New thread to debate V-4000

[Shockwave]

Marconi, again we have thousands of words based on opinion given to you by inaccurate software. Maybe you would like to check with my biggest skeptics that took the time to do accurate testing? In another Yahoo forum filled will unsubstantiated opinions you will find the engineer from radio station KOLG (Robert Kelly) has stated the following quote "I have verified the antenna gain and have been within a dB stated power." Licensed broadcast stations regularly do this type of thing to insure they meet their Effective Radiated Power.

If you investigate this by expanding the thread at the following link: Yahoo Groups you will see Bob even had legitimate complaints about a corrosion problem he was not happy with but still consistently defended his unbiased and independent verification of the gain as being within a db of our claim at 3 dbd. The less than 1 db difference is a variable related to how the antenna is mounted on the tower, side versus top mount.

KOLG received one of the first aluminum versions of the antenna when Sirio was supplying us with the potted aluminum radial bracket. That was junk because it was weak and very susceptible to corrosion. Since that was brought to the attention of Sirio, you may notice all of your CB antennas now have a high quality alloy metal in all the hubs as a result of the changes made.

Chris Rea, a distributor for broadcast equipment in the US would not consider the antenna for his clients unless he was given an opportunity to field test its performance first hand at two installation sites. I received the following email from this distributor one month later:

Donald,

Antenna received, tested and shipped to our client, they are going to be delighted with this system:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lightly populated urban area flat horizon most rooftops below 30 feet:

5/8 Comet 35 feet AGL 20watts ERP: Signal verge 4 miles best - 3 miles radius - 4 - 5 miles poor reception then fade out.

Dominator 35 feet AGL 20watts ERP: Signal verge 6 miles best - 5 miles radius - 6 - 7 miles acceptable reception then fade out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rural area mostly farm land without obstruction flat horizon:

5/8 Comet 35 feet AGL 20watts ERP: Signal verge 6 miles best - 4 miles radius, 6 - 7 miles poor reception then fade out.

Domintator 35 feet AGL 20watts ERP: Signal verge 11 best miles - 9 miles radius, 11 - 12 miles acceptable reception then fade out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I used the Comet as a comparison because they both offer similar vertical radiation properties, the results are not scientific in nature as no time was spent fine tuning the mounting position/location, with some fine tuning I am confident the Dominator's efficiency could be improved by 25% to 30%.

The efficiency of the Dominator speaks for itself, it delivers almost double the performance of the Comet there are no questions left to answer except "where is your Dominator"?


Keep me updated I would like to distribute the Dominator to my clients ASAP.

Regards

Chris Rea
Inter Tech FM

Marconi, can you tell us why we should trust EZNEC when not one person can make a functional model that would display it working with the 90 degree phase shift that works in the field tested collinear version? Do you understand that because the mistaken software will only work with a 180 degree phase shift, it proves the program only views the antenna as a 1/2 wave fed through a 1/4 wave? That I've proven in the field that the cone is a significant radiator by measuring a 2 db increase when using a 90 degree delay rather than the 180 EZNEC has to see to work?

Can you tell us why we should trust your SSB field tests conducted with multiple resonant antennas within the same near field of each other? Why those tests should be considered more accurate then those conducted by professionals with FCC broadcast station licenses on the line? The tests conducted by the distributor are less scientific as he admits but at least he took the time to replace an existing 5/8 wave antenna on the same mast, coax and transmitter power. The receive tests were conducted in the FM mode where the signal remains consistent.

I'm sorry if it appears I've reached the point of self advertising here but you can't just pretend my views are founded on some bias with no independent sources reproducing the same results consistently. I receive client feedback like this regularly and use to post the public comments on the site but have not added more in some time. If the cone did not radiate significantly how do I come up with at least 2 dbd in every installation that replaced dipole bays from under 100 feet above ground to over 1000 feet? Why does CST show the individual radials each radiate about 25% of the same current and phase as the main vertical? How do I stay in buiness with no cone radiation when every client is given 30 days to evaluate the perfomance and send it back for a full refund if it didn't outperform ANY broadcast antenna it replaced?

 

[Marconi]

Like I've said before Donald, I would not consider to change a thing with what you are doing at work...and for sure based on what my models do.

As close as I ever been to modeling your antenna was my making a Vector model a long time ago that had a radiator that was .82 wavelength long according to 433.849" x .82 = 29.65" feet, and that is based on your word that you find this length works the best for this design. I don't recall the results back then and I did not save the model, but my Vector model has improved notably since then.

I guess it won't be long before we hear some results from WB6BYU on his testing of your ideas Donald. I think he has a real interest at this point to try and answer some questions, but as far as I know here is what he posted on eHam when he first observed the Sirio animated model you posted.

Just to be fair and balanced, I provided a link to the parties who's name or call I reference and that way we can all be informed if we wish.

You can all follow this link to eHam, but you might need to register in order to see the post. Here is the link to Booty Monster's thread in the home made section of the antenna section.

http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,75921.0.html

Just in case though here is some of what is said there that I find interesting, and more or less what I contend in my posting here on WWDX about the S4 design.

Since it is not good business I don't think Donald needs to bring his business into the discussion, but he lets loose with it from time to time. I'm talking about what I see for the S4/NV4 models I produce using Eznec and nothing else.

...this is neither a dipole or a half wave . ive built a dipole , a 1/4 wgp and a few different 5/8 wgp antennas . this will wind up being about a .82ish wl antenna . ground wave or LOS contacts is important to us chicken banders , but we certainly enjoy the DX contacts too . IMO the 1.5ish db gain a 5/8 has over a dipole is trivial , but where the lobes on a antenna put the signal on the horizon makes a great deal of difference . this antenna is essentially a scaled up to an 11 meter version of the Dominator antenna FMBroadcastAntenna.com | FM Broadcast Antenna's

Well, as colorful as their computer simulation looks, it doesn't support their claim of 3dB over a half wave
antenna. Even accepting their simulation as accurate, the radiation from the cone is much less than
that from the main radiator itself. The only way you can flatten the radiation pattern is to lengthen
the antenna to get colinear gain. A center-fed full wavelength (two half waves in phase) has about
2dB gain over a dipole when the currents are balanced in the two sections. This antenna is shorter
and the currents are not balanced, so the gain will be less than that. Might it have one dB gain
over a dipole? I'm doubtful, but would be willing to listen to a technically competent explanation.
But once an antenna claims more than the laws of physics can provide, I don't believe any of
their performance claims. (I'm still experimenting with the antenna model, but so far it shows 0.4dB
gain over a dipole, but the vast majority of the radiation is from the upper half wavelength, so
characterizing it as a half wave antenna is reasonably accuracy even though the physical length
is longer than that.)

How important is even 1dB? I might be able to see the difference on the S-meter of a VHF-FM
radio, as they often have bargraph meters with a range of 10 to 12dB (for perhaps 8 bars.)
A standard meter for SSB can't be read to such precision unless you stick a digital voltmeter
across it and average the responses over time on a steady carrier. I do have receivers that
will indicate a change of less than 1/4 dB that I use for direction-finding when I need to aim
an antenna very precisely, but such equipment is pretty rare in the ham community. What I
find on VHF is that 1dB might be the difference between 40% copy and 60% copy in a marginal
environment, but otherwise it makes no practical difference and can't be detected by the
typical operator except in certain conditions.

If you read my comments carefully you'll see that I was comparing antennas with the same TOP
height, not base height. The only reason that a 5/8 wave antenna has an advantage over a
1/4 ground plane with sloping radials is if the bases of the antennas are at the same elevation,
in which case the point of maximum radiation of the 5/8 wave antenna is higher above the ground.
To get an honest 3dB gain over a dipole would require a colinear antenna stack about 100' high, and
you'd need to mount the base of it at about the same height to see the gain in practice. If you
built such an antenna with the base near ground level you'd find that the half wave radiator
with the same top height would do nearly as well, because the AVERAGE height of the antenna
is then closer to 100' rather than 50'.

At VHF (and most local communications on CB have more in common with VHF propagation than
some of the lower HF bands) height is more important than anything else for antenna performance.
(Well, other than making sure you don't have a short or open in your feedline.) Even standing
20' away from a transmitter I can measure the difference in signal strength between holding
an antenna waist high, shoulder high, or over my head. That's why I use the half wave dipole
at the same top height as my gain reference because it differentiates the gain due to the
antenna design from that due to height above ground.

Anyway, good luck with your experiments!

 

[bob85]

I'm going to have to assume you're referring to the two reports I posted several days ago regarding extending the lengths of the S4, that I did in 2/12, over real Earth, and a 3/4 wave without a hoop in FS that I just did a few days ago, right?

i was talking about the two hand written models you asked me about a couple of posts back,

Bob, just like my advice to Donald regarding his production products, I would not change anything he's done concerning his business based on anything these Eznec models I make...that I use strictly to try and demonstrate my thinking.

These models only purpose for me is to try and get some idea for how antennas might work. I see something similar to what you guys see in Donald's animation, but I describe it entirely different. As a result, I see a difference in results only...using my idea for the theory of cancellation as it applies to the cone of this design and that difference that remains in phase with the top 1/2 wave radiator is very small...compared to the significant in phase RF that Donald is suggesting. And I don't see any CMC development at the top hoop of the radials either. I see only a current node up there, and that is the very antithesis of a point where CMC could be generated. Plus Donald told me the other day in response to a question I asked in a post I made, He stated that CMC's starts at the bottom of the radials...at the coaxial feed point as the coax is terminated into the elements. This is why I no longer believe that BS that freecell preached a long time ago that the cone was an extension of the coax. That said, I believe it and I parroted it at the time,

i think we agree on what causes radiation, any imbalance at the top of the sleeve compared to the monopole will be balanced by current flowing on the outside of the sleeve, cebik explains it in his j-pole article,

i don't dispute there is not a huge imbalance, i just have reservations over eznec ignoring whatever is there however small,

how you get a current node at the top of the radials is beyond me

Again what I do on the forum is opinion and some practical, not scientific, application of hands on experience, just like you've done Bob...in the past too.

I see a similar bases for your opinion Bob as I do for my self. Donald has his real world production, sales, customer satisfaction, and more importantly his antenna testing...which rightfully we will never see any evidence for, so with Donald we have to have faith in his word alone about that part of his ideas when he says what he says in that regard. I refuse to ask him any questions about his testing out of respect for his business and his obvious need for some security in that regard. So I don't consider his words on the matter when he tells us about his testing results.

On the other hand I not only try and describe much of what I've done using notes and other exhibits, but I've also done many videos that tend to show everything I do, and you guys are fee to pick-apart all of that.

Bob, you and Donald only give us, for the most part, words and sometimes you reference long and wordy reports where you glean information, and that is fine, but sometimes I never see or imagine what you had in your minds eye...without just guessing even after spending time going over the references you do provide,

i can't make you read and see something the same as me eddie,
if the radiation shown is not common mode then what is your alternative explanation?

i think we agree that the radiation must be the imbalance at the top of the sleeve, the question is does eznec ignore any radiation that occurs with such an imbalance in its mathematical model,

Models should only predict what a real world antenna might do and that is never enough in every situation. Real world testing and experiences are king, and that is why you, I, and Donald probably try our ideas out in the real world...just to see if we can glean anything worth noting.

I am amazed that you both have so much faith in Sirio's singular source of information about the NV4 antenna, the animation, when on the other hand Sirio plainly publishes their New Sirio Vector 4000 as coaxial J-Pole.

But, more importantly you and Donald both claim using a radiator that is much longer is best in your experience and I have no reason to doubt what you report. But with that said, and in spite of Sirio's professional experience, team work, and their use of CST...they still build the NV4 to almost precisely 3/4 wavelength...even after designing it using CST. What does that tell us?

it tells me if i want to use that style antenna in my yard with the 90" sleeve id be wise to set it up myself,

These are two facts that you both bitterly disagree with in principal just for starters, but when all is said a done...neither of you can justifiably explain this real world dichotomy, relative to though and ideas regarding how this antenna design works. I can say I don't have to try and overcome the obvious when others note these issues that are out there in the light of day.

I have no real problem with anybodies opinion...even though I might disagree, but some folks around here are suggesting to shut off opposing opinions...that don't agree with there own. That is flat out not right.

i don't agree with stopping debate,

I've said it before, if all we have is to get personal then I don't consider our arguments worth considering at all.

At best, however, I would never forget what I've done in the past, and this is why I make and keep notes. But, I would never confine my thinking by not considering new information or ideas of others. Maybe redoing some old experimentation just to see if I can duplicate my old findings, along with something new if it seemed reasonable.


I don't read page 83, section on "Modeling Coaxial Cable," as you suggest here Bob. And rather than just leave my comment at that, like you tend to do with me, I'll explain exactly why. The text says more or less, "A radiating coax cable can be modeled quite well with a combination of transmission line model and the added wire, where the TL serves as the center conductor and the added line serves as the outer shield." This is where we understand CMC's tend to flow, continued........

View attachment 11681

This is also noted in the text and is why it is important to make the 3rd wire that serves as the shield...the same size as the coax shield, else there will likely be some difference to be noted.

all you did is quote it again eddie, what kind of an explanation is that?

im not saying it does ignore cm current or that the magnitude is sufficient to make a difference,

a j-pole is a 1/4w balanced line feeding a 1/2wave, we know that setup does show radiation due to imbalance at the top of the 1/4wave,

adding radials stops it been a balanced line, a few more radials and it would act very much like a piece of coax,

im looking for a reason there is disparity between your nec models and sirio's cst model,

I report what I think I see, but I depend to some extent on my analysis of the currents log that Eznec produces. This is why I post and try and explain the currents log and it is also why I think we'll likely never know for sure what the CST animation really means to understanding the currents noted. I relegated the idea of understanding the details of the CST animation to asking 100 folks their opinion of a Rorschach test image the other day.

I still have questions about Eznec's currents that I cannot answer, and I've talked about currents many times, but few are willing to stick-their-neck-out to even discuss the issue. I'm trying to understand something new for me, and it is called currents. Currents are not an easy subject for me, and again few want to even discuss a word on the subject.

you still have questions about eznecs current function too,

i asked if eznec only recognises radiation from common mode currents when the transmission-line is a 2 wire balanced line,



So, my ideas are just as valid as your's, and all the others on the subject unless we are following Gestapo like tacts.

Donald will tell you that even Roy Lewallen is not willing to discuss the matter of currents, and I sorta understand why. So Bob, you and I are both just guessing.

no im asking if necs mathematical model includes any radiation from a transmission-line other than a 2 wire balanced line,
not guessing, i never said it did otherwise i would not be asking for some clarification on the matter,

you have not given me any answer other than we don't agree on how we read what the guy i posted the link to means in what he says,

Bob, there you go again. I'm not sure exactly what "it" means in your statement here. Using the word "it" in the context of details subjects is to me a cop-out, that leaves wiggle room to claim others just misunderstand when the rubber hit the road. You're adamantly against considering the S4/NV4 being a J-pole, yet you tend to come back to using the J-Pole to help support your arguments somehow. I'm not saying ideas we hear about J-Poles are not important to the subject of understanding the S4/NV4, but again we are left to possible misunderstanding with just the mention of the word J-Pole just being put out there.

if you can't understand what "it" means in the context of that post then we are going nowhere fast,

i said years ago a modified form of open sleeve antenna, im not too worried what anybody calls it,

i use the open sleeve and j-pole as examples of radiation from the short leg or sleeve and why that is possible,
i leave no ambiguity in how i think it could radiate and provide links to material for anybody interested to look at,

Here we see a difference of opinion again. I believe you're talking about a J-Pole here again, right?

I don't see adding extra radials to a J-Pole making an unbalance situation, like getting worse. IMO, when we add extra radials to such a setup like the J-Pole we should see balance improve.

Am I wrong or did I just miss something here?

what balance are you talking about improves eddie?.

two parallel wires is balanced, is that what you see in the lower 1/4wave of vector?


I see that too, and I've asked Sirio for a fuller explanation of exactly what ground condition those values were calculated over...as in Real Earth or Free Space. They never answered my email contact, and they use a proprietary email system that leaves no trace of such contact...as best I can tell. As discussion on the subject suggest...this is where we have to question what is reported. How do you stand on this subject, is the 4.15dbi reported for a model over real Earth or is it Free Space results?

if its over earth unlike their dipoles they are misleading us,

if its free space and does not have that gain they are been dishonest,

I've read plenty of discussions and heard even more complaining how gain is often reported or not...and these discussions always end up suggesting we need to have more not less information. This is where the almighty question of "Gain...gain over what?" usually pops up. Then we ask again with the gain just left hanging out there what are we to believe. Did you question this when Solarcon published their 9.9dbi gain? For all we know the antenna could have fell over during the test and thus we get an A99 gain in the horizontal. Maybe not a complete lie, but surely not truly accurate either. When you saw that I can imagine steaming coming out of your ears and nose, just like a lot of others.

no steam, i just laughed at the a99 gain claims, i don't see them as a dummyload on a stick like some do,
they work as well as other 1/2wave endfed cb antennas for me,


My Eznec reports gain in DBI too and for all ground conditions, Real Earth, Free Space, and infinite ground. So IMO, the ground condition needs to be specified in order to know what that value means and for sure if you cannot really tell what the pattern for the model really is. IMO, I think the CST model does look sorta like a free space model pattern image, but there are no notation for gain and angel indicated. I see this all the time when guys publish their software results to support their words, and they often tend to leave the gain and angle details out too. Ever wonder about that. CST doesn't even show the name of the antenna in the image, nothing but the color graph that does suggest phase by the +- sign provided to be sure, but the magnitude is a very limited indicator at best...just like it is using Eznec.

Have you noticed that the currents on the outside of the radials do not suggest a traditional looking 1/4 wave current pattern with high current magnitude at or near the base, and high voltage almost to ZERO at the top of the radials like the currents show up on the radials with Eznec?

yes i see that


Have you also noted that the hoop is not even indicated in the model? And if that is a voltage node (high current area) like I think you suggest...that loop would be red hot with current and surely showing up. How else will we see CMC coming from the top of the radial elements?

yes it bothers me that many models don't include the hoop but i don't know how that effects the models

If the Sirio gain value is in fact over Real Earth and not over Free Space, then Eznec is not so far off showing similar gains. Do you think Siro is showing us free space gain?

it looks like a free space plot as does the gainmaster plot, i would not bet my last dollar on it though,


Aside from the humor, a lot has to do with whether the 4.15dbi is a gain value over Real Earth or in Free Space. It sounds like a reasonable question to ask? Are you the least bit curious about any of this?

yes im curious but i can't prove it one way or the other,


If it is the straight skinny that Siro's gain is in FS, then there is no doubt that Eznec does exactly what Donald has suggested, and is not revealing the RF from the cone. At least it would convince me, but at this point I would have to see the model output reveal this evidence in the output images sorta' like we see from Eznec, and I would like to see the currents log.



I don't think it is necessary to add wires to the radials already there...unless CMC can flow out of anything except an imbalance in currents at the terminating end of coaxial cable where current is maximum. If you're again suggesting that the slanted up radials on the S4/NV4 terminate in a current maximum like the termination of coax at the feed point, then there could be CMC's emanating from the tip of the radials. I just don't think that possible or is what is happening.

how do you explain the radiation from the short leg of a wider spaced j-pole?

if the are no cm currents on the vector sleeve what is your explanation of what we see in the cst plot?

as i always say im open to alternative ideas but nobody has come up with anything so far, just words and no links,

Donald just told me the other day when I posted asking interested members to show or describe in words where the currents look to emanate from on this S4 type of antenna. He clearly stated in his reply...that he saw CMC emanating from the feed point area at the base of the radials, and that current result was distributed along the outside of the radials and added constructively to the top 1/2 wave radiator. See below.

i don't know what donald told you but i know how you describe what i have said in the past.

 

[Marconi]

i don't know what donald told you but i know how you describe what i have said in the past.

You can refresh my mind anytime Bob. I think you have said a lot just talking to me.

I don't mind it when I find that I'm wrong on some issue. I've been making mistakes all my life, so I'm use to it. I've made so many choices in my life that I can't even count them all anymore. So, I don't get all bent out of shape when I figure something out right that I was wrong about before. I just figure I'm having a good day and consider it a blessing.

The truth is what matters to me, and sometimes I still miss the mark.

Now, why don't you help this old man out and and tell me something I've said or did wrong about anything that is on your mind.

I don't bite...I ain't got no teeth.

 

[bob85]

the truth is all im looking for eddie,
if i thought the same today as 10 years ago i would have learned nothing at all.

 

[Marconi]

Bob, when I fist looked at you post above I saw a large quote that looked like my post, so scan down without reading to see your remarks, and all I saw was you final remark.

I notice now that all the bold type is other comments embedded among my words which I did not address. I will of course tend to those and respond. See, I made a mistake when I scan over what I thought were my words in a quote, so I only responded to your last remark.

I'll get back.

 

[Shockwave]

Like I've said before Donald, I would not consider to change a thing with what you are doing at work...and for sure based on what my models do.

As close as I ever been to modeling your antenna was my making a Vector model a long time ago that had a radiator that was .82 wavelength long according to 433.849" x .82 = 29.65" feet, and that is based on your word that you find this length works the best for this design. I don't recall the results back then and I did not save the model, but my Vector model has improved notably since then.

I guess it won't be long before we hear some results from WB6BYU on his testing of your ideas Donald. I think he has a real interest at this point to try and answer some questions, but as far as I know here is what he posted on eHam when he first observed the Sirio animated model you posted.

Just to be fair and balanced, I provided a link to the parties who's name or call I reference and that way we can all be informed if we wish.

You can all follow this link to eHam, but you might need to register in order to see the post. Here is the link to Booty Monster's thread in the home made section of the antenna section.

http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,75921.0.html

Just in case though here is some of what is said there that I find interesting, and more or less what I contend in my posting here on WWDX about the S4 design.

Since it is not good business I don't think Donald needs to bring his business into the discussion, but he lets loose with it from time to time. I'm talking about what I see for the S4/NV4 models I produce using Eznec and nothing else.

Marconi, once again you have taken someone else's opinion who has no first hand experience working with the antenna YET, over countless reviews from those who have. After all these years I IGNORE everyone who shares an opinion BEFORE ever testing the antenna itself in any reliable manner. You could learn more doing the same. Good luck with that.

As far as business goes, you were pretending what I said was just words as though there couldn't be unbiased confirmation from independent professionals in the field. I just proved you wrong again and gave you more evidence you could confirm. If the moderators wish, I wouldn't mind at all if they removed my post regarding this.

 

[Shockwave]

i don't know what donald told you but i know how you describe what i have said in the past.

Bob, pay little attention to Marconi's remarks about what I may have said to him. I think it would make him happy if he could somehow get us tied up debating some insignificant detail rather then trying to help others understand the basic design and performance aspects.

He's reverted to posting in the other forum how he doubts Cebik's "non apparent collinear" quote once again as though you fabricated your exchanges with Cebik and he's unaware of the source of these comments. Somewhat sad.

 

[nosepc]

It will do personal assessments to disqualify the forum members if they do not like your position.

Here I made another drawing not to like someone, but once I'd love to see even just one time, a semi-scientific explanation as to ask for a scientific explanation which only praise as evidence preach without more words and sayings of others, "he told me".

I see it. Phases canceled against each other.
Is very interesting, there I see all currents and phases.
Is as you say, half wave fed quarter wave. But at the bottom I see nothing collinear, if collinear, there would be no wave movement. A collinear antenna, ripples appear and disappear at the same point, as a dipole.
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 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.

any scientific explanation for this?

 

[Shockwave]

if so be collinear, and in phase, CST modeling both colors would be on the same side.

any scientific explanation for this?

None whatsoever. The only explanation is not scientific. It's just you spending too much time erasing the important information to make your own pictures. CST frame #21 shows in phase currents of noticeable magnitude emitting from the cone.

 

[Robb]

It will do personal assessments to disqualify the forum members if they do not like your position.

Here I made another drawing not to like someone, but once I'd love to see even just one time, a semi-scientific explanation as to ask for a scientific explanation which only praise as evidence preach without more words and sayings of others, "he told me".

I see it. Phases canceled against each other.
Is very interesting, there I see all currents and phases.
Is as you say, half wave fed quarter wave. But at the bottom I see nothing collinear, if collinear, there would be no wave movement. A collinear antenna, ripples appear and disappear at the same point, as a dipole.
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 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.

any scientific explanation for this?

 

[bob85]

why is current maxima not 90 degrees down from the tip of the antenna?

 

[nosepc]

None whatsoever. The only explanation is not scientific. It's just you spending too much time erasing the important information to make your own pictures. CST frame #21 shows in phase currents of noticeable magnitude emitting from the cone.

But the antenna radiates all the time only in the phase you like. ?

The truth is that it is true that this antenna is wonderful.

 

[Shockwave]

But the antenna radiates all the time only in the phase you like. ?

The truth is that it is true that this antenna is wonderful.

Are you stuck thinking we are working with DC and not RF again NoSee?

 

[Marconi]

Bob, pay little attention to Marconi's remarks about what I may have said to him. I think it would make him happy if he could somehow get us tied up debating some insignificant detail rather then trying to help others understand the basic design and performance aspects.

He's reverted to posting in the other forum how he doubts Cebik's "non apparent collinear" quote once again as though you fabricated your exchanges with Cebik and he's unaware of the source of these comments. Somewhat sad.

Donald if I ever had a thought I didn't want Bob to know about...I would not have made my post so he could see it. I have no secrets from Bob, but now, based on this story of yours about emails, I'm not to sure that Bob doesn't have secrets from me about this very topic that he told me Cebik and he spoke about.

BTW, I think I posted your comments to support my words so he could read what you said and take it however he chooses.

I never questioned Bob about how he contacted Cebik, and I've always thought they talked on the phone a few times. I think I've maybe heard others question Bob about emails, but I believed what Bob said out of pure faith in his word. I wasn't up to speed on the WWDX when most of that was going on, and I assume the record will bear that out, because my memory is not always so good anymore.

I only started to question Bob about his ideas when I think I tested in the summer of 2009, and latter when I think I began to model with Eznec in the fall of 2011.

In 2009, I did not see the results that Bob first suggested to me I should...in my real word testing with my S4. We were contacting each other via email almost daily, and sometimes on a Skype like Internet talk line at some point later on maybe.

He told me that if I tuned the S4 right I could improve my long distance contacts. I had a good tune and that could be debated, but that did not work out to prove anything that I could see.

He then told me to make the antenna longer, and I did that using a top hat. That too, did not perform anyway special. He then told me that the top hat might mess things up. After some more testing, he later he told me the S4 had never in his experience perform as he had seen with his hybrid. He also told me that a 3 leg Sigma would not work like his Vector Hybrid either.

I also recall some issues about making the radials longer somehow too, but that part is vague, because I could not do that and some years later I found out that Bob got his best performance with a regular 3 leg hub that he modified to 4 legs, but the radials were still only about 90.5" long. I could have taken that comment out of context maybe, but I've always thought all of those testing iterations were in vain, and the reason was first on thing and then the other as to why my S4 didn't work out. It ended up I think with the idea I never got it tuned right.

That said I was a disappointed, but I passed it off to the fact that I seldom saw anywhere near as much difference in signal for my other antennas, and for sure never signals like guys were reporting all the time. That too seemed to miff Bob a bit...that I didn't see the results he had experienced, so I forgot about the S4.

The next experience that I got from Bob was about his work on a knockoff model like the A99, along with Multimode200 where they modified the ground plane into a spiderplane as they called it using some added wire that connected all the short radial ends.

I did not do the real world thing with that one, but I did model it and again I did not see any difference to speak of compared to the model with regular short radials.

Then I started doing the S4 model and the Gain Master came along, and the rest is history.

Donald, I do have questions and you know it. Your latest revelation on eham today that suggest Bob has emails of his conversation with Cebik...is a brand new revelation to me. That alone causes me great concerns that there is a lot more to this epic story than I ever knew or thought about.

By the way Donald I think you can see by checking the archives that I was absent for maybe a year after we had hurricane Ike here in Houston. I took all of my antennas down and I also stopped posting to the forums, because we had so much damage and I was ill.

When I got back on the forum, and was trying to catch up, I recall vividly your coming on telling us you found this forum via new tag service that you had in your business. That should help remind you of something that you may have not thought about. It may date the events you think you got right in your claims above.

I'll be checking all that out, because I have post from you and Bob that I think predate the archives, and maybe not...but we'll see.

Right now I'm excited about WB6BYU's working with your ideas on the Vector testing he has promised to do and I don't care which way the testing goes. The truth of the matter, if that is possible, is the only thing important to me.

This new issue can wait, plus Bob may have something to add here and I can't wait to hear that.