New thread to debate V-4000

[Shockwave]

This is the Sirio GainMaster Antenna . She has no opposite phase currents. Tne Vector 4000 have powerfuls opposites currents. If you follow the green color seen is the complete phase inversion and zero irradiation of the antenna, you will see that this antenna radiates it completely. This field does not exist in the GM The CST model of a SIRIO VECTOR 4000 antenna diplay this in slow motion in the following animation.. Not see the who will not see There are more individual images ..time during which the antenna irradiation is auto canceled Of course I see what you not see, but you confuse half-wave irradiation with the cone.Both are outdated and not in phase as you say. See that cone leaves a green color that is the variation of field AND PHASE CHANGE. Therefore, the cone is in antiphase(yellow & blues colors) with the rest of the antenna. In any case the emission of the cone gives loss to the antenna. In this picture, we see that the phases are perfectly changed inside and at the bottom of the cone, a part is blue, the other yellow, or that are not in phase if they were on stage. the red color would be the left side and blue on the right, however are extrapolated, with an inverted phase of 180 degrees, so if there is emission is 180 degrees out of phase, which makes NEGATIVE if so be collinear, and in phase, CST modeling both colors would be on the same side. see you the opposite and destructive courrents?? Or you are blinded?? This courrents are inexitent in animation of CST Gainmaster antenna. Justlooking at the colors on the display doesn't tell you everything because it is near-field field intensity, and doesn't necessarily correspond with far-field radiation."When the mast and feedline is included in the model, the "Dominator" falls apart. The exception to this is if we add a groundplane at the junction of the cone and the mast and coax. Many antennas get modeled without proper representation of feedlines." - W8JI. - "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 -

Once again I'll ask you to look at the image that represents the maximum radiation currents and pay lesser attention to the weaker currents during the expanding and collapsing portions of the sinewave. Granted the cheap modeling software you play with does not generate a model for you to visualize any of these principles. At the same time, you must recognize that the gain figures it produces are taken when the source is generating peak current into the load and NOT at weaker points in the sinewave before the field has fully expanded. Do you understand this concept?

While I do respect W8JI as a wealth of information, L.B.Cebik devoted his life to the field of antenna design and helping others to understand it. Did you forget I acknowledge significant CMC currents exist and have been used in a way you do not understand to increase gain in a collinear fashion? Unfortunately Tom has not seen this design modeled in CST and appears to be lacking first hand experience working with it in the field. While you're J-Pole tunes much easier once you decouple the coax from the antenna, try it on the Vector and it has virtually no effect on the match and the signal will go down by the same undetectable amount.

The vast majority of CMC has already been radiated from the four 1/4 wavelength upward radials. That allows radiation from them to combine in the same axis as the longer vertical above it. As far as the "design falling apart when you add a mast and coax", CST and most people with first hand experience disagree. Refer back to the CST model below and pay particular attention to the very small currents on the short mast below the cone. The little current that is flowing on this mast (or coax) just happens to be the same color and phase as everything else on the antenna that is allowed to radiate.

Since you like quoting one of the very few errors I've seen Tom make, why not be the one to help out and draw his attention to the new evidence on this site? You claim to be here to help, now you have your chance to show something other than words. I'm confident he has the background and education needed to understand my collinear experiments prove L.B. Cebik's "Non apparent collinear antenna" comment was dead on target years before CST was available to prove him correct.

With respect to W4OP, he did not work on the Sigma IV project in any way. He was mostly involved with the mobile antennas Avanti made and clearly had no idea what Herb was working on with the Sigma IV. You'll also notice members of the forum you are quoting from promised to follow up on the evidence I've provided there too and nothing to prove the "non apparent collinear" explanation wrong has been produced yet. You cannot prove the impossible no matter how much time you are given.

 

[bob85]

nosee
your + & - signs show radiation from the upper 1/2wave is in phase with the radiation from the outside of the radial sleeve, thats easy enough to understand,

how did you slow the velocity factor of the antenna to allow 1.5 wavelengths of signwave to flow on 7/8wave of antenna,
are you using both tesla's longitudinal waves ( 3.14159265359 / 2 x velocity of light ) and hertzian waves ( velocity of light x velocity factor ) in your models ?

 

[Shockwave]

nosee
your + & - signs show radiation from the upper 1/2wave is in phase with the radiation from the outside of the radial sleeve, thats easy enough to understand,

how did you slow the velocity factor of the antenna to allow 1.5 wavelengths of signwave to flow on 7/8wave of antenna,
are you using both tesla's longitudinal waves ( 3.14159265359 / 2 x velocity of light ) and hertzian waves ( velocity of light x velocity factor ) in your models ?

Bob, you bring up some good points because there are over 100 frames in the video that CST produces to display the near field throughout one complete RF cycle. The image NoSee posted is indeed from the CST model. Some very interesting things are taking place along the main radiator before the source reaches the amplitude required to fully form the two independent radiation currents. If we slow down this CST video frame by frame we can see how the two currents seem to interact with each other in an almost magnetic way for lack of better terms.

After watching this video frame by frame for a few hours when it was first given to me, I began to wonder if the two independent currents could have other effects on one another. Understanding that the length of the cones radials also effect the phase delay feeding the upper collinear radiator had me thinking about beam tilt in my field. I see evidence that our modifications of extending the radials while maintaining close to the 7/8 wavelength have indeed given us that slight downward beam tilt. If it were a pair of stacked dipoles needing downward beam tilt, we would create the same effect by adding phase delay feeding the upper bay. Same principle, different design.

 

[bob85]

shockwave,
years ago when the i-10k vs vector argument started i used to think that manipulating the sleeve and monopole length was likely making small changes in phase between the radiation from the sleeve and the monopole that effected the radiation angle for the same reason downtilt or uptilt can be created with stacked dipoles,

i have since read material that has caused me to question my original ideas,

nosee must be on an acid trip if he believes those 1.5 signwaves he added to his psychedelic edit of your cst model are real.

 

[Shockwave]

shockwave,
years ago when the i-10k vs vector argument started i used to think that manipulating the sleeve and monopole length was likely making small changes in phase between the radiation from the sleeve and the monopole that effected the radiation angle for the same reason downtilt or uptilt can be created with stacked dipoles,

i have since read material that has caused me to question my original ideas,

nosee must be on an acid trip if he believes those 1.5 signwaves he added to his psychedelic edit of your cst model are real.

Now you have me curious Bob. What information did you read that would change your thoughts about beam tilt considering we both arrived at the same conclusion? I've tried to find reasons why it couldn't be the case but see nothing yet. Wouldn't lengthening the coaxial cone delay the phase feeding the upper collinear section with respect to the source and outside cone radiation? Any info you can share on this would be much appreciated.

 

[nosepc]

Once again I'll ask you to look at the image that represents the maximum radiation currents and pay lesser attention to the weaker currents during the expanding and collapsing portions of the sinewave. Granted the cheap modeling software you play with does not generate a model for you to visualize any of these principles. At the same time, you must recognize that the gain figures it produces are taken when the source is generating peak current into the load and NOT at weaker points in the sinewave before the field has fully expanded. Do you understand this concept?

As it happens in animation is that "smaller streams" remain much longer than older, which degrade the apparent gain of the antenna, ie that these currents Pull destroy the myth of "constructive irradiation" it's just tiny time.

CST also shows a number of diagrams, spreadsheets and leaves on gain, radiation fields, etc., which are part of the calculations made.

Why not publish them? They would give more accurate information about the properties of CST to model antennas, because if you only serves to make animations, it is easier to use Windows Moviemaker.

Greetings

Ernesto CX2GK

 

[bob85]

im not saying it can't im just not as confident now as i was back then on what was going on when i made adjustments,
my opinion on how well they perform vs everything apart from a big-mac has not changed,

its so long ago i don't remember the site where they talked about beam tilt and the posts were lost when wwrf made its first server swap,
cebik's "some j-pole that i have known" is one that made me go huh that's not what i expected,
it does not worry me too much since i know he did not think it was a simple j-pole,

one day i hope to test my antenna against a big-mac,
i know my big- mac had an advantage over the sigma4 in calm weather but so does the tuned vector,
what i would like to know is how it compares to a conventional 5/8 over 1/4wave co-linear of about the same length,
i have a feeling it will fall between sigma4 and big-mac,

somebody like nosee will tell us the big-mac lower 1/4wave cannot radiate because of the skeleton around it.

 

[Shockwave]

As it happens in animation is that "smaller streams" remain much longer than older, which degrade the apparent gain of the antenna, ie that these currents Pull destroy the myth of "constructive irradiation" it's just tiny time.

CST also shows a number of diagrams, spreadsheets and leaves on gain, radiation fields, etc., which are part of the calculations made.

Why not publish them? They would give more accurate information about the properties of CST to model antennas, because if you only serves to make animations, it is easier to use Windows Moviemaker.

Greetings

Ernesto CX2GK

As it happens nothing you have said can explain away the two separate and in phase radiation currents CST displayed. Now you resort to claiming I put together over 100 frames of a cartoon in "Movie Maker" in an attempt to hide something from you. I don't need to hide anything from you because you can't see a thing in the first place. Wouldn't you assume it would be much easier for a deceptive person to doctor up the text in a PDF file rather than make 100 sequential images?

Until you can provide CST evidence that suggests there are any errors in the model I shared, you're comments are totally inappropriate and nothing more than a desperate attempt of deception on your part. I've already explained I do not have CST and the model was given to me by another engineer. I've also shared everything I was given. You have shared nothing but nonsense and inaccurate assumptions based on no experience whatsoever. Why should you be paid the slightest bit of attention at this point?

 

[nosepc]

As it happens nothing you have said can explain away the two separate and in phase radiation currents CST displayed. Now you resort to claiming I put together over 100 frames of a cartoon in "Movie Maker" in an attempt to hide something from you. I don't need to hide anything from you because you can't see a thing in the first place. Wouldn't you assume it would be much easier for a deceptive person to doctor up the text in a PDF file rather than make 100 sequential images?

Until you can provide CST evidence that suggests there are any errors in the model I shared, you're comments are totally inappropriate and nothing more than a desperate attempt of deception on your part. I've already explained I do not have CST and the model was given to me by another engineer. I've also shared everything I was given. You have shared nothing but nonsense and inaccurate assumptions based on no experience whatsoever. Why should you be paid the slightest bit of attention at this point?

Shockwave:

This is what shows CST-Studio planes,..... of course, ....."if you want to"...

Farfield planes of Dominator??
Angle planes ??
etc,
etc,
etc,
Does not it seem a waste of money spent just to show an animation that says nothing ??

greetings Ernesto. CX2GK

 

[Shockwave]

Shockwave:

This is what shows CST-Studio planes,..... of course, ....."if you want to"...

Farfield planes of Dominator??
Angle planes ??
etc,
etc,
etc,
Does not it seem a waste of money spent just to show an animation that says nothing ??

greetings Ernesto. CX2GK

I'm not sure why you felt the need to copy and post this generic 1/2 wave dipole modeled in CST as though it would help defend your inaccurate views of the "non apparent collinear" Vector??? Were you hoping we would "NoSee" the title of "dipole1.model" in the top left corner of the screen? These consistent efforts to mislead others is exactly why you don't deserve to be a posting member of this forum.

 

[Robb]

I think that his loyalty to those that didn't truly understand this antenna's characteristics - along with his outdated and known limitation software - make it impossible for him to see the evidence. His own stubbornness makes him invincibly ignorant.

 

[Shockwave]

NoSee, I'm also sure you just did the very thing you accused me of. Using CST to mislead others by leaving out some other important details. I'm going to request one very simple thing from you that will be impossible for you to provide. SHOW US THE NEAR FIELD PATTERN OF THE SAME ANTENNA YOU JUST POSTED! Let us see the VIDEO of the elements on the antenna itself and the currents that produced the unity gain far field pattern you show as BS. Don't come back with some excuse, just get your "MovieMaker" software out and make the video for us.

 

[AudioShockwav]

Nosepc, answer this:
Why do you keep referring to the Vector as " The Dominator" ?
For years people have been talking about this antenna here calling it by it various 11 meter names , but you make it a point to call it by the name of a VHF FM broadcast antenna?
What is the rest of the story?

 

[Shockwave]

Obviously he has an ulterior motive because he sure hasn't come to this forum to participate in an educational discussion over the basic design.

 

[nosepc]

Nosepc, answer this:
Why do you keep referring to the Vector as " The Dominator" ?
For years people have been talking about this antenna here calling it by it various 11 meter names , but you make it a point to call it by the name of a VHF FM broadcast antenna?
What is the rest of the story?

AudioShockwav.

This discussion include:

message #42 Shockwave:

".......My video was generated by the most advanced electromagnetic software analyzing tool money can buy and the model was built by an engineer familiar with using the program........."


It's a shame that only make animations, and shows no fields or radiation patterns, no gain, no grades, no nothing, bad, expensive and good it is ...
It's a shame

greetings.

Ernesto CX2GK