New thread to debate V-4000

[Marconi]

When you get your way here on WWDX are you then going on eHam and try and do the same if Dale Hunt does not report back what you what to hear?

Where will it stop?

 

[Shockwave]

Direct quote from post 266 in case you missed it:

Since you already recognize I'm going to say his results are inaccurate if they don't match the many other field tests, you might as well recognize why. I don't like the idea of feeding it like a J-Pole or isolating the base of the vertical from DC ground and the cone so he can feed it in a different location directly across the base. Bypassing the shunt fed gamma match in both cases and forcing the only method of tuning for a 50 ohm impedance to become juggling the critical element lengths around. That comes at the expense of gain on the horizon. Notice how using no capacitor in a gamma always makes the Vector design shorter in NEC than in real life? I'd like to see you try and get a .82 wave or 7/8 wave to match in the field without a gamma or with even less loss. I'm against using less than four radials forming the cone to confine the inside current and evenly distribute the outside one. I don't buy the idea that laying the antenna on its side parallel to the ground in a horizontal plane will increase testing accuracy. That's nothing like how we use the antenna and will introduce a different set of ground reflections at both ends of his test link. I don't like the fact he's going to measure field strength across his backyard when we have clearly said the advantage is not all related to more gain but partially related to focusing existing gain on the distant horizon. Should I go on? How many variables do you need before you can validate my doubt? This paragraph is getting long.

Regardless of the results please explain to me how you think anyone with antenna testing knowledge could consider any of this reliable? How you can ignore even one of these variables let alone all of them?

Keep in mind I've already offered him the exact antenna to test at no cost to prevent any of his proposed shortcuts in construction and was turned down. I've also made it clear to him that field strength tests in his backyard were not preferred since we are claiming the biggest improvement is on the distant horizon.

I see some hope with his test since he is considering using a 2 meter repeater as the stable signal source in the distance to test against. You may also notice he is the first to admit understanding a direct connection between my 4 wire phase test and confirming the cone has significant phase corrected radiation?

If the main goal is to determine the antennas performance characteristics, why would you take any shortcuts in the construction of the antenna you are going to test or test it in a manner vastly difference than how it's used in the field? Why wouldn't you take the exact antenna in question for testing and test it in the polarization it was designed to be used in?

You know there is no way to fake antenna performance for the better in the field like you can do with inaccurate models? You can certainly build a prototype wrong and come up with poor results. If you were holding out hope of accuracy, I'm sure most people would agree it would be fair for me to build the antenna being tested by the outside source.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Donald,

Would the vector 4000 be considered as a "good enough" ?
If not..what should one change..

what would be on 27 Mhz "far" in relation to disctance ..

kind regards,

Henry


And for fun :
came across this one:

 

[Marconi]

Donald, you are asking questions of the wrong guy about proper testing routines. I don't have a clue what the understanding between you two was or is. However, at this time I gather there was no agreement on anything...based on your revelations in your post #266 you noted above.

You said in you last post on eHam "...that you had confidence that he would test in an unbiased setting," and I took your word on that based on a little faith you were telling him how you really felt on the matter.

If you have questions now, you need to talk to Dale Hunt, the guy that offered to test your ideas. Personally I don't think you have a thing to worry about regarding his comparing his test antenna on its side...it just takes the height out of the analysis. Now if he just comes back with some words and little to nothing to show us in support...then I'd have questions too.

Donald I think if the guy does the testing, he will do what he can. I base that on my understand that he is a reputable source of ideas and advice over there...and he looks to be well respected. That does not mean, however, that everyone has to agree with what he claims.

Why don't you lighten up a bit, and let's see if he does what he said. You have a lot of confidence in what you have tested...and you feel the ideas are duplicable, or you would not have even talked to him about testing. Donald I have never questioned your testing...I just don't have anything but your word on what you say about Eznec, Sirio and their pattern you posted. A few years ago...our word was all we could do to prove out ideas.

Have you ever considered to duplicate your ideas and document the results say on video if that would serve your purpose? I've done it.

Don't forget you have the word's of Cebik supporting everything you've found in your testing, and you can always remind Dale of that.

BTW, is this man the same man that made comments in Booty Monster's thread about his homemade Vector, on eHam, and did he use to work for Avanti?

I don't want to see anybody loose...I would just like to know the truth...is Eznec junk and is Siro reporting the truth about their antenna gain?

 

[Shockwave]

Donald,

Would the vector 4000 be considered as a "good enough" ?
If not..what should one change..

what would be on 27 Mhz "far" in relation to disctance ..

kind regards,

Henry


And for fun :
came across this one:

You could use a Vector but it gets real difficult when you get to the point of field testing the 4 wire collinear phase test due to size. Since this field test is the only positive proof that every NEC model we have seen so far is inaccurate in terms of constructive wavelength and phase, it shouldn't be skipped.

As to how far to test, I say pick the furthest signal you can find that still remains stable. Going too far often introduces small signal fluctuations due to propagation over the longer path on this band. I'd say at least 20 miles but see the biggest differences in paths over 40 miles.

Keep in mind the 4 wire test is so vastly different than what NEC reports, this part of the test is easy to confirm with just about any signal. The actual gain tests are what should be done further away.

 

[Marconi]

Donald,

Would the vector 4000 be considered as a "good enough" ?
If not..what should one change..

what would be on 27 Mhz "far" in relation to disctance ..

kind regards,

Henry


And for fun :
came across this one:

Henry, can you explain a little about what you see here?

One looks longer than the other. Are the two images of the same antenna?

How do you define imaginary currents?

 

[Shockwave]

Donald, you are asking questions of the wrong guy about proper testing routines. I don't have a clue what the understanding between you two was or is. However, at this time I gather there was no agreement on anything...based on your revelations in your post #266 you noted above.

We have no real understanding between us nor have any revelations taken place. Every one of the variables I mention are right in his posts on that forum. No exchanges took place outside of that forum. I'm just updating people here so they are aware of all the proposed variables in this test you're waiting on someone else to complete.

You said in you last post on eHam "...that you had confidence that he would test in an unbiased setting," and I took your word on that based on a little faith you were telling him how you really felt on the matter.

Wrong, what I said was "I'm beginning to gain confidence in his DESIRE to test the antenna in an unbiased setting." I pointed out my displeasure in the testing methods. You just ignored that part so you could conveniently pass this off here as a very accurate test that should end all controversy.

If you have questions now, you need to talk to Dale Hunt, the guy that offered to test your ideas. Personally I don't think you have a thing to worry about regarding his comparing his test antenna on its side...it just takes the height out of the analysis. Now if he just comes back with some words and little to nothing to show us in support...then I'd have questions too.

I question if you even have Dale as the right guy doing the test. I think you may be confused as Dale is sure it's just a J-Pole and said Herb just made it because it looked cool. These guys have a history of making things they admit they didn't understand and Dale just dismisses the thought he's wrong too. Publicly ,I'll call anyone out who thinks all those variable he's suggested will not skew the results. If he comes back with results that I cannot replicate in the field, he should consider testing my prototypes because they produce repeatable field results I describe and I've already tested what NEC says and found it totally wrong in the field. Covering both sides of the argument rather well.

Donald I think if the guy does the testing, he will do what he can. I base that on my understand that he is a reputable source of ideas and advice over there...and he looks to be well respected. That does not mean, however, that everyone has to agree with what he claims.

Sure Marconi, lets lay the antenna down and distort the normal stacked collinear pattern with respect to the ground reflections. Then take the antenna on the other end of the test link and place it horizontal and pretend that neither one of them will behave any differently then how they do when vertical. Then proceed to ignore the other 5 variables I've taken from his posts. That may work in free space but once you have the ground reflections in the field, things are different between vertical and horizontal.

Why don't you lighten up a bit, and let's see if he does what he said. You have a lot of confidence in what you have tested...and you feel the ideas are duplicable, or you would not have even talked to him about testing. Donald I have never questioned your testing...I just don't have anything but your word on what you say about Eznec, Sirio and their pattern you posted. A few years ago...our word was all we could do to prove out ideas.

I have confidence because I have done what you have not. Consistently repeated the field tests that have me arriving at the conclusion I'm sure of. Not that I feel my results are duplicatable, that I've proved they are many times. You say nothing but my word as you ignore CST, engineers at KOLG, 1200 satisfied customers who never took advantage of their money back guarantee if it didn't work as claimed, FCC and Industry Canada licenses where engineers confirmed ERP and signed their names to the line, the fact that you can't make any collinear model in NEC that works in the field, or anyone's first hand experience shared on this forum.

Have you ever considered to duplicate your ideas and document the results say on video if that would serve your purpose? I've done it.

Yes and the funny thing is I thought about it an hour before you posted this. Thinking nothing would shut you up faster than showing you what works in NEC DOES NOT WORK IN THE FIELD with this antenna. Then I remembered how I froze my ass off this afternoon just changing my air filter on the car. Like I'm going to spend the afternoon filming to convince the doubting Thomas something I already know. Like I should repeat everything I've done many times again because you've earned the effort of that kind of time. Stop relying on others to prove your theories. Do what I did and turn your theories into reality by proving it yourself. Build your 4 wire model in the field and watch everything I said about NEC materialize due to your effort, not mine again.

Don't forget you have the word's of Cebik supporting everything you've found in your testing, and you can always remind Dale of that.

BTW, is this man the same man that made comments in Booty Monster's thread about his homemade Vector, on eHam, and did he use to work for Avanti?

I don't want to see anybody loose...I would just like to know the truth...is Eznec junk and is Siro reporting the truth about their antenna gain?

Take your own advice about not forgetting what Cebik said. I kept it in the back of my mind for months while I thought of and built the prototypes needed to prove the man correct. I think you have Dale and another ham talking about testing confused. Dale already knows it's a 1/2 wave J-Pole. EZNEC is perhaps one of the most useful software modeling tools to enter our hands. I never said it was junk. What I said is it's useless junk when modeling the Vector because no one has been able to build a model in that program that demonstrates the key factors we see in the field.

 

[AudioShockwav]

In an effort to preserve the learning process in the forum, I wonder if a new feature may be in the best interest of the forum. Can we add a feature to dislike someone's post or to lower their reputation so that new people can understand the difference between reputable sources and those who have proven themselves to be consistently unreliable?

We already have that feature here on the forum, click the little heart symbol on the upper right of each post.
Although the software will not limit the posting of an individual that can be done by an Admin.
We have already talked about nosepc, A few of us, myself included, held out hope that he would really learn something.
I for one have been know to give members extra chances here on the forum, I try to " give extra space " to new members, after all the whole point of the forum is to share info, and allow discussion and let everyone learn in the process.
It is real simple to ban someone, one or two clicks and they are gone, but we do not want it to look like if we disagree with someone's opinion they are simply swept under the rug and banned.
There are long time members here that have pushed the limits of debate on the forum to a point where it has raised concern among the Admins, yet are still here because in there own way they still contribute to the forum in some way.

This time it appears I was wrong and nosepc either refuses to learn, or he has another motive.
73
Jeff

 

[The DB]

He is wanting to be able to add negative reputation, the heart only adds positive...

Does the spam icon next to it double as a negative reputation option? I've never clicked that one before.

I'm not against a negative reputation button, but think, at very minimum, it would require admin approval or at least some form of monitoring.

Note, we are far off topic with this here.


The DB

 

[The DB]

There are long time members here that have pushed the limits of debate here on the forum to a point where it has raised concern among the Admins, yet are still here because in there own way they still contribute to the forum in some way.

I put myself in this category and publicly apologize.

I'll be more careful in the future...


The DB

 

[AudioShockwav]

DB, I was not pointing out one person, just saying that we try to be flexable in moderating the forum, and yes we are far off topic.
Back to Antennas.

73
Jeff

 

[AudioShockwav]

He is wanting to be able to add negative reputation, the heart only adds positive...

There should be an option to approve or disapprove of the posting.


73
Jeff

 

[Henry HPSD]

@ Marconi.

The plots are of the same antennas.
It provides currents magnitude and direction.

You are probarbly familiair with reactance (imaginary resistance)
That is similair to the imaginary current.
current can also be provided as : current = 2 + j 0.5 A
You have to think in lines of "vectors".

There where the antenna is resonant there isnt a reactance there is no imaginary current.

hope that helps,

Henry

 

[Shockwave]

Marconi, even though NEC makes mistakes modeling this antenna it is able to spot differences in gain over real earth when an antenna is vertical or horizontal to the ground. That is why a horizontal dipole has more gain than a vertical in the field. No difference at all in free space because the antenna hasn't changed a bit. Just the ground reflections have. The Vector may very well produce more gain when Dennis (not Dale) tests it one wavelength above ground and horizontal as he proposed. I've suspected this possibility all along while I still pointed out I didn't like it.

While I recognize it's likely he will use a dipole also in the horizontal polarization to compare against, the effects the ground reflections will have will NOT be the same. Here is why. The dipole has one 1/2 wavelength radiation current. The Vector has two in phase currents. One is a 1/4 wave and the other is close to a 1/2 wave. Now consider the difference between stacking two of the same antennas one over the other and then side by side. The patterns compress completely different. Side by side gives a narrower pattern while one over the other compresses the pattern on the horizon.

When you take any collinear antenna and lay it horizontal, the pattern is much different than vertical and much different than anything you would get using an antenna that has a single current versus a pair of collinear currents. These differences in the way the pattern is shaped, should NOT be expected to become apparent when the test is conducted across someone's backyard. These changes in the way stacking collinear elements effects the pattern shape are all before you consider the other variable of changes in ground gain in the different polarizations.

 

[Marconi]

Donald I think the post below, that is on eHam, may have been among your first posts on Booty Monster's thread. The point I make here is to help explain who you were talking with back 6 months ago, and who has promised you to do some testing of the claims you made to the group.

Then go to the last post in that thread, where you posted your concerns to WB6BYU...the guy that offered to test. Scroll down to the post below, where WB6BYU posted. Click on his "call." That will open up his profile, and you will see that the guy doing the testing is Dale Hunt, and it was another Dale, W4OP, that use to work for Avanti back in the day.

I was an engineer at Avanti when the Sigma IV design was being built. It's a J pole- nothing more and nothing less. No magic,
Dale W4OP

Dale, I know this is an old thread but I'm hopeful you may see this and have the time to respond. I see that you did indeed work for Avanti and have progressed well beyond that today. I am fascinated by the old Sigma design and currently work with Sirio on the model scaled to the FM broadcast band. I see there are lots of people here that I could learn from including yourself. With that in mind please don't take my questions as offensive or doubting your honesty. The goal is to have a better understanding of how this antenna works since there are such widely different views of how it works or doesn't.

I'm curious as to why your view is not closer to what Herb claims in his patent on the design? I know there are similarities to the J-pole however, this is a Coaxial J-pole that also shares similar characteristics to the Skeleton Sleeve monopole. The key differences here are why L.B. Cebik called it a "non apparent collinear". Just like the 5/8 wave ground plane has the bottom 1/8 wave current inverting, the 3/4 wave would have the bottom 1/4 wave current inverted on the vertical radiator. When you sweep the radials upwards more like the Skeleton Sleeve, you are now confining the out of phase radiation along the lower 1/4 wave section of the vertical radiator so that it is not able to combine with the pattern in the far field.

The currents along the radials of the 5/8 wave are out of phase with those at the base of the vertical radiator. Why is it so hard to think that Herb scored two birds with one stone simply by sweeping those radials upwards on the 3/4 wave? First he used those radials to stop that pesky out of phase base radiation on the vertical that Tom speaks of in the 5/8 wave. By having the radials close to the same vertical axis as the main radiator, he scored his second bird using those currents to form the second current node that reinforces the top 1/2 wave. That makes the company claim that the "entire antenna radiates effectively" plausible and is something that I'm able to prove today. It also falls in line with the brief comments that L.B. was willing to make when he called it the "non apparent collinear".

Master Chief (MC) reported similar ideas that Dale (W4OP) recently reported to us on eHam. MC also claimed, in words, to have spoken directly to Herbert Blaese.

Donald, for us back then it took a measure of faith whether folks believed in what MC claimed and I and others did not believe him. He was a bit brash in his responses to others, and therefore he was sent packing from this forum.

MC was run off, or worse yet banned, because all he had to support his claims were words just like the rest of us. Just like me an you today, he did not have any iron clad evidence for what he claimed, and to believe...it took the faith of others.

MC dared to be on the wrong side of this popular issue for how the S4 works, and years later I'm convinced he was more right on the issue than he was wrong.

One lingering question I have for you Donald. What do you have to support your claim that Avanti folk's did not understand how the S4 worked?