Question on the Vector

[Marconi]

Bob, this is to add to what I've said before, and what I said above.

My model of the 5/8 wave also shows a slightly better looking pattern than the S4, with a little less gain over Real Earth. This little difference may show up because the physical S4 current max is a bit higher than the 5/8 wave when mounted on the same mast. Both of the factors noted above support the idea that the S4, being a bit higher, shows a bit better results.

I have reported this in my Real World testing too, but I didn't have a clue as to why at the time.

With these models in Free Space the patterns are very similar with the 5/8 wave showing a little more gain at 3* degrees higher angle than the S4.

See the model of my I-10K vs S4 below to confirm the numbers above.

 

[bob85]

eddie, what the email says is,
the 4 radial around the monopole is the difference between the vector and j-pole,

the out of phase radiation from the lower 1/4wave is confined within the cone,

radiation from the outside of the cone is in phase with the upper 1/2wave,

the small amount of current on the first portion of mast is also in phase adding another small increase in gain,

the vector puts more signal on the horizon than a 5/8wave because the pattern is optimised for a lower radiation angle than a 5/8wave.

i have said several times that i don't know how much in phase radiation comes from the sleeve,
and that at least some of the extra performance is due to the vectors current maxima been higher above ground and surrounding terrain,

i have also said i don't understand how the cst animation can have a null in the surface currents well above the top of the sleeve and h-plane pattern as if the monopole is longer than 3/4wave
unless the test frequency was well above the antennas design frequency,

no matter what i say you keep implying im not been straight or ignoring something for convenience,
that i don't want the truth of why i see what i see i just want to be right,

the only thing i can be wrong about is how much the cone contributes and since i already said i don't know i can't be wrong about that,

the claims i made 10 years ago to MC are 100% true,
a correctly setup vector will outperform ANY 5/8wave on the same mast,

do you think i don't understand that the only advantage a correctly installed 5/8wave has over a correctly installed 1/2wave on the same mast is the 5/8waves current maxima is higher above ground ?

do you think that i don't understand that very few people install their antenna correctly so they often have cmc on the mast/coax and that causes some of the difference in signal between antennas that would otherwise perform very similarly after what i have posted on the subject ?,

do you think i don't realise that almost all antenna manufacturers talk bullcrap about gain and are either stupid or are telling lies to sell a product ?

i never have and never will get a boner over a 5/8 or .64wave groundplane,

i don't get my facts from lou franklins "BIG DUMMYS GUIDE TO CB RADIO" like the guys that think a 5/8wave groundplane is the best thing since sliced bread and should be tuned using 50ft of coax.

 

[Shockwave]

Marconi, for some time now I've wondered why you choose to offend those trying to teach you by defending an opinion based on a model that can easily be proven wrong in a field test? Do you have any idea how ignorant that appears to someone who has done te testing and knows EXACTLY how much the cone radiates? This is confirmed by determining how much of the additional collinear 1/2 wave is required to compensate for the cones gain when you ignore it like EZNEC and yourself have done. Exactly half or 1/4 wave.

When will you stop preaching your humble opinions and start learning? When you have the chance to converse with people who understand more than you on this antenna, you insult them as soon as you hear something that debunks the J-Pole camp. Sirio has stopped responding to you because of the consistent manner in which you choose to question honesty rather then provide an opposing theory with any validity.

You still try and stuff words in the companies mouth by suggesting the information I've shared with you says something other than what it does. You've tried to make it appear the cone has little radiation when the amount has been clearly identified as 2dbd. The "little radiation" is from the small amount of residual common mode currents descending on the mast or coax. You should note the engineer points out they are also in a constructive phase over the first portion of the mast, adding to the gain.

That residual CMC is the "small current" as it should be. That's why the antenna is very easy to tune, taking a matter of minuets to achieve a perfect match. You try and compare professional results with people making their own gamma for this application the very first time. Not even close to a fair comparison.

Since you mention your "real world testing", I have to remind people that is your humble opinion too. You want us to take your SSB signal tests done with the antennas in different locations and up at the same time? It understood you did the only thing you could do under the conditions but you fail to realize how impossible it would be for you to spot a 2dbd difference in antennas like this.

To add insult to injury, you completely disregard the years of testing I've done with calibrated field strength receivers that measure microvolts and decibels in favor of your S meter on SSB. You can't even wait for an independent source to confirm anything before you before you consistently spread the myths behind your opinions. Even if DB gets his model to reflect exactly what we see in the field you'll toss the info out the window as an anomaly just like you do with CST and my field tests.

How many more times are you going to repeat the same myth that adding a 1/4 wave of mast to another end fed 1/2 wave would produce the gain the Sigma does on the horizon? If you could only relate to some first hand experience you would grasp how ridiculous that thought is. The vast majority of dipoles I replace are more than 10 wavelengths above ground due to the higher frequency. They are also more than 100 feet above average terrain. You think .25 wavelengths or 5 feet on top of that is going to make 2dbd? Lets get real here for once please.

 

[Marconi]

eddie, what the email says is,
the 4 radial around the monopole is the difference between the vector and j-pole,

the out of phase radiation from the lower 1/4wave is confined within the cone,

radiation from the outside of the cone is in phase with the upper 1/2wave,

the small amount of current on the first portion of mast is also in phase adding another small increase in gain,

the vector puts more signal on the horizon than a 5/8wave because the pattern is optimised for a lower radiation angle than a 5/8wave.

i have said several times that i don't know how much in phase radiation comes from the sleeve,
and that at least some of the extra performance is due to the vectors current maxima been higher above ground and surrounding terrain,

i have also said i don't understand how the cst animation can have a null in the surface currents well above the top of the sleeve and h-plane pattern as if the monopole is longer than 3/4wave
unless the test frequency was well above the antennas design frequency,

no matter what i say you keep implying im not been straight or ignoring something for convenience,
that i don't want the truth of why i see what i see i just want to be right,

the only thing i can be wrong about is how much the cone contributes and since i already said i don't know i can't be wrong about that,

the claims i made 10 years ago to MC are 100% true,
a correctly setup vector will outperform ANY 5/8wave on the same mast,

do you think i don't understand that the only advantage a correctly installed 5/8wave has over a correctly installed 1/2wave on the same mast is the 5/8waves current maxima is higher above ground ?

do you think that i don't understand that very few people install their antenna correctly so they often have cmc on the mast/coax and that causes some of the difference in signal between antennas that would otherwise perform very similarly after what i have posted on the subject ?,

do you think i don't realise that almost all antenna manufacturers talk bullcrap about gain and are either stupid or are telling lies to sell a product ?

i never have and never will get a boner over a 5/8 or .64wave groundplane,

i don't get my facts from lou franklins "BIG DUMMYS GUIDE TO CB RADIO" like the guys that think a 5/8wave groundplane is the best thing since sliced bread and should be tuned using 50ft of coax.

Bob, I'm going to print-out your comments noted in bold print above, and frame them. I will proudly hang this framed work on my library wall...proclaiming my friend Bob is the Master of explaining his ideas in very few words...which IMO is an art.

You have given me new hope. I cannot disagree with any thing that you have posted above in bold.

I could have never said it so succinctly.
​

I can only hope that the two models that I posted above have given some comparative support to your words...even though the model's differences in results, as I see them, are very small.

 

[bob85]

im sure you will find something to argue about eddie, just wait a few months until you get it twisted ass backwards in your mind,

note to self, "i must buy a dictionary",
i would never have thought collaboration meant me explaining to you multiple times why your two pole tests on ssb in skip conditions using unwilling & unknowing stations as signal sources are useless,

maybe you forgot that you recently admitted as much
like you forget what people have said so you twist their words to mean what you want them to mean because its convenient to do so ?

unlike you i have no hope you will ever understand,

IMO, Sirio uses the short sub to create as much current imbalance at the center point of the antenna, where the shield stops. IMO this is done in order to create as much CMC's to flow on the shield as possible"

"The only advantage I see with a dipole inside of an open sleeve is to add strength to the antenna"

you don't even realise how ignorrant these comments prove you are eddie,
they prove beyond a shadow of doubt you either don't read or don't comprehend what you read,
how are we supposed to take what you say seriously ?

i will print them out and pin them to the bathroom door in case we ever run out of paper,

you pollute the forum with pages of twaddle that people can't folow,

never on a forum has so little been said over and over with so many words.

 

[Marconi]

Marconi, for some time now I've wondered why you choose to offend those trying to teach you by defending an opinion based on a model that can easily be proven wrong in a field test? Do you have any idea how ignorant that appears to someone who has done te testing and knows EXACTLY how much the cone radiates? This is confirmed by determining how much of the additional collinear 1/2 wave is required to compensate for the cones gain when you ignore it like EZNEC and yourself have done. Exactly half or 1/4 wave

Donald, this is pretty simple. You have your opinion and I have mine. I use to agree with what you claim, but I changed my mind and it has nothing whatever to do with my believing your claims in the field or not.In my opinion what you have reported doing in the field is just something else for us to consider. If I had more details on that work I might possible be more convinced, opinionated, or critical of that work, nothing more.

I've never once tried to defend my opinion at the personal expense of others...like you suggest, unless you consider my questions an insult that borders on disrespect like many other do all the time.

I have only expressed my opinion and tried my best to support that opinion with supporting information that I could present here on this forum.

When will you stop preaching your humble opinions and start learning? When you have the chance to converse with people who understand more than you on this antenna, you insult them as soon as you hear something that debunks the J-Pole camp. Sirio has stopped responding to you because of the consistent manner in which you choose to question honesty rather then provide an opposing theory with any validity.

I have been in the learning process all of my life, and I have changed my mind many times. Donald can you make the same claim?

You still try and stuff words in the companies mouth by suggesting the information I've shared with you says something other than what it does. You've tried to make it appear the cone has little radiation when the amount has been clearly identified as 2dbd. The "little radiation" is from the small amount of residual common mode currents descending on the mast or coax. You should note the engineer points out they are also in a constructive phase over the first portion of the mast, adding to the gain.

Those words like any other...will stand on their own. I only highlighted what was said as I understand it. I saw two references to the antenna in the email and in both I also saw the reference to the currents producing small gain. Can you deny this?

Donald, I can and do get things wrong at times, and I can and do change my mind. You have at times criticized me for changing my mind about some issues. This happens for me, because I am not perfect. How about you Donald?

That residual CMC is the "small current" as it should be. That's why the antenna is very easy to tune, taking a matter of minuets to achieve a perfect match. You try and compare professional results with people making their own gamma for this application the very first time. Not even close to a fair comparison.

Donald in those cases I was giving my friends the best advice I knew how. They had a issue and I saw a potential problem for them not following the S4 design idea to the T. They both were trying to mitigate their problems with not getting a good match by changing the material mix for their gammas. I simply suggested they stick closer to what both Avanti and Sirio did to connect the radials to the bottom of the mast and create more offset. They may both deny this ever happened...but this is what I remember and obviously you remember it too. Else why would you mention the idea in your remarks?

Since you mention your "real world testing", I have to remind people that is your humble opinion too. You want us to take your SSB signal tests done with the antennas in different locations and up at the same time? It understood you did the only thing you could do under the conditions but you fail to realize how impossible it would be for you to spot a 2dbd difference in antennas like this.

This is a weak Straw Man argument you make Donald. I have acknowledge that my links, videos, and demonstrations we flawed, and you know it. What I did was likely similar to what other CBr's might do if interested in their antenna performance. I put the details out there for all to consider. I trust their judgment to whatever the feel. If they don't see it like I do...the so-be-it.

To add insult to injury, you completely disregard the years of testing I've done with calibrated field strength receivers that measure microvolts and decibels in favor of your S meter on SSB. You can't even wait for an independent source to confirm anything before you before you consistently spread the myths behind your opinions. Even if DB gets his model to reflect exactly what we see in the field you'll toss the info out the window as an anomaly just like you do with CST and my field tests.

I do not disregard your field test results...I just ask for you to support that work with some reports that show some effort to do the work, and you do not like my asking. The same tactics have happened before between you and others here on this forum and on eham in Booty Monsters thread on his homemade Vector. Can you deny this?

I figure if another independent source makes claims or suggests an offer to test his ideas for us...in the task of trying to prove the truth about anything to do with antennas...I welcome the efforts and the reports. I am not afraid I will learn something new that does not fit with my preconceived notions about any issues that I have an interest in. I will say this however, if a promise is made and not accurate, incomplete, or pursued as promised...I might remind folks of the issues at hand.

So, I am waiting for DB to respond with the request I have made of him to give us more details about his 4Nec2 model...that shows us the nice gain he suggested earlier for his unmodified Vector model.

How many more times are you going to repeat the same myth that adding a 1/4 wave of mast to another end fed 1/2 wave would produce the gain the Sigma does on the horizon? If you could only relate to some first hand experience you would grasp how ridiculous that thought is. The vast majority of dipoles I replace are more than 10 wavelengths above ground due to the higher frequency. They are also more than 100 feet above average terrain. You think .25 wavelengths or 5 feet on top of that is going to make 2dbd? Lets get real here for once please.

Yes Donald, I understand the distinction you make with your work being 10 wavelengths above ground for a much smaller wavelength antenna than most of us will ever use in 11 meters. Why don't you use 3 mhz examples for us to try and understand? You could be comparing for us apples and oranges.

Concerning your idea here that if I raise the current maximum for a vertical 1/2 wave up a quarter wavelength like the S4, I will not see results anywhere close to the S4, is something I can show using Eznec models. There might be still some difference with these models over Eznec Real Earth feature,,,but I still think it will be a small difference at best.

However, if I post these models in Free Space without Earth losses, I think you might see that the 1/2 wave produces a better pattern on the horizon at "0" degrees, and the gain for each at ZERO degrees will be about the same I speculate.

The S4 in Free Space suggests the model is ill-effected by the lack of symmetry we find in a CF 1/2 wave antenna. IMO, the cone tends to skew the maximum radiate pattern upward to 17* degrees for my FS model, and as I said I figure that is due to the attached cone. Radials typically seem to have an ill-effects of sorts on the pattern for GP antennas and 1/2 wave antennas do not show such asymmetry.

Now Donald none of us mortals can see this happening on antennas, so we must rely on some from of simulation in modeling. I can't say for sure whether Eznec shows this accurately or not, but I can show you what my models show, and I will be checking this out later today...and I will report if I'm right or wrong, or even close.

 

[Marconi]

im sure you will find something to argue about eddie, just wait a few months until you get it twisted ass backwards in your mind,

note to self, "i must buy a dictionary",
i would never have thought collaboration meant me explaining to you multiple times why your two pole tests on ssb in skip conditions using unwilling & unknowing stations as signal sources are useless,

I do forget sometimes Bob, but as I said...I am not perfect. Your personal attacks are not convincing.

Bob, it is you that doesn't remember now. When the collaboration was going on it was long before I ever disagreed with what you said. When I did my S4 testing in the case you never talked about what I was doing because you could only have guessed, and that was also long before I ever posted a video. That, my friend is the recollections I correctly claim...and you can only deny it never happened. Among other things, the primary thing I learned back then from you was our discussions about transformation. You were disappointed that I could not report the results you promised me that I would. In the end you told me that the old S4 was not capable of showing the type of results you were reporting, and that is what disappointed me. If that is not what happened...then the truth is not in either of our words.

maybe you forgot that you recently admitted as much like you forget what people have said so you twist their words to mean what you want them to mean because its convenient to do so ?

I admitted to DB that his report about his 4Nec2 Vector model showed results similar to what Donald and Sirio have reported for the New Vector 4000. I explained that if that was possible I could be wrong in my opinions on this issue, but you apparently did not understand my words. That is the convenience that I mentioned.

IMO, Sirio uses the short sub to create as much current imbalance at the center point of the antenna, where the shield stops. IMO this is done in order to create as much CMC's to flow on the shield as possible"

"The only advantage I see with a dipole inside of an open sleeve is to add strength to the antenna"

Those are my opinions. Why don't you show us how the sleeved dipole is of any benefit to the antenna performance over a plane dipole? I checked out the Sleeved Dipole model that Roy provided in his Eznec software as an example, and I don't see any difference in performance, none nada.

you don't even realise how ignorrant these comments prove you are eddie,
they prove beyond a shadow of doubt you either don't read or don't comprehend what you read,
how are we supposed to take what you say seriously ?

Again it is true those are my opinions ignorant (spelled correctly) or not. You could convince me otherwise if you would address the question above.

i will print them out and pin them to the bathroom door in case we ever run out of paper,

you pollute the forum with pages of twaddle that people can't folow,

never on a forum has so little been said over and over with so many words.

It could also be said Bob, that the ideas you have posted for us over the years are dubious at best. You can't be sure of any ideas for what Cebik told you, and I understand how that can happen. To consider complicated issues it takes time and communications between individuals.

Cebik gave you a hint why he did not want to discuss the S4 idea further...and you are helping to fulfill that prophecy. Now a dictionary may come in handy.

 

[The DB]

If you notice I haven't posted in this thread in a while. I was essentially drug into the middle of this, and at the moment I see no benefit to myself in continuing.

I have posted everything needed for anyone to see what I did, reproduce, and play with the model. I also posted its gain plot in reference to a dipole, the currents data, and the phase data. I also talked about various aspects of the model including unexpected aspects I did not expect to see in the current flow, I also posted what I see happening and some potential issues, including the currents data from a very early version of the model in support of something I saw later on. There is quite a bit that I haven't mentioned here, but there is more than enough data in this thread for anyone to reproduce what I have done, and thoughts on what is happening on various aspects of the model itself.

Perhaps I'll pick up on it later, perhaps not. I simply have no interest in continuing on this right now.


The DB

 

[Marconi]

Well DB, this is the same thing as it worked out on eham, and several previous discussions earlier on this topics. There was so much bloviating going on that it runs folks off.

Mr. Cebik spoke of it, and his prophecy is made to come true...so the light of day will never shine.

I apologize for my part in that.

 

[Shockwave]

Marconi, If you could learn to shut your inaccurate , opinionated mouth in the presence of people who have done the experiments on this antenna maybe folks wouldn't give up trying to teach you. It is true, if you keep denying the obvious and deny everything we can reproduce in the field, you will make those who understand, completely give up on you as a lost cause.

As DB said, he has given you all you need with the model to show the Sigma is not a 1/2 wave sold with 8 feet of mast. Most important is the fact you have also been given a specific field test right down to the 4 wires you
need to add to show you ideas are nothing more than misguided myths.

You play with your SSB signal meter with other antennas distorting your pattern while you rely on a model that is not even close to the Sigma with the determination of someone who is sure they are right. I'll stick to my Potomac field strength receiver with a single antenna under test. Knowing if you ever get someone you trust again to test your 1/2 wave on a 8 foot pole idea, you're going to be eating more words than you can imagine.

 

[Marconi]

Donald, attached is a video I did a while back that shows the signal responses of my Marconi antenna vs my Sigma4 in a real world comparison. These antennas are 36' feet apart and and the heights at the feed points and at the tips are noted on the Signal Report that I ran at the time.See Signal Report below the video.

If you would bother to check this support of my work...you will see the results I've suggested in the video and in words above, and you will see my Marconi produces the same signal as my S4 out to a station "Tim" that is 55 miles away.

My Marconi is made of 7 x 102" ss antennas. These whips are mounted on a mobile L-bracket, and a hub from the GPK for an A99. No tuning, just raise it up.

 

[Shockwave]

You're preaching to the quire Marconi. Someone who has replaced too many dipoles to count under controlled situations where the only variable was removing a dipole and placing this design on the exact same tower mount. If you were right, each one would have been removed with the request of a refund. It all comes down to how many microvolts can be measured from a specific point in the distance. Something you've never even attempted to measure accurately prior to spreading this misinformation.

 

[Marconi]

microvolts

I don't know about micro-volts. I thought it was currents that radiated radio waves.

 

[Shockwave]

There is a lot you don't know about measuring the performance of antennas in the field. You can waste time pondering my typos or recognize that accurate instruments used to measure antenna gain are calibrated in uv and db. That 100 uv is a typical 0 db reference point on these field strength receivers.

 

[Marconi]

There is a lot you don't know about measuring the performance of antennas in the field. You can waste time pondering my typos or recognize that accurate instruments used to measure antenna gain are calibrated in uv and db. That 100 uv is a typical 0 db reference point on these field strength receivers.

Well Donald I'm just a simple man. I don't have the understanding to do all the high tech testing that you claim to do.

I'm a little surprised however, that you don't have a professional videographer doing videos for your Dominator.