New thread to debate V-4000

[Marconi]

Hey Jeff, who will be in charge of making the decisions who is right and who is wrong...if the issue is a matter of personal opinion or an idea?

 

[HomerBB]

Marconi, at the risk of making you angry with me, I will return what you've just said to Shockwave to you. You've no evidence for your doubts except models that do not reflect the experience of a handful of folks here on the forum who've bought or built these antennas, not to mention those many who use Shockwave's antennas daily.

I personally disbelieve the materials you bring to the forum. Your materials disagree with field results, therefore I accept the prevailing interpretation of those results where this antenna is concerned, which is that EzNEC is unable to model this antenna properly.

Insisting that EzNEC is not flawed offers but one other reason the models fail - unskilled practitioners. Which is it?

When I consider those who support this antenna I find their arguments go beyond models, both those of NEC and CST to that of support of their claims by results in the field. This includes me in my limited way.

Agree if you must with whom you will, however, at this point, you have a weak body of evidence to support your argument.

I know the differences I experienced consistently with each of the antenna types I have used here, and I stand by the fact that my experience with the Vector as matched by that of others, and explained by CST, trumps that of any contrary argument.

"A man with an experience is never the servant of another with an argument" - Unknown

 

[HomerBB]

Hey Jeff, who will be in charge of making the decisions who is right and who is wrong...if the issue is a matter of personal opinion or an idea?

I believe that person is my wife . . .

 

[AudioShockwav]

Hey Jeff, who will be in charge of making the decisions who is right and who is wrong...if the issue is a matter of personal opinion or an idea?

The Final decision about a users status belongs To Mole, it is his forum, and he has worked hard for it to be what it is today.
The other Admins work together to deal with day to day moderating of the forum as needed.

Eddie, you are still here my old friend, so I doubt that you feel that the Administration here is so overbearing it cripples anyone being allowed to speak their mind within reason.
This topic is a good example, it has gone on for years now with so many different opinions expressed I can not count them all.

I hope that answers your question.

73
Jeff

 

[Shockwave]

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.



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?

Not sure why you take this position Marconi. You deny there is key proof today. CST is proof for those too lazy to make accurate field tests and my 4 wire collinear phase test for those demanding proof in the field, with enough knowledge to understand the difference between a 180 degree phase shift that fails in the field and a 90 degree that works in the field.

If you read the entire thread on the other forum you would have the answer to your lingering question. Dale from Avanti said in a one line post it was nothing more than a 1/2 wave J-pole. When questioned further he said Herb made it because it looked cool. What do you think he is going to say when the other Dale doing the test can't get the 180 degree phase shift EZNEC suggests to work in the field no matter what he does?

 

[Shockwave]

You did leave all the good replies (Avanti) Dale made in response to those questions out. Why? Could it be because of the answers he gave? When you saw Herbs signature on the Avanti patent that speaks of INCREASED GAIN by manipulating the angle of the upswept radials, what did that make you think?

Do you know that 1/4 wave matching sections like those found on J-Poles can't ADD GAIN? You can only add gain in an omni by compressing the pattern on the horizon. The only way to do that in a 3/4 wave antenna is if the 1/4 wave cone contributes a significant in phase current. Do you think Herb committed perjury on a federal PTO document by claiming gain from the shape of the cones angle and signing it?

Then we have Dale who worked for the company claim it was just a 1/2 wave even though he must know the patent history and the box it shipped in ALWAYS said the entire antenna radiates. How is it possible to have such different views within the very company that invented it? Then they publish in a magazine they don't know how the Astroplane and Astrobeam they made works.

 

[Marconi]

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.

Dale talked about the possibility that someone might not be happy when all is said and done. I'm sure he has gone through such testing before and knows the score.

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.

No comment...your statement is what it is.

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.

I addressed this confusion issue about who is who in a previous post to you Donald, and I just think if you checked it out, you will see that you had the names confused, and you suggested that it was me that was confused.

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.

IMO, it is your right to object and to uphold your opinions and ideas and I will defend you right to do so. I hope there is no group determination going on over there on eHam...that will ever stymie you from proceeding in your arguments.

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.

I cannot judge the issues you raise here concerning a collinear antenna laid horizontal. I have read accounts that professional antenna testing on professional test ranges sometimes use a method of testing which includes a carousel to rotate the antenna under test as it lays horizontal with the purpose in mind to remove antenna height from the variables.

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.

This all should give you confidence that Dale should be able to prove your results...or else he is not competent.

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.

You may be right, and I would welcome anything you have in support of that testing. How about you asking Sirio for a word on the test gains they report that I think may be gain over real Earth and not in free space. They did not answer my simple question.

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.

I base what I see in my Eznec models and that is what I've said and what I presented in support of what I see. Unlike you, I tend not to rely on others to prove ideas to me, but I do try and listen and understand. You can't name one that I rely on to prove my theories...again just words. The only time I talk about your testing is when I might try and answer a question, just like I did when I was trying to better understand your idea of a 4 wire collinear S4 with a 1/2 wave above.

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 recall that you've told us earlier, that you built your prototypes some 13 years ago or more, and now you make the claim above. Seems to me that the Cebik story only popped up when Bob posted that he contacted Cebik in late 2007 or the spring of 2008, as best I recall. The time of such events that you relate do not jive. I think you were just mistaken, I do it too.

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.

I addressed who is confused about the names here earlier, but that is not the point. Donald you have made a lot of claims about Eznec, but the jest of your comments are always that it does not work, and if you are right I will agree that Eznec does not work as intended and would be glad to know the truth.

Here again you claim that this Eznec problem issue only applies when modeling the S4/Vector design and it always fails. It also fails when modeling your collinear S4 idea with a shorted 1/2 stub feeding a 1/2 wave radiator above it.

I present the following information as proof <gotproof>.

My Eznec does not report free space gains anywhere near the free space gains reported by Sirio for any of the following antennas and maybe more in the amateur antennas:

3.65 dbi gain for the 827
3.45 dbi gain for the 2000 series
3.35 dbi gain for the New Tornado 27

Are 5/8 wave antennas also working as collinear antennas that prevents Eznec from modeling them with such high gains in free space too?

How do you explain that? I can't.

 

[Marconi]

The Final decision about a users status belongs To Mole, it is his forum, and he has worked hard for it to be what it is today.
The other Admins work together to deal with day to day moderating of the forum as needed.

Eddie, you are still here my old friend, so I doubt that you feel that the Administration here is so overbearing it cripples anyone being allowed to speak their mind within reason.
This topic is a good example, it has gone on for years now with so many different opinions expressed I can not count them all.

I hope that answers your question.

73
Jeff

Jeff that was a rhetorical remark I made, but the idea is important to what could follow. I caution we getting into picking winner's and loser's when folks are at the very least civil to others. Beyond civil disagreement, do what the rules indicate.

For a while now I have been out there by myself on this issue, and it doesn't please many I suspect. I think that is because most do not know or understand much about modeling, and we hear a lot about limitations and such...and that has the potential to become the excuse. Sometimes even the idea is poisoned in controversy.

I would prefer to have folks to talk with about modeling...even it they disagree. IMO, discussion is the only way to ever make for better understanding.

 

[Shockwave]

Dale talked about the possibility that someone might not be happy when all is said and done. I'm sure he has gone through such testing before and knows the score.



No comment...your statement is what it is.

Yes, my statement is quite different in that I was talking about his desire assuming he is going to follow through. What I said to him about some of his proposed testing methods outlined in post 266, clearly showed my lack of confidence in the methods. See the difference yet?

I addressed this confusion issue about who is who in a previous post to you Donald, and I just think if you checked it out, you will see that you had the names confused, and you suggested that it was me that was confused.

Point made. I thought I looked up the guy doing the test and found his name to be Dennis. If I'm wrong, no big deal. I'll trust you that they both share the same name.

IMO, it is your right to object and to uphold your opinions and ideas and I will defend you right to do so. I hope there is no group determination going on over there on eHam...that will ever stymie you from proceeding in your arguments.

As you say, "relax". I was not suggesting anyone stymie you. You do contribute here even though it is not in the area of the Sigma at the moment. If it were up to me, I would not ban you. On the other hand, NoSee would be different. I'd have temporarily suspended his posting at this point. Based on the fact he's contributed nothing but controversy and silly cartoons.

Now, if I were on any forum making claims the administrators disagreed with, WITHOUT the CST model backing every word Cebik and myself claimed or could not offer a method of testing the NEC models to be wrong in the field with the 4 wire phase test, I'd treat me the same way if I took it as far as NoSee but not to the point where you have yet. That's just "IMO".

I cannot judge the issues you raise here concerning a collinear antenna laid horizontal. I have read accounts that professional antenna testing on professional test ranges sometimes use a method of testing which includes a carousel to rotate the antenna under test as it lays horizontal with the purpose in mind to remove antenna height from the variables.

If you can't judge the polarity issue, can you judge any of the other 5 or 6 variables I point out in post 266? If you can't judge any of them doesn't that suggest your opinion may be unfounded or in need of more research here? The collinear tests you refer to would only be conducted horizontally if the antennas contained equal portions of equally spaced in phase sections. When the sections are 1/4 wave and 1/2 wave, they are not balanced and produce results that can skew the pattern to one side when the ground reflection is not placed under the vertical Sigma.

Forget about tip height already too will ya? The difference in 2.5 feet out of a 1000 foot tower height could never mean squat in my applications. You probably see such a difference because you always have another antenna close to the same center of radiation height and within the near field during your SSB "field tests".

This all should give you confidence that Dale should be able to prove your results...or else he is not competent.

I have confidence in my methods of testing and the backing of CST. I have a lack of confidence in Dales proposed test methods for the 5 or 6 reasons I summarized in post 266 from his posts in the other forum. Please go back to post 266 or the other forum and tell us why we can ignore all those variables?

You may be right, and I would welcome anything you have in support of that testing. How about you asking Sirio for a word on the test gains they report that I think may be gain over real Earth and not in free space. They did not answer my simple question.

It sure feels like you ignore everything you've been presented with that supports my findings and still suggest they are mere opinion like your own. Did it occur to you that Sirio may be "sick" too? Sick and tired of your speculative and suspicious attitude where you often question thier honesty as much as the specs? The answers you ask for are provided on their website if you'd just look and stop implying people are misleading you. Check out the specifications for the CX series on the Sirio site. The other Coaxial J-Pole that they provide you with what could only be a free space pattern and 2 dbd specs on.

I base what I see in my Eznec models and that is what I've said and what I presented in support of what I see. Unlike you, I tend not to rely on others to prove ideas to me, but I do try and listen and understand. You can't name one that I rely on to prove my theories...again just words. The only time I talk about your testing is when I might try and answer a question, just like I did when I was trying to better understand your idea of a 4 wire collinear S4 with a 1/2 wave above.

Strange how you can almost run down a list of all the flaws or indicators of being wrong and never even realize it. You base your ideas on flawed software. You can't rely on the support of others because no reputable sources exist for your opinions, unlike me. I can rely on several sources that confirm my findings and have turned them into more than words, unlike you. The better question should be why can't you name a single reliable source sharing your opinion?

I recall that you've told us earlier, that you built your prototypes some 13 years ago or more, and now you make the claim above. Seems to me that the Cebik story only popped up when Bob posted that he contacted Cebik in late 2007 or the spring of 2008, as best I recall. The time of such events that you relate do not jive. I think you were just mistaken, I do it too.

Now I think I finally understand this latest example where you imply "story telling" rather than becoming informed about the facts you misunderstood. My claims are regularly consistent and you may notice I've not had to eat too many of my words out here and never due to dishonesty or with the duration of fight you put into it. The first prototypes like the copper one pictured earlier were done in 1996. They were simply scaled down models of the Sigma for the FM band long before I understood how it really worked and could file patents on collinear versions.

I've told you many times that my discovery that EZNEC failed here resulted from prototypes I built just a few years ago to test the EZNEC results I used to file patents on. I told you I filed them during the winter when I could not field test and only had what I once believed to be accurate models built in EZNEC. That's when I got a little pist off with Roy's program and told him about the inconsistencies found. He suggested I could not determine the difference in length between a 1/4 wave 180 degree shorted phasing stub and one half its length even with the exact measurements provided from his program.

I addressed who is confused about the names here earlier, but that is not the point. Donald you have made a lot of claims about Eznec, but the jest of your comments are always that it does not work, and if you are right I will agree that Eznec does not work as intended and would be glad to know the truth.

You addressed something not so significant in this debate. Can address something more substantial like the way I can prove NEC is wrong in the field in the 4 wire test that's very different in the field than in NEC? You ask for proof, I place it in your hand and you drop it. If you want to know the truth, you'll have to build the collinear antenna you modeled and be stunned when it won't work worth a damn. Only because you believe nothing and no one when they don't agree with your opinions. That's why I say they are not "humble" at all. They are reckless.

Here again you claim that this Eznec problem issue only applies when modeling the S4/Vector design and it always fails. It also fails when modeling your collinear S4 idea with a shorted 1/2 stub feeding a 1/2 wave radiator above it.

Because I only care about accuracy, lets get this right. NEC ALWAYS fails because it needs a 1/4 wave shorted phasing stub that provides a 180 degree phase shift just like other 1/2 wave antennas. The proof is that field tested prototypes (second generation) do not function and require the phase shift to be cut in half to a 1/8 wavelength shorted stub that provides a 90 degree phase shift.

I present the following information as proof <gotproof>.

My Eznec does not report free space gains anywhere near the free space gains reported by Sirio for any of the following antennas and maybe more in the amateur antennas:

3.65 dbi gain for the 827
3.45 dbi gain for the 2000 series
3.35 dbi gain for the New Tornado 27

Are 5/8 wave antennas also working as collinear antennas that prevents Eznec from modeling them with such high gains in free space too?

How do you explain that? I can't.

LOL, No. 5/8 waves are not collinears although they do have more than one radiation current. Problem is that's out of phase at the bottom 1/8 wave. That can be manipulated by the amount of out of phase radiation length being limited to the point where it can form a narrower main lobe but that creates a null that can be problematic. The main beam may also not be on the horizon if the radial system is weak and can't pull the angle down. They are not specifying where that gain is in terms of angle like they do on the CX or dipole antennas because of those variables associated with the 5/8 wave.

Look at those dipoles and their free space plots on their commercial grade antennas. Notice how they include more details like the free space radiation plot, TOA and beamwidth. Showing 0 dbd (2.15 dbi) at 0 degrees? Dipoles only have 0 dbd before any ground gain is added in and that's only absent in free space.

 

[Shockwave]

Jeff that was a rhetorical remark I made, but the idea is important to what could follow. I caution we getting into picking winner's and loser's when folks are at the very least civil to others. Beyond civil disagreement, do what the rules indicate.

For a while now I have been out there by myself on this issue, and it doesn't please many I suspect. I think that is because most do not know or understand much about modeling, and we hear a lot about limitations and such...and that has the potential to become the excuse. Sometimes even the idea is poisoned in controversy.

I would prefer to have folks to talk with about modeling...even it they disagree. IMO, discussion is the only way to ever make for better understanding.

For a while now, the issue has been people refuse to believe NEC fails to get this antenna right. Those who believe NEC have also failed to do anything to confirm their beliefs in the field like figuring out the antennas constructive wavelength so you can add another collinear top section. Combine this with a healthy dose of denial and you have the perfect recipe for endless pages of meaningless debate.

If you have so much faith in your modeling why not build that collinear you have got working in NEC? Why won't you trust the best modeling tool over the economical one? You disagree with the best models or field tests and treasure the worse in support of an opinion that has already been proven wrong on several different playing fields. That's where one begins to cross the line in acting inappropriate.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Where can i find the dimension/diameters u use shockwave ?
A technical drawing or anything in that direction...
If not online..could you send it to me ?

Thanks, H.

 

[Shockwave]

Hello Henry,

I need a little more info about the specific antenna you are talking about. Are you talking about the scaled down FM version of the Vector? Are you asking about the Collinear model that works in NEC but not in the field? Are you asking about the collinear model that does work in the field and not in NEC? Some of these dimensions I'm not comfortable posting but if you give me your word you will not use the information to manufacture a similar antenna, I will provide the answers to any of these questions in an email to you.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Shockwave,

U have my word of course, i will not use your data for any commercial activities.
You know me by now .
If i wanted to copy things i would have bougth one. But thats not my "style".

But certainly know how you feel, speaking from experience.....it is irritating to see "work" copied
Without providing credit in any form.

I dont want to put u in a lot of effort.
But all three would be appriciated.

Kind regards,

Henry

edit:
Thinking of it, thank you that my word is good enough for you...that is considered as a great compliment.

 

[Shockwave]

Henry, please allow me a few days to dig the actual prototypes out of the storage unit to take the required measurements. Thanksgiving holiday is Thursday and I have to fill several orders before I can take free time. I'll also attempt to send photographs of the constructed antennas so you can see the differences in the phase shift sections that worked in the field and the ones that failed.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Thanks Donald !

No need to hurry,
Take ur time.

Kind regards,

H