New thread to debate V-4000

[nosepc]

This time also indicates that CONE ALSO WORKS IN REVERSE IN PHASE WITH ANTENNA.



Is clearly visible ANTENNA THAT IS CANCELLING IN PHASE AUTO INVERTED.

The antenna also cancels itself, generating neutral fields between opposing currents.

The CST model antenna diplay this in slow motion in the following animation.



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

 

[Shockwave]

This time also indicates that CONE ALSO WORKS IN REVERSE IN PHASE WITH ANTENNA.



Is clearly visible ANTENNA THAT IS CANCELLING IN PHASE AUTO INVERTED.

The antenna also cancels itself, generating neutral fields between opposing currents.

The CST model antenna diplay this in slow motion in the following animation.



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

Absolutely 100% inaccurate. You stopped the video at the phase crossover point where virtually no currents are flowing. Apply your same test to the GM or any other antenna you may be lucky enough to see modeled in CST and the result at the phase crossover point will show nearly no radiation taking place also. You've actually managed to single out the few frames in this video that can tell you almost nothing about how it works since almost no currents flow in these frames.

What a prime example of selective blindness.......

 

[AudioShockwav]

Deja de escribir , empezar a construir , las personas que están debatiendo con haber construido la antena y los puso a prueba .
Este argumento puede continuar para siempre , pero si usted lo hace , y lo prueba contra un dipolo el resultado será limpiar mi amigo.
Lo que estás diciendo es que todas las emisoras comerical que han eliminado los dipolos de allí las torres y los reemplazaron con las antenas de vectores estilo sueñan que la dación en fase del cono es cada vez mejores resultados.
No son los operadores Cb , u operadores de radio aficionados , que son ingenieros de la estación Profesional que dependen de la emisora ​​para ofrecer los mejores resultados para llegar a los usuarios. , O no hacen dinero.
Ellos tienen que informar de los resultados a la FCC ya que esta es la forma en que establecen la potencia de salida de la estación, por el ERP. Potencia efectiva radited .
Se reducen la potencia de la estación debido a la añadido 2 dB de ganancia , sin embargo, todavía cubren el área en la que los usuarios son .
Mirando el gif en movimiento de CST se puede ver el punto donde el amarillo de las mejores mezclas con el color amarillo en la parte exterior del cono.
Sí, es a la inversa en el > dentro de < del cono , pero mira el color en la <outside> del cono , que está en fase con la parte superior de la antena . Me he esforzado mucho para ayudarle a ver ....., te quedas con las viejas ideas que no tienen la mente abierta para aprender algo nuevo .
Que tengas un buen día , voy a tratar no más . Saludos cordiales,
Jeff

Stop typing, start building, the people you are debating with have BUILT the antenna and tested them.
This argument can go on forever but if you build it and test it against a dipole the result will be clear my friend.
What you are saying is that all of the commercial broadcast stations that have removed the dipoles from their towers and replaced them with the vector style antennas are dreaming that the in-phase radiation from the cone is getting better results.
They are not Cb operators, or Ham radio operators, they are profesional station engineers who depend on the transmitters to provide best results to reach the users., or they make no money.
They have to report the results to the FCC because this is how they set the station output power, by ERP. Effective radited power.
They reduce power from the station because of the added 2 DB of gain, yet still cover the area where the users are.
Looking at the moving gif of CST you can see the point were the yellow from the top blends with the yellow on the outside of the cone.
Yes it is in reverse on the >inside< of the cone, but look at the color on the <outside> of the cone, it is in phase with the top of the antenna.
I have tried very hard to help you see....., you stay with old ideas with no open mind to learn a new thing.
Have a good day, I will try no more.
Best regards,
Jeff

 

[nosepc]

Absolutely 100% inaccurate. You stopped the video at the phase crossover point where virtually no currents are flowing. Apply your same test to the GM or any other antenna you may be lucky enough to see modeled in CST and the result at the phase crossover point will show nearly no radiation taking place also. You've actually managed to single out the few frames in this video that can tell you almost nothing about how it works since almost no currents flow in these frames.

What a prime example of selective blindness.......

His assumptions are thwarted by the law of reciprocity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(electromagnetism)

 

[Shockwave]

His assumptions are thwarted by the law of reciprocity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(electromagnetism)

Your eyes may be open now but your brain is still closed. Get back to us during normal business hours when your brain may be open again. Your learning process is thwarted by ignorance even though you've placed yourself among those with knowledge.

 

[The DB]

Reciprocity? Really? Did you just happen across a wikipedia page and blindly link to it without actually reading it, much less understanding it? Actually, you failed in even copying and pasting the link properly...

Actually, law is the wrong word here, its theorem. More specifically, its theorems as there are more than one. It is all explained right on the web page you attempted to link to. Did you not even read the first paragraph? Here let me quote it for you...

In classical electromagnetism, reciprocity refers to a variety of related theorems involving the interchange of time-harmonic electric current densities (sources) and the resulting electromagnetic fields in Maxwell's equations for time-invariant linear media under certain constraints. Reciprocity is closely related to the concept of Hermitian operators from linear algebra, applied to electromagnetism.

I am still waiting on questions I asked you from the post you took one of your misleading pictures from. If you can't even answer some simple questions that are explained in the first chapter of pretty much every book on antenna theory basics who are you to make any claims or statements here?

I guess I'll watch as you ignore yet another of my posts...


The DB

 

[Robb]

nosepc:

The fact that commercial broadcast stations use this antenna and prefer it - should be the real telling fact for you. Do you really believe that you have more knowledge than the RF engineers who have a degree?

I mean, it is fun to discuss and learn about antennas as a hobby. But when one enters the realm of RF engineering, it is futile to cross swords with that knowledge and experience.

You cannot accept the fact that the cone/radials acts to reverse the current flow from the inside of the cone that the vertical would have at that length/frequency. An interesting concept to convert a vertical of this length to a co-linear in phase radiating antenna. The gamma match acts to balance off the capacitance and inductance and present a usable match with little common mode current on the coax because it can radiate it on the outside of its radials.

Compadre, I am not a guru but understand more about this antenna as I've continued to read this thread. You continue to remain oblivious of the overwhelming amount of info presented here by professionals. I and others can plainly see that it would be in your own best interest if you considered to build this antenna. What have you got to lose? A little stubborn pride? Cincuenta pesos? What is that? Holding yourself back - for what?

 

[nosepc]

Commercial broadcast use this antenna arrays.

and this

How to make a GAIN easily with a pair of the collinear and uncomplicated common dipoles

 

[Shockwave]

Very good NoSee. Now explain to the forum that the antennas you just pictured have the lowest gain figures of just about any antenna money can buy at negative 3dbd each. You don't even want to see what an ass whopping I put on those ERI antennas bay for bay......

It was actually humorous to see ERI featured on the TV show "Worlds toughest fixes" as they screwed up a million dollar broadcast installation on a 2000 foot tower and had to replace the entire array.

 

[Robb]

Wow, a million dollar mistake.
What kind of mistake would it be to spend cincuenta pesos?

 

[nosepc]

Very good NoSee. Now explain to the forum that the antennas you just pictured have the lowest gain figures of just about any antenna money can buy at negative 3dbd each. You don't even want to see what an ass whopping I put on those ERI antennas bay for bay......

It was actually humorous to see ERI featured on the TV show "Worlds toughest fixes" as they screwed up a million dollar broadcast installation on a 2000 foot tower and had to replace the entire array.

You confuse rather plays the fool, because he knows very well that the circular polarized antennas can not be compared with Vertical polarization antennas.

How much loss have your antenna with respect to a horizontal? 30DB? :sneaky2:

 

[AudioShockwav]

From there web site:

ERI’s Rotofiller™ Series ROTOTILLER® FM antenna utilizes variable bay to bay spacing to further reduce downward radiation. As compared with a standard X Series half wave spaced antenna. The Rotofiller series provides reduced vertical plane radiation which helps to comply with FCC regulations for downward radiation. This vertical plane sidelobe reduction to less than -30 dB lessens interference with ground level studio and telecommunications systems. In addition, the possibility of ground reflections that can cause mulitpath interference is reduced.

As you can see, the manufacturer Agrees with you Shockwav.

Picked a real bad example with that one nosepc......

You confuse rather plays the fool, because he knows very well that the circular polarized antennas can not be compared with Vertical polarization antennas.

Who is playing the fool trying to confuse Who?

How much loss have your antenna with respect to a horizontal? 30DB?

Did you really ask that question?

Now you want to confuse the issue by asking a silly question about loss between vertical and horizontal polarization of antennas ?
Really?
Most Newbie CB users know better than to try talking cross polarization with antennas because of the loss and has nothing to do with this conversation at all.

Because You know very well that the circular polarized antennas can not be compared with Vertical polarization antennas and YOU BROUGHT IT UP


If your IP address did not tell me that you are from Argentina I would suspect your name was Scott, but as it is now I just see someone that will defend not understanding by switching subjects at nauseum.
Last time...read,read,read, then come back.



Next?

73
Jeff

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Commercial broadcast use this antenna arrays.

and this

How to make a GAIN easily with a pair of the collinear and uncomplicated common dipoles

And these:

Dominator 3kW FM Narrow Band Antenna

And even more like Kathrein etc. The world is not limited to CP dipole arrays.

My 2 cents worth but what do I know. op:

 

[Shockwave]

You confuse rather plays the fool, because he knows very well that the circular polarized antennas can not be compared with Vertical polarization antennas.

How much loss have your antenna with respect to a horizontal? 30DB? :sneaky2:

You should know that would be the expected 20db drop to horizontal antennas. That was a valid point when every home had a horizontal TV antenna mounted on the roof. Many of which were combination FM antennas and a very small percentage of home FM receivers actually got connected to a fixed, horizontal antenna. Today, you'd be hard pressed to find one out of a hundred receivers connected to a fixed horizontal antenna.

Receivers almost all have a wire or whip to be orientated in whichever position brings the best signal in. The drawback with horizontal component is it's directional characteristics work poorly in any moving situation. I will give you the fact that CP has an advantage over terrain with multipath signal reflections but its use to reach other horizontal antennas is nearly nonexistent today.

I also see you've taken the time to show a collinear stacked vertical array with multiple bays. That is a nice way to get gain that I offer my clients too. The advantage is I can provide them with the same gain as their dipole bays with about half the number of antennas and space used on the tower. Good try...

By the way NoSee, you may notice the figure 2 image you took off my website was from an unbiased report that was conducted. The test results were in favor of using vertical linear polarization in FM broadcast applications. Also supported by the BBC report.

 

[nosepc]

In the case of wanting to use antennas 3/4 wave dipole instead, I prefer an array of slim jim.
Much simpler to adjust, more economical, less complicated.