Question on the Vector

[Marconi]

Marconi, the only way I know to tell if your model gets the phase correctly is the use of my 4 wire test. I don't believe anyone has corrected that problem yet. I think DB has done similar experiments in EZNEC to attempt to correct this phase and was able to show decent gain in his latest model. Unfortunately he still confirmed EZNEC only worked when the collinear model used a 180 degree phase delay in total contradiction to all field tests.

Donald, I've responded to your comments above already, but I want to respond another way...by relating to your 4 wire test.

When I did my model of this collinear stacking idea of yours, I had to guess at exactly how and what you did. It is true that you gave me a sketchy idea, but I asked you for better details, or an Eznec model of the project that you did. I feel you had to have an Eznec model, else how would you know that Eznec did not accurately produce the results...you claim to see in your field testing work.

If DB did some similar work as you mention...it never came to my attention either. I have asked DB to share with me his S4/NV4K model in this regard or just show me his results. I'm still waiting. I have no idea what DB's S4/NV4K even looks like or if he bothered to model with any of the limitations I called to his attention...that I deem essential using Eznec, and possibly 4Ne2 as well. I've mentioned these limitations several times here on WWDX. IMO, using NEC2 we must consider them too or else the model will suffer and not show currents correctly, and I wonder if DB's Average Gain results could be off. I find in such cases the model tends to show a bit more gain.

DB, if you read this, could you please tell me what the Average Gain result was for your S4/NV4K model, the one where Donald says above...that you got some positive results showing increased gain.

In the rare event you are able to get EZNEC to model a Sigma, you have the information to confirm it yourself now that I've explained it. I can't tell without adding the 4 wires. You need to run that test on your own model. When you can stretch the 3 wire folded phasing section out in a straight line and it measures close to a 1/4 wavelength over its ENTIRE conductor length, you will be the first ever to make EZNEC work with the Sigma.

Except for what you tell us Donald, I'm not sure what your test is supposed to demonstrate. In Booty Monsters eHam thread on his Vector build...you discussed this 4 wire collinear test using the S4/NV4K and adding a 1/2 wave radiator above it, but as I recall nobody even commented on the idea. I don't know why that happened as it did either. It could be nobody understood, or maybe they figured the idea was a dubious comparison.

Since the shorted phasing stub in the J-pole example is known as a "1/4 wave stub" even though it produces a 180 degree phase shift and has a conductor length of 1/2 wave, I will no longer refer to this type of phase delay by its insensible wavelength name since it's misleading, confusing and not accurate. I think it's inappropriate to name a phase delay based on its physical length AFTER the conductor is folded in half rather than to name it based on the actual amount of shift in wavelength or phase it produces.

This is confusing to me as well, and since there are arguments going on about how and what constitutes this collinear phasing business...I'm not convinced of its validity as a test, but I do hear what you are saying about it. All I really know is I think the S4 design is basically a raised up 1/2 waver radiator, so I stacked the model using a 1/2 wave long phasing harness to set the current phase equal in both 1/2 wave radiators, and it worked just as expected. I wasn't surprised.

Just a correction Donald, it was 4NEC2, not EZNEC. They are based on the same engine, but I'm not sure if EZNEC uses a modified NEC2 or if it is stock.

I have played with EZNEC some, the layout of EZNEC just seemed un-intuitive to me... With 4NEC2 I was able to essentially jump right in.

DB, after many previous tries at working with Eznec, I finally found it just as you noted with your using 4Nec2...I was able to essentially jump right in.

 

[Shockwave]

Marconi, once again you have completely misinformed the site regarding the 4 wire test I presented in QRZ. Did you forget there was one person who followed exactly what I said about the 90 degree shift and how this antenna only needed half of the phase delay? He found that evidence so intriguing he told us he was going to build the collinear prototype to identify the 90 degree delay I discus. If I think like you I could assume he may have done the test and found out your idea and his were wrong and was too embarrassed to report back.

Keep telling everyone I just have words because you're going to be eating a lot of them the first time someone takes the effort to put my 4 wire test in action. That I'll bet the farm on because I already have the evidence you refuse to consider or try yourself.

 

[The DB]

Apologies, but I am not fully up to date on this thread, or the skeleton sleeve monopole thread, which I think is likely related. I have been busy as of late with other things that require my attention, and longer posts that may require more thought have been glossed over at best.

Ahh yes, that model. I had the thought one day of, instead of modeling the elements of the antenna, to model the currents directly instead. I did an initial base level model. The next day Bob sent me a message asking me to do just what I just started doing. Donald was added to the conversation later. I don't know if there is a way to make the text of the conversation public or not with this forum software.

The average gain test on the model in question is 10.9 dBi, and this is a match to the antennas gain over a theoretical perfect ground. The gain over average ground is 6.08 dBi, and that is 2.01 dB gain over a center fed dipole at the same frequency. As the lengths of the antennas were not the same, in this case the dipole reference center is positioned very close to the middle height of the vertical element of the Vector model (the height of the Vector model was optimized for gain, and therefore the exact center was not maintained perfectly). The base of the long vertical element is 1 wavelength or 10 meters above ground. The dimensions of the final model are very touchy. These dimensions include the length of the vertical element, the mast at the bottom, the upward pointing radials length and angle off of vertical, ect.

The four wire test Donald presents does not work on the model as he is saying it should. I can't personally verify the validity of the test, as it doesn't conform with my understanding of theory. I do plan on making a 2-meters ham band scale model of the V-4k antenna at some point to confirm what Donald is saying, but I am not sure when it will happen.

Eddie, you said you asked me for something from 4NEC2? I don't recall. I either read it when I didn't have time and forgot about it, or it is in the several pages I am not yet caught up on.

Again, apologies for being behind the curve on this. I will try to get caught up when I am able.


The DB

 

[Marconi]

Marconi, once again you have completely misinformed the site regarding the 4 wire test I presented in QRZ. Did you forget there was one person who followed exactly what I said about the 90 degree shift and how this antenna only needed half of the phase delay? He found that evidence so intriguing he told us he was going to build the collinear prototype to identify the 90 degree delay I discus. If I think like you I could assume he may have done the test and found out your idea and his were wrong and was too embarrassed to report back.

Keep telling everyone I just have words because you're going to be eating a lot of them the first time someone takes the effort to put my 4 wire test in action. That I'll bet the farm on because I already have the evidence you refuse to consider or try yourself.

I don't remember the particular one character you mention out of the handful or more of meaningful responders Donald.

All I know is the nice guy that promised to test your ideas was in the process of moving, and promised to do the work after the move. A year latter he recanted, saying much trouble had gone on in his life since the move, and he had to beg out of his part of the agreement or no agreement that you two made or didn't make on the eHam forum in Booty Monster's thread on his homemade Vector ideas. At best the idea discussed toward the end was always on again off again.

That kind of surprise me, because I thought the design idea for the S4/Vector was a very good idea and proved that a 3/4 wave monopole could radiate a very low angled signal on the horizon, but I guess these guys all figured out it was nothing more than a raised up 1/2 wave similar to a J-Pole, with the primary problem being such an antenna would be a common mode nightmare.

Several have responded since the deal was declared off, including me, but no body is apparently interested in a CB antenna that is arguably not worthy of discussion over there on eHam.

 

[Marconi]

Apologies, but I am not fully up to date on this thread, or the skeleton sleeve monopole thread, which I think is likely related. I have been busy as of late with other things that require my attention, and longer posts that may require more thought have been glossed over at best.

Ahh yes, that model. I had the thought one day of, instead of modeling the elements of the antenna, to model the currents directly instead. I did an initial base level model. The next day Bob sent me a message asking me to do just what I just started doing. Donald was added to the conversation later. I don't know if there is a way to make the text of the conversation public or not with this forum software.

The average gain test on the model in question is 10.9 dBi, and this is a match to the antennas gain over a theoretical perfect ground. The gain over average ground is 6.08 dBi, and that is 2.01 dB gain over a center fed dipole at the same frequency. As the lengths of the antennas were not the same, in this case the dipole reference center is positioned very close to the middle height of the vertical element of the Vector model (the height of the Vector model was optimized for gain, and therefore the exact center was not maintained perfectly). The base of the long vertical element is 1 wavelength or 10 meters above ground. The dimensions of the final model are very touchy. These dimensions include the length of the vertical element, the mast at the bottom, the upward pointing radials length and angle off of vertical, ect.

The four wire test Donald presents does not work on the model as he is saying it should. I can't personally verify the validity of the test, as it doesn't conform with my understanding of theory. I do plan on making a 2-meters ham band scale model of the V-4k antenna at some point to confirm what Donald is saying, but I am not sure when it will happen.

Eddie, you said you asked me for something from 4NEC2? I don't recall. I either read it when I didn't have time and forgot about it, or it is in the several pages I am not yet caught up on.

Again, apologies for being behind the curve on this. I will try to get caught up when I am able.

The DB

DB, like I said the other day when we talked about currents and you told me you were busy at work...I'm patiently waiting.

I do not understand your idea to model an antenna using currents, but I recall you talking about a model with near a 1000 segments per wire and you were trying to get a real close look at the currents in doing so.

Maybe when you have more time we can talk.

Are you and Donald discussing the 2 meter project he mentioned?

 

[Marconi]

The average gain test on the model in question is 10.9 dBi, and this is a match to the antennas gain over a theoretical perfect ground. The gain over average ground is 6.08 dBi, and that is 2.01 dB gain over a center fed dipole at the same frequency. As the lengths of the antennas were not the same, in this case the dipole reference center is positioned very close to the middle height of the vertical element of the Vector model (the height of the Vector model was optimized for gain, and therefore the exact center was not maintained perfectly). The base of the long vertical element is 1 wavelength or 10 meters above ground. The dimensions of the final model are very touchy. These dimensions include the length of the vertical element, the mast at the bottom, the upward pointing radials length and angle off of vertical, ect.

DB, I posted earlier that I questioned the Average Gain on your model, and I had no way to really know that except by experience and intuition for your words and something that I think Donald said just today.

DB, with an AG that high (10.9 dbi), I frequently see a very high gain like 6.08 dbi with a model that is just a bit better than a dipole if the current maximums are at the same height.

This simply means the antenna is so far beyond the limitations its values reported are dubious.

If you will consider to send me your model noted above I will attempt to upload it to my Eznec. Hopefully the model has fewer than 500 segments, or I will not be able to handle it.

email me: edromans@comcast.net

 

[The DB]

You will need to refresh my memory on what you wanted.

When it comes to modeling currents instead of elements, I noticed that the only time any NEC2 model includes common mode currents is when we specifically added a wire for them to flow on. With Bob and Donald talking about common mode currents with this design, and the fact I have never seen any NEC2 model as of yet include common mode currents on its own, I decided to give them a path of their own to flow thus simulating what Bob and Donald have been talking about. To do that in NEC2 I needed another element, or wire, that was parallel to each radial. That model was later extended to include a mast as well. It seems to have worked, at least to a point. I can simulate the gain that was talked about in real world tests, but the four wire test still fails. In the end, the sizes of the vertical element and the radials are not close enough for my taste to the actual antenna. It was just an experiment as far as I was concerned. It also gives me an error message that parallel wires have unequal segmentation. That is not true, the wires in question are of equal length and equal number of segments. The model is also using my favored super thin wire, but then so was the dipole reference I was using. I'm happy to give you any of the files it generated, but need to know which one you want, fear not it only has 246 segments.

When it comes to an average gain test, the AGT model in freespace or over a perfect ground equals exactly the model in said environment, or unity gain with the actual model. There is no accurate AGT for the average ground, which is where the result posted above is from.

My current models don't have that many segments, typically about 100 segments per wavelength, and I take whatever I need for the fraction of the wavelength, aka 25 for 1/4 wavelength. The high segment count models are when I'm charting changes over many small adjustments in length over a given range. I use a high segment count for those models so I can accurately account for small changes in length and maintain an equivalent segment size over the range of lengths being charted.

We didn't discuss the 2-meter project per say. What happened is the four wire test that Donald uses didn't work in NEC2 as Donald said it does in field tests. Thinking it was odd that a 90 degree phase shift did what I and NEC2 would expect from a 180 degree phase shift, I questioned him further to make sure I was in complete understanding what he said. Then I searched for another antenna where the same thing happened, and found none. I'm to the point of verification by real world test.

I casually mentioned that should I run such a test it will likely be with a 2 meter ham band version of the antenna do to the size of the antenna, and other possible plans that may or may not come about before said test might happen.


The DB

 

[Marconi]

You will need to refresh my memory on what you wanted.

When it comes to modeling currents instead of elements, I noticed that the only time any NEC2 model includes common mode currents is when we specifically added a wire for them to flow on. With Bob and Donald talking about common mode currents with this design, and the fact I have never seen any NEC2 model as of yet include common mode currents on its own, I decided to give them a path of their own to flow thus simulating what Bob and Donald have been talking about.

DB, any time you build an antenna model it is possible to have CMC's at the feed point. The only way you can see these currents on the model...is to add a wire.

You guys are way over-thinking what was noted in the part of the manual on this subject that I posted earlier for Bob.

You can add a mast to the model, and you will see CMC's if they are present.

You can add a Feed Line too and see currents if you add a wire.

The only difference here is...with adding a mast you don't have any controls (settings, descriptions) you can add for the coax specs as noted in the image below.

When you add a feed line with Eznec a window opens entitled Transmission Lines. When you are finished with the TL setup...you can see CMC on the feed line. See below.

This is where you can enter the coax specs, the coax length, the location on the model where the feed line is located and other details like Velocity Factor, and coax loss and frequency range. Sorry the picture is not sharp, but it gives you the general idea for adding a Transmission Line, and this is way different that the out-of-the-box ideas my friends are proposing.

DB, you are wasting your time trying to add wires to your model based on the ideas you guys have in mind. I can't be sure, but I would bet that Eznec and 4Nec2 do things very similar...although you have more selections and switches available than me.

When you added extra wires to your S4/NV4K model based on the ideas from Bob an Donald, you possible messed up the model and that could be why you report Average Gain that is way off. Your model could have been messed up already as well. I can't tell which is happening from reading your words in this regard.

I will tell you that a 10.9 dbi AG result is worse than any I've seen for any of my models that would even scan without producing a critical error message.
Average Gain has nothing to do with the actual gain for the antenna, and the desired result should equal 1.00.

 

[Shockwave]

I find it funny how Marconi understands NEC needs added wires to display CMC but then he tells DB he's wasting his time because the wire would be the coax or mast. Perhaps Marconi needs to forget your model now reports the same exact gain we test in the field now that it has the same CMC radiated from the cone. Gain from the CMC he tells us does not radiate from the cone. Strange how when you ignore that radiation it becomes impossible to build a working collinear real fast.

DB, I think you're actually closer than anyone we have seen built this antenna is NEC and see what may be one simple error left in the model. I think I know what it is too. The wires you added around the cone to simulate CMC should not be in the same exact phase as the radial currents. Remember there is a 90 degree offset between them as seen in CST and in the collinear field tests when the 90 degree phase shift is all that works.

I'm not sure if there is a way to alter the phase between the two in order to simulate the antenna more closely but I see it as one variable that could be causing the program to report the wrong phase shift in the collinear. As you probably know, you can disregard anyone's complaints about doing the collinear test on VHF. I've scaled the antenna every place from 26 to 150 MHz. and the results are always the same once it's properly tuned.

I think someone is just laying the foundation, preparing to reject your test once it's done. He had no complaints 2 years ago when other hams asked if they could run the collinear test on VHF hi band so these objections are entirely new now that it appears you will be proceeding with a test. I think he just wants you to believe you'll need to struggle with a 50 foot monster to keep you in the same place he is. Unable to run a conclusive test to confirm what we see in the field.

 

[Marconi]

I find it funny how Marconi understands NEC needs added wires to display CMC but then he tells DB he's wasting his time because the wire would be the coax or mast. Perhaps Marconi needs to forget your model now reports the same exact gain we test in the field now that it has the same CMC radiated from the cone. Gain from the CMC he tells us does not radiate from the cone. Strange how when you ignore that radiation it becomes impossible to build a working collinear real fast.

Donald, you don't understand what the Average Gain is all about, and I think DB has misspoken on the subject before. I seem to remember he suggesting to someone that the idea of AG was related to the gain of the antenna, and his seeing a high AG value result is an accurate model and was a good thing.

DB, you can tell us all if what I said here is a lie or not.

DB, I think you're actually closer than anyone we have seen built this antenna is NEC and see what may be one simple error left in the model. I think I know what it is too. The wires you added around the cone to simulate CMC should not be in the same exact phase as the radial currents. Remember there is a 90 degree offset between them as seen in CST and in the collinear field tests when the 90 degree phase shift is all that works.

Donald you base this conclusion on the fact this is what you want to see, and you give a hoot less if the model is showing to be even close to correct...which it is not.

I'm not sure if there is a way to alter the phase between the two in order to simulate the antenna more closely but I see it as one variable that could be causing the program to report the wrong phase shift in the collinear. As you probably know, you can disregard anyone's complaints about doing the collinear test on VHF. I've scaled the antenna every place from 26 to 150 MHz. and the results are always the same once it's properly tuned.

Just another "thinking outside the box" idea Donald, but I can't claim I've never guessed about stuff sometimes either.

I think someone is just laying the foundation, preparing to reject your test once it's done. He had no complaints 2 years ago when other hams asked if they could run the collinear test on VHF hi band so these objections are entirely new now that it appears you will be proceeding with a test. I think he just wants you to believe you'll need to struggle with a 50 foot monster to keep you in the same place he is. Unable to run a conclusive test to confirm what we see in the field.

Donald, if you did your field work like you have suggested, you likely had your test equipment connected right at the feed point or you should have.

Maybe DB might do his test that way too, but we all should know that if he tests using a long coax feedline at 2 meters it will show losses we never see at 10/11 meters.

I'm trying to help DB understand, and you have him off on some wild goose chase.

DB I figure your Vector model has the radials attached right to the side of the radiator, right?

You asked me what exactly I wanted from you...this is it, your Vector model that you're talking about here. I'm not asking for you new modified model, I'm want to look at the Vector model you started with.

Can you send me the wires description in a text editor, or use some 4Nec2 upload routine that will work with Eznec.

 

[The DB]

Unfortunately I have to many things on my plate at the moment to give what you said much thought. Perhaps you are right, perhaps not. On the plus side it is the type of thought I would rather be doing than whats on my mind at the moment. I took a break and did some research on AGT.

When it comes to the AGT, I didn't actually give the AGT results. I misunderstood where to look for said results so I looked it up in the 4NEC2 manual (first time I actually looked at the manual). When AGT is run I get results on the main screen, not the plot screen, which is where I was posting said info from. The actual AGT is 1.005, which, if what I think I'm reading is true, is within 0.02 dB of being accurate. I have a better, but not yet complete, understanding of this aspect of modeling, so for the pointing in that direction I thank you. I will, however, still be doing some more research on the topic...


The DB

Note, this was to Marconi's response to my previous post. I didn't know Shockwave or Marconi posted after that one...

 

[Marconi]

Unfortunately I have to many things on my plate at the moment to give what you said much thought. Perhaps you are right, perhaps not. On the plus side it is the type of thought I would rather be doing than whats on my mind at the moment. I took a break and did some research on AGT.

When it comes to the AGT, I didn't actually give the AGT results. I misunderstood where to look for said results so I looked it up in the 4NEC2 manual (first time I actually looked at the manual). When AGT is run I get results on the main screen, not the plot screen, which is where I was posting said info from. The actual AGT is 1.005, which, if what I think I'm reading is true, is within 0.02 dB of being accurate. I have a better, but not yet complete, understanding of this aspect of modeling, so for the pointing in that direction I thank you. I will, however, still be doing some more research on the topic...


The DB

Note, this was to Marconi's response to my previous post. I didn't know Shockwave or Marconi posted after that one...

Well this result is much better DB. At least you got something positive from my words and checked it out for yourself.

I'm not rushing you.

Was I also right when I posted I heard you tell somebody earlier that your AG was very high and that was a good thing?

 

[Shockwave]

Donald, you don't understand what the Average Gain is all about, and I think DB has misspoken on the subject before. I seem to remember he suggesting to someone that the idea of AG was related to the gain of the antenna, and his seeing a high AG value result is an accurate model and was a good thing. DB, you can tell us all if what I said here is a lie or not.

The more you assume, the more ignorant you portray yourself as. Not only do I know what AGT is, I also spotted the slight misunderstanding between you and DB and recognized he provided you with the actual gains over various grounds simply based on the high numbers that he has confirmed. You on the other hand assumed his model had an error in excess of 12db rather than 0.02db.

Donald you base this conclusion on the fact this is what you want to see, and you give a hoot less if the model is showing to be even close to correct...which it is not.

Marconi, are you that deeply rooted denial? I base this conclusion on the fact CST shows you a pair of constructive 1/4 wave currents on the 1/4 wave cone WITH their 90 degree offset in phase. I base this on the fact when you ignore this as your EZNEC model does, you CANNOT constructively stack another 1/2 wave element using the delay the program indicates will work.

What I could give a hoot less about is some know it all that has never done a constructive thing to support anything he thinks he knows. The person who has become so thoughtless of the work others have done in favor of his "humble opinion" that can never be proven in the field.

Once again I have to ask the opinionated man, before you can claim the model is not showing a pair of currents on the cone as I describe, you'd better be prepared to back it with a test that can prove it and not some pile of shit twisted words that mean nothing and lead us to no way of proving anything you say. The complete opposite of where my words lead you.

Just another "thinking outside the box" idea Donald, but I can't claim I've never guessed about stuff sometimes either.

Perhaps it is thinking outside the box. It is better than not thinking and just using a cop out like calling it an "anomaly". I don't give up when confronted by the abnormal, it just makes me dig deeper to get to the "why" behind it rather than pretending to know. Don't say "no", ask "why" and ignorance fades into knowledge.

Ask someone who understands how two separate RF currents might look on the same radiator if they were a 1/4 wavelength long and separated in phase by a 90 degree offset. It's obvious you've never even seen two different waveforms combine together in any way before by your denial in this case.

Donald, if you did your field work like you have suggested, you likely had your test equipment connected right at the feed point or you should have.

Maybe DB might do his test that way too, but we all should know that if he tests using a long coax feedline at 2 meters it will show losses we never see at 10/11 meters.

I'm trying to help DB understand, and you have him off on some wild goose chase.

You're actually starting to make me sick of the way you do exactly what you claim others are doing. DB, I'll gladly accept any reasonable reduction in gain as a result of line loss in your test. I could care less about a tiny fraction of a db more loss at VHF. Just don't use 100 feet of RG/174 and everything will be cool without the need to build a 50 foot HF monster. You can skip that wild goose chase!

The crux of the issue is not a tenth of a db here or there. It's the fact the EZNEC models we have seen missed an entire 1/4 wavelength of constructive radiation from the cone. One so significant it causes the program to incorrectly report the length of phasing sections used in collinear version to be 100% too long and for field tested version of the EZNEC collinear to achieve virtually ZERO gain over the stock antenna.

When you find 50% of the added 1/2 wave bucks the cone and the other 50% of that same added 1/2 wave can only return the gain back to the value of the stock antenna, you have proved the cone is a 1/4 wave in phase radiator.

 

[Marconi]

 

[The DB]

DB, I think you're actually closer than anyone we have seen built this antenna is NEC and see what may be one simple error left in the model. I think I know what it is too. The wires you added around the cone to simulate CMC should not be in the same exact phase as the radial currents. Remember there is a 90 degree offset between them as seen in CST and in the collinear field tests when the 90 degree phase shift is all that works.

I'm not sure if there is a way to alter the phase between the two in order to simulate the antenna more closely but I see it as one variable that could be causing the program to report the wrong phase shift in the collinear. As you probably know, you can disregard anyone's complaints about doing the collinear test on VHF. I've scaled the antenna every place from 26 to 150 MHz. and the results are always the same once it's properly tuned.

I'm not sure if there is another way in the model to change how the modeling software handles phasing, although I highly doubt it. I'll have to do some looking and thinking, and I may have to rtfm... I hate manuals, they typically confuse more more than anything.

I think someone is just laying the foundation, preparing to reject your test once it's done. He had no complaints 2 years ago when other hams asked if they could run the collinear test on VHF hi band so these objections are entirely new now that it appears you will be proceeding with a test. I think he just wants you to believe you'll need to struggle with a 50 foot monster to keep you in the same place he is. Unable to run a conclusive test to confirm what we see in the field.

I am trying not to get caught in the crossfire between you two. I understand why it exists, and I have read most of the history, but that doesn't mean I want to join in. I'm more interested in seeing what I can learn about this antenna, and antenna theory in general. Also, because there is so much controversy, I would like to know, if only just to know.

In that regard, here is a thought. The major difference between your beliefs is one of you knows common mode currents exist, while the other knows they do not. Why not test that directly. Build an antenna that is similar to my test model that was recently brought up. It uses a second wire in parallel to all of the basket radials for the common mode currents to flow on. If common mode currents exist, then the design would have a similar far field gain as the actual antenna, and only a small change to the feedpoint impedance... Great, I can now see all of those beady little eyes looking at me...

Was I also right when I posted I heard you tell somebody earlier that your AG was very high and that was a good thing?

I don't remember ever saying anything like that. As I didn't really understand AG or what it even was until I read up on it today I highly doubt I said anything of the sort. I wouldn't have even talked about it simply because I didn't understand it and I knew I didn't understand it.

OK, now it is time for me to look at all those pages I missed out on... Something tells me I'm not going to enjoy this, but I need to be up to date if I am going to properly partake in the conversation...


The DB