post above. There is a 15,000 word limit on posts.

I saw the two models, and I talked to you about them.

There you go again expecting me to read you mind based on little to no details about your models. I could probably bring up a hand full of examples that I thought might fit your ideas, and you would just shoot them all down...whether I was right or not.

You guys seen ti love making your own claims and then stand behind some reference, rather than shoot straight and plead you own case while siting your referance understanding line by line or topic by topic.

I have no problem with you using meters to build your models, some like it and some don't. Why do you use 30 mhz in the models on a CB topic in the forum? IMO, these guys are mostly CB'rs, and they might know and understand some CB dimensions like 36' is the length for CB wavelength, and a 1/4 wave, an so on. I think it is more informative in the CB section if we set our examples to CB antennas that are relative to these guys use.

Again, I can also accept the guys from overseas using meters...I can always convert their work...and I don't bitch or make an issue about that. You are an American that just happens to like using meters, and that too is alright...I just wondered why.

A more important question you could answer for me is why did you set the model you posted to mm when the numbers you had in your wire definitions were in meters for you model? Was that just your way of causing somebody to jump thru you hoops a little, namely me since I was the only one asking you questions and concerning modeling? No need to answer DB, I get it.

I explained why I changed the frequency already. Are you trying to suggest to these guys on the forum...that changing the frequency to CB has corrupted what I see with your model...the one that I imported by hand into Eznec?

I know that you did not read every thing I said with full understanding either DB...just like I admit I did in reading your stuff at first. I blew thru that stuff looking for a link to your model, again that would show me the nice gain you reported. And you never did produce but the pattern image claiming you Vector showed 6.00 dbi+.

I've already tried to explain what and why I made some changes to the your model. When I fist opened it, I saw what looked like your 2nd model I posted above.

When I saw the material diameter was set at .0001 mm, I was surprised. Why did you do make this setting almost so small that you can't see it in real life? What is the point? Do you have a factual link that explains this approach in modeling in detail?Don't bother here either...I would not understand.

When I changed this one setting to .50" inches the model showed much better results that were fairly close to my own Vector model in a flash. I referred to it as an error earlier, and that is what it was. Does this fact of another big error in modeling surprise you? Try it yourself...you will see. I acknowledge that you were not intending for the model to be a real Vector...I just reported what I saw in you model when I finally was able to view it and check out the performance issues, match, and currents.

Really... Have you not seen the several anomalies I noticed in both models, some of them I posted in said thread. You never talked or even mentioned any of them. There are other anomalies as well, but by then it was pointless continuing the discussion. Perhaps I'll revisit the model at some point, but I doubt I'll make any findings public. And, en the end, even if the model is shown to be completely irrelevant to the Vector design, the model is still relevant if only because of the anomalies I noticed. There is an avenue to me to learn more about NEC2 modeling, and perhaps antenna theory itself.

When I went back and looked at your model I was still wondering why anybody would do a model to try and prove something about an antenna that:
1. did not even look like the antenna in question.
2. did not have the dimensions of the antenna.
3. did not produce any performance results anywhere near to the antenna.
4. had dimensional values noted in meter, while the model units were in mm.
5. why anybody would just add wires to radials and expect that to prove anything.

There are others, but I was amazed that your model did not look to have any redeeming values for gain, match, SWR, was too long for CB and way too long for 30mhz. I was just stumped. Again I did not understand a thing about your idea in the beginning...I was looking for something else and I just looked right over what you were trying to describe at that point.

I've told you I missed some of you points in the beginning, but by the time I realized what you meant at first...you were already pissed. I understand what happens after that, this is partly why I decided to step aside for a bit...I said I was likely becoming just a distraction. However, that was based primarily on you providing me more details on your model that you posted in your overlay image. I was of the opinion that there were two models, one your Vector that show a nice gain, and your modified model with added wires you posted with wire definitions on pages 10 & 13.

Also, I think I've shown actual evidence of something that Bob85 mentioned several times, of course, you categorically disagree with that theory of his, even though it is published in one of the most reputable source books on antenna theory in the history of the theory...

DB, I don't think anybody reading this, including me, will be able to know exactly what this statement means or not. Again you sound like Bob. Can you be a little more specific? I or no one else is going to read 5 or a 100 page article trying to pick out what is on your mind unless you present something new that you just think you buddies might be interested in reading.

I was not trying to build an antenna from the model or I would have used thicker elements. This, however, does not invalidate the model, it simply would need to be adjusted for the thicker elements, that is all. To say anything else shows, with all due respect, a distinct lack of understanding of antenna theory.

I'm sure one day you will tell us exactly what you really mean, with due respect or not.

You choose to use a different diameter simply, well, because you wanted to? And it wasn't even close to the original? Did you make any further adjustments to account for this discrepancy you introduced into the model? Actually, don't answer that, I can already tell you the answer to that is no, if you did you would have noticed at least two of the anomalies I noticed when it comes to adjusting the dimensions of the model.

I won't DB.

A note about your .pdf file. You note an error message. Did you ignore me addressing the error message that came up, and explain it on more than one occasion? I talked about the error message, and and how small the differences were from a version of the model that didn't have it. I also clearly pointed out, on more than one occasion, that the error message itself was in error. To say the elements have unequal segmentation when the wires in question were exactly the same length and had exactly the same number of segments? Also, if you bothered to take a look at the second model I posted, the one that was modified for being aluminum, the error message was corrected and no longer exists.

In conclusion, I need more than your opinion on why this idea is an:

No, I just mentioned the error message I was getting in passing...it was a simple none- event type of error. It was about segments being too short. It was a segment error message and that does not stop the model from scanning.

I also did not bother to try and diagnose the problem and fix it. As soon as I fixed the model to 27 mhz and set to units correctly...the model was fine. Did you enjoy doing that little trick to the model before you posted it, or did something else happen beyond your control that caused that little anomaly? You don't have to answer this either.

You have put forth opinion as fact on this matter, now you need to back it up. Again, I need reputable sources, and words from you simply do not count as such. I'm sorry but your reputation proceeds you.

I don't have to back up anything. I have posted everything I know how, trying to get my point of view across. Apparently that is to no avail as far as you three guys are concerned, because IMO you twist my words. You don't talk about anything I post...you just tend to criticize me personally when you read some of my words or see that I have posted and attachment.

And finally, Eddie, did you really think I was going to lie down and let you trash my work with nothing more than an ill-informed opinion that you spout as absolute fact? The fact is I left the discussion because of you Eddie. And it wasn't your criticism that caused it. It was saying things were wrong before you had anything to go on, asking questions that if you bothered to read what I have posted you would not have had, and other crap like that, and that isn't a complete list. Now I find myself having to defend myself against you and an opinion spouted as fact? You claim you want to know how this antenna works, and that is fine, but you will NEVER get there by doing crap like that.

The DB

No DB, I was disappointed in the fact that you backed out of you promise to try and produce a 4Nec2 model that might show us the reported gain that you, Donald, and Sirio have published.

I thought it was because I made some requests of more details and that is why you said you were going to quit, but now I know it was because I raised questions. That is why I think you quit.

You will have to show me one thing where I've claimed is a fact.

 

[The DB]

I got to your second post in that long two post message and began to wonder why I'm bothering with all of this. I then deleted the message I was typing.

It isn't worth the effort discussing this with you, especially when you claimed I am something that you have demonstrated applies far more to you than me.

I tried to test a theory, that is all. That is one of four, yes four, workable and unique theories that I have that might explain how this antenna works. Two of them are talked about on some level in that thread the model was brought up in, yet I am limiting myself? Really? With all due respect, I have searched and considered far more when it comes to the antenna in question than you have. I have also done my best to work around known limitations in the NEC2 software as best as I can, something you refuse to even try.

You limit yourself to much. You throw out other possibilities that don't match your idea of how things are far to easily. Other plausible possibilities are out there, and some of them are right in front of you. I guess it is easier to put yourself in a box than seeking understanding. You do one while claiming to do the other.

I suggest, if you really want to contribute to understanding this antenna, that you start growing you knowledge of antenna theory. Your posts show that you don't have the depth you need to understand what others are talking about when it comes to this antenna.

I mentioned above that I have four different theories of how this antenna works, I can tell you not only what makes those theories work, but their limitations as well. If you want me to continue discussion of this antenna with you on any level, you need to show that you can do the same with your theory. Why is it plausible, and what are its limitations? Yes, your theory has its limitations, do you even know what those limitations are? If you can name at least one critical flaw with your theory, and their are more than that, I will consider discussing this antenna with you in the future.

The key word here, is consider.


The DB

 

[Marconi]

DB, I plan to cut back on my responses, like I said in my previous post, but to answer your question. I would never ask you to discuss the limitations in your theory. I might question your application, understanding, evidence, links, or your words, but I would not ask you to discuss the limitations in your own theory. If there are limitations in my theory, then it is fair for others to bring that out.

If I choose to be cautious with my words I might concede to something that I'm not sure about, but I won't be destroying my own opinion or ideas...even when asked. I won't fall for that.

If I'm asked a question that causes me to pause in my thinking, then you can jump on that, and hold me to it.

Fair enough.

 

[The DB]

We have completely different thought processes here. I don't mind discussing the limits to any of my theories. I have no problems exploring those limits. To truly know something is to know all aspects about that something, including its limits. If you don't know the limits of a theory, how can you grow the theory, and make it more accurate, or complete? How can you prove it?

The discussion of a limit to me is just as relevant as the discussion of the strong points, if not more so. In the grand scheme of things I don't see a difference. An advance in either direction is an advance.

To take ownership of a theory and consider only that, you limit yourself, you essentially put yourself in a box. The only things that go in the box with you are the things that make sense in light of your theory. Anything else, no matter how relevant, or anything that might be a flaw with your theory, never makes it in the box.

I was seeing if you had the ability to examine your own thoughts and acknowledge the limits of those thoughts. You failed without even trying.


The DB