Question on the Vector

[Shockwave]

Bob, I'm sorry I have not addressed your question about the length of the radiation current on the upper 1/2 wave appearing longer at some frames in the model. There are several media players that allow you to freeze the video and display exactly what you're talking about. To me it appears we are seeing the results of the multiple currents interacting with each other prior to the currents reaching the source phase that produces the final pattern at full currents. I see two possible reasons contributing to this.

The dominant factor seems to be the two opposing currents inside the cone. While I wouldn't normally expect the current on the cone to "force" the current on the vertical up higher on the element, that appears to be what we see happening in the CST model. When the currents are viewed at a weak point during the drive phase, the opposing current may find the "path of least resistance" is to repel higher on the vertical before the currents reach a magnitude where they are forced to "fit" along the radiator length.

Had all currents been equal in the opposing areas, I suspect we would see much less movement of the current on the vertical throughout the drive phase. Which leeds me to the second contributor that dispells Marconi's "very little cone radiation idea". The fact that CMC on the outside of the cone is dependant on the antenna having radiated a current in order to cause the imbalance required to create the CMC in the first place. The delay in seeing the expected phase alignment along the vertical may be effected by this too.

 

[Marconi]

I'm not out to side with or against you Eddie. I gave "my" opinion right or wrong.

I feel the same way Jazz.

Maybe you could view the idea Donald suggested earlier in the thread that RF see's the basket not as radials but as a solid cone due to the gaps between the radials being a very small fraction of a wavelength similar to how a faraday cage is seen.

I think we agree that the cone does block the currents between L1 and L2 due to the currents being out of phase and their magnitudes being near equal, thus causing cancellation...as I recall you noting earlier in your remarks.

This response is incomplete, as most conditions such as this tend to be in radio...and thus we have some radiation from the cone. I just consider this current small and antenna mode currents, while I think Donald considers the currents significant and Common Mode type Currents, maybe even similar to what we see in the Gain Master and T2LT. This is not intended to twist his words on the subject, but it is what I think he sees.

Given that is the case and air is a dielectric and the internal pole another conductor. In that case the basket could be viewed as a non constant piece of coax with a high impedance at top and zero at the bottom as its grounded.

Well, I agree with you that the cone has a high impedance at the top and a low impedance at the bottom in the case with a S4 design, and Jazz that is exactly why I don't consider the S4 cone as coaxial. IMO this describes a rather poor radiator, and my analogy of this happening we see in a coaxial pigtail connection.

In every other case of CMC's flowing that I have ever seen is flowing out of a imbalanced low impedance point like the feed point. In those cases the suggested remedy is to create a high impedance point...using a choke or balun at the same point.

Its just a suggestion and not a fact that may help you undetstand how some view it as a transmission line with cmc radiating on outside of those radials/cone.

I understand their describing the cone as a transmission line, but it is not constructed with the proper dimensional ratios that coax does. The only reason they call the cone a transmission line is because the elements are near parallel, and the currents are out of phase. Do you think the bad currents on the radiator that is out of phase at this point with the top 1/2 wave and cancelled and the constructive currents on the radials are left free to radiate with their full current magnitude. If so, how do we account for the cancellation? Said another way, do we just contend that the bad currents are cancelled leaving the good currents to radiate? I don't think cancellation works that way.

As for the T2LT add a tube and take away the choke you have a sleeve dipole/bazooka/bigstick. Call it what you want. So you could indeed swop coax with tubing or wire. Shakespeare did exactly that and called it a big stick. Trouble was they left out the choke.

Either way Jazz, you still have to simulate the proper construction for coax, which IMO will not work...taking the shape of a cone.

Here is a real event story as best I can recall. Back in the day I use to use RG8 inside of a 1.25" x 1/4 wave aluminum tube out of the feed point on my StarDuster. I attached the shield of the coax to the base of this tube which I used to mount the antenna. I called it a bazooka balun from an idea I read in a 1980's magazine article I posted below. This was some years before I met Bob of course.

Bob questioned that idea, and instead suggested I use smaller RG8x or RG58 type coax. I don't want to twist Bob words, so I ask why did Bob suggest that? Was it because the bigger diameter RG8 coax was not as close to the construction diameters of real coax in the small tubing I used and thus it did not act like coax...like I thought?

Bear also in mind that 3 or 4 wires or more spaced apart on either side of a dipole will make it broader banded as rf see's it again as one larger solid conductor.

I under stand that idea too Jazz...but have you ever tested it. The idea has merit, but I would be surprised if you can even tell without some more high tech equipment, much better than a CBer will likely use. This is like I find most of the time when reading more technical articles on antennas...the differences they often claim are miniscule in most cases. I can't remember the discussion, but I think I said that to Bob the other day on an article by Cebik that he posted for us to consider.

If I'm not mistaken the duga 3 array in Ukraine (known as the woodpecker) uses exactly that method of construction.

I've heard about this monster, but I do not have any opinions on it.

This antenna is a real mind opener. All on air tests by people i know who've done it, show colinear effect at extreme distance. How it achieves it is the real debate.

Well Jazz, you let me know when you figure it out. I hope one day we get this S4 design idea all igure out...so I might need to find something else to talk about.

I know the clr2 states its colinear and you could debate for days its a .5 over a .125 wave or even a .25 over a .375 wave or any other fractional combination that add up to a 5/8 .625 wave.

I don't think HyGain considered this claim as wrong...they saw two current maximums on that antenna...even using early 1900's period ideas and math. It is collinear, even if it stretches the rules as we understand them today.

Tbh. I'm a bit sick of looking at clr2's. Think i have about 10 of them now. If I'm not mistaken the clr is abbreviated form of colinear. Same could be said about mighty magnum 3's. Went a bit mad on those too. Got 8 of them now. Spent 30 years looking for one and thanks to Bob's tip off, i got a bundle

Well you could make a bundle off of them two old cheating lying boys I sent my CLR2 coil too a while back. You don't want to be doing business with them though...I lost $2.00 dollars postage dealing with them.

A bit spoiled for choice what to put up now. Got about 8 hy gain 418 .25 wave gp's with similar radials to clr2 and beta match. Ideal for hilltopping.

One thing I'm certain of it ain't a j pole. lol

Don't think everyone will ever agree about the sigma 4/vector 4k but its starting to make sense why it works so well. To me anyway.

I have never worked a J-Pole, but the idea looks very interesting. I can possibly see why Sirio might call their NV4K a coaxial J-Pole, and that must be hard to explain by some.

If we all agreed we would learn nothing. I'm quite happy for anyone to prove me wrong cause I'll learn from it.

Jazz, that is my feeling too. We agree on the SD'r, and now this...are we in trouble?

P.s. Bob's much bigger than me and I don't drink much so mm2000 is different too. My poison is sweet mary jane in abundance Lol

I was just trying to poke some fun at Bob the other day.

I don't agree with the love in your past time, but to each his own, OK?

Check out the article on the balun idea below.

 

[Marconi]

"Cebik gave you a hint why he did not want to discuss the S4 idea further...and you are helping to fulfill that prophecy."

Because Cebik knew the antenna was a "non apparent collinear" he also knew those it was not apparent too, would create "pages of meaningless debate". Consider how well we find his description fits your situation today Marconi.

Donald, I have often suggested what I think Cebik might have meant also. You idea here is as good as any at this point.

I asked Bob a question the other day, and I think he made a comment to me that possibly suggested that Cebik did not know about the design idea for the S4 design. I don't want to twist Bob's words, but I think this was when Bob told me he described what the Vector looked like.

 

[Marconi]

Bob, I'm sorry I have not addressed your question about the length of the radiation current on the upper 1/2 wave appearing longer at some frames in the model. There are several media players that allow you to freeze the video and display exactly what you're talking about. To me it appears we are seeing the results of the multiple currents interacting with each other prior to the currents reaching the source phase that produces the final pattern at full currents. I see two possible reasons contributing to this.

The dominant factor seems to be the two opposing currents inside the cone. While I wouldn't normally expect the current on the cone to "force" the current on the vertical up higher on the element, that appears to be what we see happening in the CST model. When the currents are viewed at a weak point during the drive phase, the opposing current may find the "path of least resistance" is to repel higher on the vertical before the currents reach a magnitude where they are forced to "fit" along the radiator length.

Had all currents been equal in the opposing areas, I suspect we would see much less movement of the current on the vertical throughout the drive phase. Which leeds me to the second contributor that dispells Marconi's "very little cone radiation idea". The fact that CMC on the outside of the cone is dependant on the antenna having radiated a current in order to cause the imbalance required to create the CMC in the first place. The delay in seeing the expected phase alignment along the vertical may be effected by this too.

Donald I can't argue this new idea of yours. Sorry I don't understand it.

 

[Marconi]

when cebik said getting accurate results with that antenna using eznec would be very difficult, it never crossed my mind at the time that he meant difficult for me,
taking what he said in the context of the conversation i think he meant for anybody,
he does not say the same for a regular j-pole so something about the vector makes it difficult to model accurately in cebiks opinion,

I don't recall suggesting Cebik was singling you out when he made the remarks you note. If that is what I said...it was tacky of me.

Bob, what really is amazing to me is that Cebik wrote article after article on the lowley J-Pole with all of its problems, but we don't find anything on the much better S4 design...that solved all the problems associated with the J-Pole and produced results that were 2db better than a 1/2 wave dipole in the same position.

I think it might make more sense that Cebik was simply describing the Eznec problems with taper and acute angles he knew about, based on what he took away from your description of the Vector,

what i have learned since is ne2 does not like close spaced wire at acute angles, dissimilar diameter conductors and taper in the conductors,
i can't find anything else that could explain what he meant,

I've tried to be really open with this forum...showing all the modeling results I can think of...trying to explain what I did to over come such problems in my model of the S4 in particular. I don't get angry just being questioned. I've also explained why I don't think I can duplicate the same results in my Vector model...but I guess you missed that in my words recently.

im not accusing you of a single current theory eddie, you keep telling us that,
the arrl and barkley clearly and without ambiguity talk about antenna mode and transmissionline mode impedances and the resulting currents,
they even provide an equivalent circuit with two loads in parallel that been antenna mode impedance and transmission-line impedance,

This mystifies me Bob, I don't know where I've ever told anybody we have a single current on any antenna or antenna structure. Can you help me out with a bit more info?

heres the link that answers my question about mom and radiation from transmission-lines that nobody else answered despite my repeated asking,
http://tinyurl.com/k55auvl

Bob, that is a very long and complicated thesis. Again, can you elaborate a bit more.

when i posts links you claim they are too difficult to understand,
it is my opinion that unless you understand it you are in no position to form an opinion about how works,
the same goes for any topic eddie,
there is opinion and informed opinion, the two are so far apart they are not similar at all,

If you find the answer to how the S4 works in this article...them tell us what you see instead of criticizing me about what I don't understand. If you have a specific point about this article that you want me to claim or agree with...then why don't you talk about it.

i don't know about booty and homers troubles but i do know the antenna works ok with the radials bolted to the monopole with no hub,

Oh, OK. Why don't you show us an example of such an antenna. I saw BM's first attempt at his Vector...where he had the radials really close to the radiator. My recollections of Homer's antenna are a bit more vague on this score, but I would hope they both would step forward and set this idea straight and then maybe you won't have to show what I asked for above. I've even said in this regard that maybe both would deny this ever happened...what I described. Is that a fair consideration to maybe answer if I'm just an old fool?

barkley does say what i posted he says,
i have no idea how anybody that read it missed it,

Again, I must missed it...or I forgot. If it is so important to your idea...then why don't you remind us?

i don't know what gain the correctly adjusted antenna has,

I seem to remember years ago you were claiming your success in talking on your Vector Hybrid at a far distance was based on your tune and the possibility you were steering the maximum radiated angle. I and others requested you to discuss you tuning procedures...and your reply was always something like the following. This is not an exact quote, but I post it below like it was.

"...this is something everyone has to figure out, because everyone's location is different."

has w8ji just thrown some wires around a j-pole without doing the little things with wires in the hub area you know are important eddie?

I don't have a clue why he updated his old article with this new information. I speculate the edit might come from W8JI's comments on Booty Monster's post on eHam...about his homemade Vector.

I was looking for his reference to the Imax and or the J-Pole for something on my mind at the time...and I noticed the new information...so I posted it and asked you if you had seen it, that's all.

Here again is what happens when we don't know the answers to our questions we have regarding some words. He gives us some pictures, but is cheap on his words, and I don't know why. Maybe it is because he might get critized for being wordy.

 

[bob85]

eddie,
if you can't be bothered reading the articles I post when you ask me to I sure can't be bothered pointing out what parts are pertinent to the topic when i already have oposted quotes from the articles,

we have gone over this more than once, the arrl article has been posted on here for 6 years, Barkleys more recently,
your first attempt to tell us what it meant was hilarious,

if Barkley & the last link I posted yet again for you are too much for you, I can't help that,
try starting with Lou franklins books, they are tailor made for you eddie, then I suggest you try the arrl open sleeve article again,

I'm not building a vector to prove you wrong eddie, its your job to prove to us what you claim, You build it and show us how it won't work lol,

yes back when this started I did say that I thought i may be somehow manipulating takeoff angle with my adjustments,
show me something that refutes that idea eddie,

you are happy to keep reminding us that sirio call the vector a coaxial j-pole,
but not happy if we say the sleeve is coaxial, you prefer to make up your own rules of what is coaxial,

not happy when sirio claim the new vector is optimised for a lower takeoff angle than the old vector by doing the same thing I thought I may be doing 10 years ago,
its called ignoring the parts that don't fit your paradigm, its the way your clouded mind works eddie,

when twisting peoples words to suite your agenda fails you start pointing out my spelling errors ignoring the fact you are worse than I am lmao, and you accuse me of misdirection lmfao.

You have taken over from Doc in the way you conduct yourself in a debate with nonsensical answers and a refusal to read links or post links to respected sources to back up your ideas,

if you put half as much effort into learning as you do arguing twisting and making snide comments you could possibly understand the links I post.

 

[Marconi]

This thread is entitled "Question on the Vector." I think DB entitled it this way, because there are still questions that have not been answered. Would you have titled it as "No More Questions on the Vector" instead?

Bob, I'm still not convinced that this design is anything more than a 1/2 wave radiator that, by design, raises the radiator up a 1/4 wave higher than a typical 1/2 wave mounted on the same mast. I also believe that is the only advantage the S4 design has over the shorter 1/2 and 5/8 wave monopoles. IMO, this antenna design is not mystical like some would have us believe in this ongoing epic for how it works.

My Eznec models show pretty much what you claim except for the higher gain some have reported. But you and Donald among others, don't believe it, because you can't believe anything but your own ideas from long long ago. I've changed my mind about this antenna over time, and you've soundly criticized me for just changing my mind. IMO, you and Donald are both blinded by your own bias, and will not even consider...any other ideas on the subject...while you fuss and say I don't even read your links. It has been my wish of over 10 years to prove you right, but instead I've changed my mind. That is why I'm no longer convinced like I once was.

Bob, the S4 design may work as you and others have described in some of your very long, and complicated links, but IMO this design is not mystical in how it works.

In my opinion my S4 works beautifully. It's simplistic, and it stands alone a full 1/4 wl higher above all of its competition...and that is why it has an advantage.

Height makes might in the CB business...where according to some no BS ever pops up.

See my Eznec pattern reports attached below for my S4 at 32' feet compared to 41' feet...9' feet a 1/4 wave at CB frequencies.

Also note the difference 9' feet makes in angle for the models below.

I've also claimed the 5/8 wave monopole GP, that folks all over the world talk about as the only standard in high gain antennas, caused the same idea relative to the simple CFHW/EFHW years ago...when HyGain came out with their CLR2 for CB radios. Even Radio Shack hopped onto this band wagon.

 

[Shockwave]

My Eznec models show pretty much what you claim except for the higher gain some have reported. But you and Donald among others, don't believe it, because you can't believe anything but your own ideas from long long ago. I've changed my mind about this antenna over time, and you've soundly criticized me for just changing my mind. IMO, you and Donald are both blinded by your own bias, and will not even consider...any other ideas on the subject...while you fuss and say I don't even read your links. It has been my wish of over 10 years to prove you right, but instead I've changed my mind. That is why I'm no longer convinced like I once was.

You need to be set straight again Marconi. I don't believe a word you say because your words are nothing more than inaccurate ideas that can never be reproduced in the field tests. Your EZNEC model is correct except for the gain and the phase. In other words it's absolute useless bullshit you base everything on. My bias is extreme and could never waiver because it's based on repeatable field tests that confirm the cone is a 1/4 wave radiator. Once you know the truth and can prove it in the field all the BS that comes from your 1/2 wave on a pole propaganda is just fuel for the fire.

Every time you express that false opinion, remember you've already been proven completely wrong by the four wire test confirming the error in EZNEC and that only a 90 degree phase delay works. You will never comment on this fact because you either don't have a clue about how it proves you wrong or you're hoping to keep others in the dark by fighting a battle you cannot defend with anything more than opinion. You already know where I think that opinion belongs but are too far in denial to understand why.

Before you post the 1/2 wave on a pole idea again, think 4 wire test, 4 wire test, 4 wire test, 4 wire test, 4 wire test, 4 wire test!!!!!!!!!!! The one test that has been provided that will always show the failure in your EZNEC model and your false ideas on how the Sigma works. The one test that can demonstrate exactly what you speculate on. How much gain comes from the cone. Precisely 2dbd and the same amount that one 1/4 wave of the additional 1/2 wave collinear section adds. Here is a classic example where opinion is irrelevant until the opinion lines up with the proven facts.

Now don't whine at me because I can't come to Texas to hold your hand teaching how to conduct accurate field tests. As you say it's not my job to prove your ideas. It's my job to prove my ideas and I've done my job. Now do yours or come up with something more substantial than your humble opinion to defend your abstract views.

 

[Shockwave]

Think of this as reporting the news Marconi. The responsible reporter confirms information prior to posting it and avoids having to base the report on opinion. It borders insanity to continuously post an opinion that contradicts multiple sources of confirmed information and is exactly what you've been doing for years on this topic. To believe your opinion we must disregard all of my field tests and all of the field tests conducted by my clients. Clients that take their coverage and measuring the field strength much more seriously than you. You have to disregard Bob's field tests, Jazz's and Booty Monsters too. You have to disregard the CST 2db gain figure and the odd shaped 1/4 wave current on the cone you can't explain. You have to disregard the fact we have told you the pattern is formed by two currents. You have to disregard the fact that EZNEC is off by 100% in the four wire phase test. You have to disregard Cebik's analysis of the Sigma being a "non apparent collinear"... I'm sorry Marconi, to believe your opinion over all of this would be insanity on my part.

 

[Marconi]

You have to disregard the CST 2db gain figure and the odd shaped 1/4 wave current on the cone you can't explain.

Donald, I don't disregard what I see in the pattern you posted. I just think the 1/4 wave pattern in the cone area is an anomaly. If you bothered to check the similar pattern for the 5/8 CST model that Siro publishes on their Website for their new Gain Master...you will see the same anomaly for that 1/8 wave element at the base. See at the bottom.

If you bother to check my Sigma 4 model below...you will see the same anomaly. I just exaggerated the image so we could see the radials are slanted and we see the bottom area of the red line looks to be curved a little. If you check the red line for the currents on the radiator you will see the more traditional look for a 1/4 wave element's current distribution that we might expect. Rather than curve a little, it goes straight down and does not look to curve any at the bottom.

You just rave about what you want to see, and make all kinds of wild-eyed assumptions, explaining to us how this is important and does this and does that. We see what you see, but you make claims without a thread of evidence to prove anything. To state that, somehow, a 1/4 radiating element can produce a pattern that looks like a 1/2 wave radiator is ridicules at best Donald. Something else is at play here Donald. You just have a vale over your face on this stuff.

You have to disregard the fact we have told you the pattern is formed by two currents.

This is BS too and it is obvious that this curve issue at the bottom of a 1/4 wave radiating element is not producing a 1/2 wave pattern. This is truly an anomaly.

You have to disregard the fact that EZNEC is off by 100% in the four wire phase test.

Donald you say that all the time. Nobody has taken your challenge to test that idea and report back showing us what they find. You won't do it...so here we sit with just your word on the matter. Dale on eHam quite, DB quite...there is nobody out there to help prove your findings. All you can do is criticize or ingnore the evidence I post. You won't even argue the points in my evidence...you just claim I'm crazy or foolish.

You have to disregard Cebik's analysis of the Sigma being a "non apparent collinear".

None of us know what Cebik really meant. I recently asked Bob's if Cebik knew anything about the Vector design. I read his account, and Bob told us he described the idea to Cebik. Cebik did not know the antenna, but he does understand modeling...its aspects and limitations. Cebik's references were very likely talking about modeling...and you ignore that possibility too.

I'm sorry Marconi, to believe your opinion over all of this would be insanity on my part.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Your problem is the vale over your face.

To believe your opinion we must disregard all of my field tests and all of the field tests conducted by my clients.

You just have a good product that does what the customer wants Donald. What the customer sees, confirms that, and has little to do with how the S4 design works, and for sure like you are trying to describe.

My model that I just posted, may not be perfect, but it shows how much better the S4 design is over a 1/2 and 5/8 wave. But that just not enough for you.

Over the years I've seen terrible acting antennas, with terrible matches and TVI, all over hell's half acre, perform as good or better than some of my others...that I knew were setup better.

Check out my Eznec image for my S4 below. As noted you will see the currents have been enhanced, and we see a similar anomaly. Again go check out Sirio's 5/8 wave pattern in their GM page...we see the same.

Click here: http://www.gain-master.it/vsconventional.php

 

[bob85]

Donald
Thanks for confirming my eyes are not broken,
I won't pretend I understand it but we are seeing the same thing,

eddie,
cebik did know what the vector looked like when he made his comments,
for the upteenth time, I sent him a link to the antenna on sirio's website and described what I was doing and what I was seeing,
I was seeking an explanation to why,

I have made it clear that he knew what the antenna looked like in the past,
how on earth could he make comments about an antenna he never saw before,

not only did he know what it looked like he knew the of controversy such misunderstood atennas can create from people who don't understand how they work ( his words not mine ) & stated that as the reason he was reluctant to get involved with pages of meaningless argument,

had me meant me he would never have told me that a form of co-linear could be created that is not immediately apparent to most people,

was he correct in what he told me? That's for you to decide,

I have no idea where you got the notion that he was making comments about an antenna he did not know,
unless you are just doing your usual thing, twisting what people say and ignoring the bits that don't fit your paradigm,

you must be the only person on this board that has read the different viewpoint thread & thinks cebik was talking about an antenna he had never seen.

 

[Shockwave]

Marconi, you have got to be the most ignorantly behaving person I have ever met or is this nothing more than your attempt at being a pest? From your reference to the 5/8 wave current distribution, it's also obvious you have a visual impairment. How you can look at the CST video of the 5/8 wave and suggest the lower 1/8 wave does not have maximum current towards its base absolutely defies reality. Did you want a sharp 90 degree corner shown like your cheap EZNEC displays? The current is so strong at the base, the field actually expands below the radiator in the base area!!! Once again you look at something and form a twisted opinion to support your inaccurate ideas.

I NEVER even look at a single EZNEC model of the Sigma anymore unless someone indicates they have made a radical change to the model so it can now display the phase and radiation we can prove in the 4 wire field test or can show significant radiation from the cone accounting for the 2dbd that CST confirms. To state the 1/2 wave pattern on the 1/4 wave cone is an anomaly just proves how little you understand the evidence CST has presented you. Maybe you should stick to your EZNEC since it does match your level of inaccuracy. With respect to the "vale" you can file that in the same location as your opinion.

You are a silly man wondering around lost in an unfamiliar area. You ask for guidance and insight to find your way and do nothing but ignore the help you're offered. Preferring to remain lost and take as many people with you as you can. That is the ultimate example of ignorance and stupidity combined. You have to sit here day after day telling the forum outright lies to support your distorted thoughts. You are forced to lie to the forum claiming I "don't have a shred of evidence" in order to continue to mislead them when you know the 4 wire test would stop your theory dead in its tracks if you had the guts to do what I did and put your idea to the test!

I'm not as sure as you are that nobody has taken my 4 wire challenge. The ONLY test provided by anyone that can absolutely prove the Sigma is a 3/4 wave phase corrected radiator. The answer is simple. The people in the other forum that said they would do the test were from the J-Pole camp. Doing the test and posting the info would reveal the J-Pole idea is absurd.

You also like to conveniently place the shoe on the other foot by pretending it's me that needs someone to test my idea to help me. LOL! It's me that recognized the cone radiates virtually identical to a free standing 1/4 wave radiator and developed a scientific field test to identify the phase and magnitude of that cone. Using the collinear experiment to add radiator length with varying phase delay while measuring gain allows us to determine the constructive wavelength of the stock Sigma. Why you overlook this definitive proof was beyond me but it's now obvious. You need to be right regardless of ANY facts!

 

[Marconi]

eddie,
cebik did know what the vector looked like when he made his comments,
for the upteenth time, I sent him a link to the antenna on sirio's website and described what I was doing and what I was seeing,
I was seeking an explanation to why,

I have made it clear that he knew what the antenna looked like in the past,
how on earth could he make comments about an antenna he never saw before,

not only did he know what it looked like he knew the of controversy such misunderstood atennas can create from people who don't understand how they work ( his words not mine ) & stated that as the reason he was reluctant to get involved with pages of meaningless argument,

had me meant me he would never have told me that a form of co-linear could be created that is not immediately apparent to most people,

was he correct in what he told me? That's for you to decide,

Believe me Bob, I have decided, but I could change my mind if something new an convincing came to light on this issue. What about you?

This is just a difference in point of view Bob, and your own thread on the subject suggest there are different points of view. I use to believe your point of view, but after years of discussion and consideration on my part...I changed my mind.

I have no idea where you got the notion that he was making comments about an antenna he did not know,
unless you are just doing your usual thing, twisting what people say and ignoring the bits that don't fit your paradigm,

you must be the only person on this board that has read the different viewpoint thread & thinks cebik was talking about an antenna he had never seen.

Bob I agree with your paradigm idea, but it works both ways. You will not even consider the idea, that another point of view could explain how the S4 design works.

You're opinion and mine are just different. I don't think if there were only three people in the whole world considering this issue...we would be able to come to a unified conclusion about how the S4 design works.

So, what is your point? Are you totally excluding all other points if view?

Are you arguing with your own idea for the title of your original thread?

Avanti Sigma4: An alternative view point
Discussion in 'CB Antennas' started by bob85, Jan 3, 2009.

Should this mean instead:"Avanti Sigma 4: The only view point."

 

[Marconi]

Take a break Donald, you are only twisting my words. What you describe is not what I demonstrated.

 

[Shockwave]

Take your own advice Marconi. Take a break and do your best to come back with ANYTHING to support your distorted opinions. Ignore the key fact the collinear test fails with the EZNEC 180 degree phase delay because the Sigma IS NOT THE 1/2 WAVE YOU AND YOUR CHEAP SOFTWARE THINK IT IS. Lie to everyone and tell them this test can not prove the Sigma is a 3/4 wave phase corrected radiator. Overlook the fact you are unable to conduct a single field test to accurately support any of the opinions you've offered. Make everyone think I'm trying to use you to prove my work rather than offering you the proof I've already used. Good job Marconi. At this rate you are on a fast track to becoming the most useless member on the forum. Not because you don't offer anything but because you put great effort into propagating false bullshit with no foundation on this topic.