Well, since I just "claim to do this testing" I guess I can do it all without understanding any of it too. That is what your statement implies. When ERI, Shively, SWR and Catherine Scala start making professional videos for you to watch, I'll be as surprised as you.
-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
Question on the Vector
- Thread starter The DB
- Start date
eddie
You said "The only advantage I see with a dipole inside of an open sleeve is to add strength to the antenna"
how on earth can you believe that when the reason for an open sleeve is explained in multiple places that you are supposed to have read including the arrl antenna book,
not only do you have no clue what its for you don't have a clue about the structural side of antennas either,
there to add strength to the antenna, lol my ribs are aching,
"Why don't you show us how the sleeved dipole is of any benefit to the antenna performance over a plane dipole?"
why don't you show us how the open sleeve only adds strength to the antenna eddie ? lol,
"IMO this is done in order to create as much CMC's to flow on the shield as possible and radiate constructively with the top section of this 5/8 wave wire"
there you go with that dumble opinion again eddie,
the above words only describe your opinion like almost all of your posts,
its what you often claim others do and you don't even posts links to back up your bullshit becasue you can't,
please explain in detail how an impedance matching stub works and don't omit the funny part,
"I don't know about micro-volts. I thought it was currents that radiated radio waves"
jokes are supposed to start with "there was an english man, an irish man, and a scotsman," or "what do you get if you cross a" eddie, you need to brush up on your comedy,
"I do forget sometimes Bob, but as I said...I am not perfect. Your personal attacks are not convincing."
forget is not the correct word here eddie, what you do is twist other people words to suit your own agenda,
"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."
you often disrespect people eddie, even your so called friends, you talk down to people, make snide remarks, hint that they are talking cb bs or telling lies, you are a rude plain and simple,
you won't get away with it with me and that IS a fact,
"Bob, it is you that doesn't remember now"
i remember your tests eddie, and the hand scribbled illegible pencil scrawl you expected us to decifer without an enigma machine,
i also remember telling you and others on here why your tests were useless, mm2000 made a youtube video demonstrating how useless your tests were eddie,
do you remeber, the kids toy won the antenna comparison ?
back then you told me you did not have any interested locals to help like i do because they are all "peckerwoods" with no interest in antennas,
do you remember that youtube video you made where you grunted like a mongtard mocking your locals eddie?
and you wonder why they have no interest in helping you lol,
"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"
from what he told me it was clear he meant people like you eddie,
and since you highlighted my double tap of the r in ignorant perhaps you would like to point out a couple of your many grammatical errors in these statements,
"I have acknowledge that my links, videos, and demonstrations we flawed"
and this
"like many other do all the time"
and if you acknowledge they were flawed why is it that you keep using your flawed tests as proof of your ideas eddie ?
You said "The only advantage I see with a dipole inside of an open sleeve is to add strength to the antenna"
how on earth can you believe that when the reason for an open sleeve is explained in multiple places that you are supposed to have read including the arrl antenna book,
not only do you have no clue what its for you don't have a clue about the structural side of antennas either,
there to add strength to the antenna, lol my ribs are aching,
"Why don't you show us how the sleeved dipole is of any benefit to the antenna performance over a plane dipole?"
why don't you show us how the open sleeve only adds strength to the antenna eddie ? lol,
"IMO this is done in order to create as much CMC's to flow on the shield as possible and radiate constructively with the top section of this 5/8 wave wire"
there you go with that dumble opinion again eddie,
the above words only describe your opinion like almost all of your posts,
its what you often claim others do and you don't even posts links to back up your bullshit becasue you can't,
please explain in detail how an impedance matching stub works and don't omit the funny part,
"I don't know about micro-volts. I thought it was currents that radiated radio waves"
jokes are supposed to start with "there was an english man, an irish man, and a scotsman," or "what do you get if you cross a" eddie, you need to brush up on your comedy,
"I do forget sometimes Bob, but as I said...I am not perfect. Your personal attacks are not convincing."
forget is not the correct word here eddie, what you do is twist other people words to suit your own agenda,
"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."
you often disrespect people eddie, even your so called friends, you talk down to people, make snide remarks, hint that they are talking cb bs or telling lies, you are a rude plain and simple,
you won't get away with it with me and that IS a fact,
"Bob, it is you that doesn't remember now"
i remember your tests eddie, and the hand scribbled illegible pencil scrawl you expected us to decifer without an enigma machine,
i also remember telling you and others on here why your tests were useless, mm2000 made a youtube video demonstrating how useless your tests were eddie,
do you remeber, the kids toy won the antenna comparison ?
back then you told me you did not have any interested locals to help like i do because they are all "peckerwoods" with no interest in antennas,
do you remember that youtube video you made where you grunted like a mongtard mocking your locals eddie?
and you wonder why they have no interest in helping you lol,
"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"
from what he told me it was clear he meant people like you eddie,
and since you highlighted my double tap of the r in ignorant perhaps you would like to point out a couple of your many grammatical errors in these statements,
"I have acknowledge that my links, videos, and demonstrations we flawed"
and this
"like many other do all the time"
and if you acknowledge they were flawed why is it that you keep using your flawed tests as proof of your ideas eddie ?
Last edited:
"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.
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.
You need volts or uv to generate the current that lags 90 degree behind it. Without voltage/potential difference to kickstart the current there is no current.
Thats why i max lies 1/4 wave down the radiator from Vmax.
If you looked at coax or basket as a 3 conductor line when cmc is present instead of a 2 conductor line you would understand it better.
The shield or basket is 2 conductors at RF not 1 due to the skin effect or the going up and looping over Donald mentioned.
Its exactly that misunderstanding that lead to bazookas/sleeved dipoles.
You don't need to add a 3rd conductor. Its already there. With skin Effect RF current only penetrates microns on the inner surface and outer surface of shield/basket.
The current on the centre conductor/radiator is I1, the equal and opposite phase current on inside of shield/basket is I2 and cancels I1 so no radation occurs.
On the outside of the shield/basket is I3. It is equal and the same phase as I1 and opposite phase but equal to I2. It has no I4 to cancel radiation so its common mode as opposed to the transmission mode of I1 and I2 so without cancellation it radiates in phase with the I max of the radiator.
Its exactly how and why a T2LT and Gainmaster work so well.
The best way of looking at the basket is a transmission line shorted at one end and being of a cone shape profile giving it 0 impedance at base and high non constant impedance to top of basket. Which is how it matches to the top end fed high impedance 1/2wave radiator.
Somewhere between that high impedance point and ground lies 50 ohm point. The point where gamma match taps it.
In my opinion similar to how a 1/2 wave or 5/8 wave coil is tapped. Thats deliberately made shorter creating capacitive reactance to allow inductive feeding of inductive equal reactance.
I believe in the sigma 4 the radiator is made slightly longer to introduce inductive reactance so it can be gamma/capacitive fed with an opposite but equal capacitive reactance.
Thats how I see it anyway. Which would also tally up with a non apparent colinear Cebik stated.
As the common mode current and varying transmission mode impedance transformation isn't staring you in the face especially if you view coax as a 2 conductor cable.
Just my take on it.
Jazz
Thats why i max lies 1/4 wave down the radiator from Vmax.
If you looked at coax or basket as a 3 conductor line when cmc is present instead of a 2 conductor line you would understand it better.
The shield or basket is 2 conductors at RF not 1 due to the skin effect or the going up and looping over Donald mentioned.
Its exactly that misunderstanding that lead to bazookas/sleeved dipoles.
You don't need to add a 3rd conductor. Its already there. With skin Effect RF current only penetrates microns on the inner surface and outer surface of shield/basket.
The current on the centre conductor/radiator is I1, the equal and opposite phase current on inside of shield/basket is I2 and cancels I1 so no radation occurs.
On the outside of the shield/basket is I3. It is equal and the same phase as I1 and opposite phase but equal to I2. It has no I4 to cancel radiation so its common mode as opposed to the transmission mode of I1 and I2 so without cancellation it radiates in phase with the I max of the radiator.
Its exactly how and why a T2LT and Gainmaster work so well.
The best way of looking at the basket is a transmission line shorted at one end and being of a cone shape profile giving it 0 impedance at base and high non constant impedance to top of basket. Which is how it matches to the top end fed high impedance 1/2wave radiator.
Somewhere between that high impedance point and ground lies 50 ohm point. The point where gamma match taps it.
In my opinion similar to how a 1/2 wave or 5/8 wave coil is tapped. Thats deliberately made shorter creating capacitive reactance to allow inductive feeding of inductive equal reactance.
I believe in the sigma 4 the radiator is made slightly longer to introduce inductive reactance so it can be gamma/capacitive fed with an opposite but equal capacitive reactance.
Thats how I see it anyway. Which would also tally up with a non apparent colinear Cebik stated.
As the common mode current and varying transmission mode impedance transformation isn't staring you in the face especially if you view coax as a 2 conductor cable.
Just my take on it.
Jazz
Last edited:
I opened the open end sleeve model that Roy attached with his Eznec program, and I see no difference in results between it and the typical dipole. It just looked stronger to me...that is what I saw in a model I did not make. I would post the model again, but you would not understand what is there.
You answered my question with a question Bob. To me, that is the typical response from someone who does not have an answer to the first question asked, and so they respond with another question in their vain reply. I asked you first.
Bob, that was a joke on Donald and his big high tech equipment he mentioned, and you got it...didn't you? That was my intention for everyone...a joke
Your plaintive cry is another act of not responding to my statement. You are not convincing me.
If the facts you note are the truth...then it should set you free Bob. I do sometimes say what I mean. I know you don't believe there is CBBS going on in this world, so I worry about what is holding you back.
Was that MultiMode 200? I always thought it might have been Jazzsinger, all you guys look alike.
Was he the one that you told me was a drunk, and that is why he stopped his experiments with his 1/2 wave radial design you told him about. Did he really get pissed about being questioned...like I claim a lot of folks do. It is human nature Bob...it is human nature.I might remember saying those words, at times the videos bear me out on that and I do refer to folks at times...as peckerwoods.
I make no excuses for what I've said on my videos, they are what they are. I would hope my style did not bother you however.
Bob, you have told me that you don't have a clue what Cebik really meant by some of the statements he said in the conversation you had. I wasn't there, but I can and have voiced my opinions to you on what some of his remarks might have meant.
I recall you telling us that Cebik was sick, and to me that is a very good reason why he might not have wanted to get into some prolonged discussion on a topic...that could also be complicated talking to a man that did not know modeling. His early life was no doubt filled with such complicated discussions about many things that unfortunately may have stopped for him in the end.
Bob, I at least have some practical experience with Eznec, and you have little to none, mostly what you might have read. You reference CST as possibly having the answer to how the S4 design works, but you don't have a clue about it either, right?.
So, we both talk about our opinions. Are you really suggesting I don't have a right to my opinions just because I don't agree with you on this topic?
You are correct Bob, we all make mistakes. I have plenty of excuses for my errors, how about you?
Now we have discussed our ideas about each other, but that it the meaningless part of our having a discussion about our opinions and ideas on any topic. Do you agree?
Have a good day.
you expect us to listen to your ideas when you cannot answer basic questions on currents eddie,
you can't remember whats been said so you make it up as you go along or twist what has been said. you insist there is one current,
it makes zero sense to listen to your opinions.
of course the sleeve is only there for strength lmao,
why would i explain something to you when you have been talking about, reading and posting on the topic and still make up your own laws of physics, lol,
me mm2000 and jazz look alike lol,
mm2000 a drunk?, he may have been a little intoxicated when he made the vid but been drunk is not a prerequisite to doing useless tests for youtube,
i don't think you were drunk and you managed just fine eddie,
i already said multiple times the cst animation looks strange,
can you explain how you thought the animation was the new vector when it has a current minima well above the sleeve?
what cebik said to me i posted,
no amount of twisting what i said can change what he meant,
anybody interested that has read what i posted knows cebik meant people just like you that post pages of meaningless argument,
you have only posted opinion just like the desert rats,
plenty to say and nothing to post from respected sources,
practical experience of what eddie? you don't understand currents can't answer a simple question on currents so you don't understand eznec.
you can't remember whats been said so you make it up as you go along or twist what has been said. you insist there is one current,
it makes zero sense to listen to your opinions.
of course the sleeve is only there for strength lmao,
why would i explain something to you when you have been talking about, reading and posting on the topic and still make up your own laws of physics, lol,
me mm2000 and jazz look alike lol,
mm2000 a drunk?, he may have been a little intoxicated when he made the vid but been drunk is not a prerequisite to doing useless tests for youtube,
i don't think you were drunk and you managed just fine eddie,
i already said multiple times the cst animation looks strange,
can you explain how you thought the animation was the new vector when it has a current minima well above the sleeve?
what cebik said to me i posted,
no amount of twisting what i said can change what he meant,
anybody interested that has read what i posted knows cebik meant people just like you that post pages of meaningless argument,
you have only posted opinion just like the desert rats,
plenty to say and nothing to post from respected sources,
practical experience of what eddie? you don't understand currents can't answer a simple question on currents so you don't understand eznec.
I mentioned to Bob above that this comment was a joke...just like Bob indicated Jazz. You must have missed it.
I don't see the cone basket as coaxial and I don't think it will produce CMC for that reason. Even if it does, the currents are very small according to my Eznec model. I've explained this idea above already.
No comment.
The third conductor idea, that IMO is misapplied in this thread, came from an idea published in the Eznec manual that I previously posted for Bob, maybe in another thread. With Eznec we can model a feed line attached to an antenna, but we have to add an extra wire in order to see the currents flowing...assuming there are CMC's present on the feed line. This instruction in the manual does not talk about currents flowing on the antenna elements perse, and this has been misconstrued to mean radials with added wires in this thread. DB, tells us that the model was no-way-no, but he didn't like my questions as I was trying to understand what he did. I understand better now, but he will not answer my questions. I think a lot of folks must be confused at what DB was trying to do. If you read his latter post closely you will see that he told us stuff that was somewhat lost in the words.
Jazz, I agree with your description except to exclude the cone.The structural ratios necessary for coax to work as coax does...are not present in the the S4 radial cone design. It might look like a transmission line, but it is not coaxial like you described above Jazz.
I contend, instead, that if there are small currents flowing on the radials after cancellation, like you suggest above, those currents are antenna mode currents remaining as a result of incomplete cancellation between I1 and I2.
I further contend that any such current difference that exist after cancellation...is minimal at best and this difference can be constructive or destructive depending on the antenna construction. Again, whatever the difference is...it is not much according to my Eznec model.
I do not contend that there are no currents flowing on the cone...I just say the currents are minimal at best, regardless if they add to or substract from the top 1/2 wave element.
I agree we can experience I3 flowing as CMC on coax, if the feed point is not symmetrical or located badly. I disagree that the S4 radial cone is coaxial, and thus the cone does not produce CMC. My description of a pigtail suggest that as soon as the coax construction is altered or disrupted...the pigtail starts to radiate like and antenna, and that current is antenna mode currents.
Both antennas noted use coax to produce the CMC's that radiate. We can't substitute tubing or wire for the coax in these antennas...like is being suggested for this idea for the radial cone structure in this thread.
IMO a Jpole is considered by many to produce CMC on the feed line. If the 1/4 wave base area radiates...is it considered to be CMC' or antenna model currents? Either way the currents are typically very small depending on construction and location. IMO the J-Pole produces antenna mode currents from the bottom, if any, and antenna mode currents on the radiator. If there are CMC's flowing on this antenna at all...they are flowing on the feed line down to ground.
No comment.
In my Eznec model of a 3/4 wave length antenna I find on raising the radials the radiator needs to be made longer in order to remain resonant...just like you describe.
Jazz, I understand what Cebik told Bob, but when I asked Bob what it meant...he wasn't sure and they did talk anymore.
I've said it before, misguided as it may be, that all an antenna needs in order to be consider a collinear...is that it shows two current maximums. A 5/8 wave radiator is also referred to as a collinear antenna in the CB world. IMO, way back the idea was coined by HyGain describing their CLR2...and they described it as a collinear.
I understand the idea as it pertains to coax. I just don't see it concerning the radial cone on the S4 design. The cone is just radials, not coax. It is radiating the currents remaining after L1 and L2 do their thing and cancel to the extent possible...like you've noted above.
I accept that you have given us your opinions Jazz. I hope you accept that this is my opinion...even if we differ.
You will have to show me where I said anything specifically about only one current in this discussion. You are just laying land mines that confuse, and you are perpetuating the idea Cebik left in your mind about never ending chatter...rather than discussing the real issues at hand. I'm looking for the truth and I don't care who was right. Can you say the same?
That was just my opinion after I check my models for an open sleeve dipole. I did not remember making such a model, and I found out I used a model that came with the software as an example after you brought up the subject recently. Did I twist your words or idea again?
I attempted to answer a question that you gave me on the OS dipole, but when I ask for your opinion...you say why should I bother. Do you feel safer by not committing to an answer to my question?
I said you told me that MM200 was A first class drunk...not that he was drunk one time on the forum. I also told you that I did not know the video was done by him. Who is twisting words now?
Bob has said what he claims above many times.
I don't see what you see in this regard. Donald told us the model was the NV4K, and I believe him. Here is the model...the top 1/2 wave does show to be a bit above the bottom cone, but do you see the top 1/2 wave being really well above the bottom 1/4 wave like DB's model shows me?
You might also notice inside the cone and just below the top we can see that the magnitude for the blue is greater than the red, and to me this suggest that the cone is not constructive for this model whether the cone is producing CMC's or Antenna Mode Currents as I believe. Like Bob says however, whatever mode is working here makes no difference to the antenna...it is still radiating a little bit.
Bob, in the attachment below you will see DB's model that I imported by hand into Eznec for a comparison of how high we see the top 1/2 wave element about the bottom 1/4 wave. Does this look more like what you're talking about Bob?
If you see a model with a 1/2 wave radiator well above the bottom 1/4 wave cone...then you have looked at DB's model that he posted on pages 10, 13. I posted DB's model in question earlier in this thread. That model has a 31' foot radiator, the bottom is all that is radiating, and my Eznec model shows R= 453,000 ohms, J= 243,000 ohms, and SWR = >100:1. Most of this bad match problem has to do with DB using wire diameters that are .0001." inch in diameter as I recall. I'll recheck this out and I promise if I'm wrong on this...I post an apology.
What Cebik said is only a problem if we can't explain what he meant. The truth of this is in the forums archives.
If I could prove beyond all doubt what I've said and posted Bob, I would have done it by now. I disagree with you and you don't like it. Your efforts to ever reveal how the S4 works will always be cloaked in misdirection with words. You don't want the truth either way...you don't want the exposure it might involve if something proves you wrong.
Currents have been a challenge for me is true, but I have figured out how Eznec will produce accurate currents at least currents that are predictable...and you don't understand a word of the explanation I gave on this forum...using a simple two wire 1/2 wave dipole. I can show you using my S4 model, but you would never see what is indicated...with the vale you have over your face.
Currents are very complicated issues is true, and that is also a possible reason that Cebik didn't want to get into a complicated explanation, even if you were able to work with Eznec.
Last edited:
no its not DB's model i have seen eddie, to my eyes there looks to be more than 1/2wave above the radials, i can't stop the animation and step frame by frame to see if its as much as it looks when watching it,
donald never answered so he must think my eyes are broke,
i have no doubt what cebik meant with his comments on the vector eddie, read the different viewpoint post,
he had no reason to say anything other than its a simple j-pole,
on the contrary he said enough for me to go looking for 3/4 wave antennas with a sleeve that radiates in phase with the upper 1/2wave, and he warned me about you eddie,
"You're right Bob, I think there are only 2 currents with opposite phase flowing in the cone area of the S4 design"
are you sticking with this statement ?
"Currents have been a challenge for me is true"
yup
"Your efforts to ever reveal how the S4 works will always be cloaked in misdirection with words. You don't want the truth either way...you don't want the exposure it might involve if something proves you wrong".
i told you that a few posts back eddie, did you forget again?
"cloaked in misdirection" lolol, point out a misdirection eddie,
"I disagree with you and you don't like it" one of us does not like it.
donald never answered so he must think my eyes are broke,
i have no doubt what cebik meant with his comments on the vector eddie, read the different viewpoint post,
he had no reason to say anything other than its a simple j-pole,
on the contrary he said enough for me to go looking for 3/4 wave antennas with a sleeve that radiates in phase with the upper 1/2wave, and he warned me about you eddie,
"You're right Bob, I think there are only 2 currents with opposite phase flowing in the cone area of the S4 design"
are you sticking with this statement ?
"Currents have been a challenge for me is true"
yup
"Your efforts to ever reveal how the S4 works will always be cloaked in misdirection with words. You don't want the truth either way...you don't want the exposure it might involve if something proves you wrong".
i told you that a few posts back eddie, did you forget again?
"cloaked in misdirection" lolol, point out a misdirection eddie,
"I disagree with you and you don't like it" one of us does not like it.
Your eyes are not broken. When I first model the S4 I kind had an idea for where the currents would cross as it changed phase...and I was surprised the bottom looked taller too. I look at a 5/8 wave and I see the same thing...the bottom 1/8 wave looks longer.
IMO, what we see on the 1/2 wave portion of the radiator pattern is a curve that is slowly and steadily decaying...so we won't see an abrupt change in the curve. I think this is only a visual thing, and not to worry. Remember this curve never really reaches "0".
The radiator on my S4 model is about 330" inches. My NV4K is about 317.5" inches plus the 4" inch top hat ball. If I made either one 2' - 3' feet taller, like DB's model is, what we would see in this transitional area, a little above the top of the cone, looks even worse in this regard, as we go longer.
I don't consider this look to be a problem however, unless we just want to point to something being wrong with the model.
Bob, when you first mentioned to Cebik the idea for the antenna you had in mind, did he recognize it by name...or did you have to describe it bit to Cebik?
Yes, I see two currents, one flowing all around on the radiator, and one current flowing all around on the radials, and these two currents are close to the same magnitude and opposite in phase, and they cancel to the extent they can. If they don't fully cancel each other out completely...what ever is left over will radiate...but in this case with the S4 design there is not much difference left so little current flows into the far field.
When I first posted an Antenna Image and the Eznec tabular list for the current distribution for the antenna, you told me that you did not understand what you were looking at.
That said, I'm pretty sure you have seen the idea of current distributions displayed in some other form or another in books before. What my confusion was about...had to do with how this current information and the phase related to...what I thought I saw indicated by the currents on the Antenna View vs. what I thought I knew about phase and current distribution on an element. I've talked a lot about this, and it is probably not worth repeating here.
Bob, I probably could have chosen a few better words in my last two comments. Were it not for you being curious about how the S4 designed worked...we likely would have never even discussed this issue.
I do, however, think we have seem some misdirection in the arguments from both sides.
Last edited:
I showed cebik the antenna and fully explained what I was seeing when making adjustments and wanted to know why that was eddie,
I explained the desert rats claimed it was a simple 1/2wave with inferior performance than a 5/8 groundplane, i knew they were wrong but never said that to cebik,
I posted what he told me as near to been cebiks own words as I could recall, there was no Embellishment no Twisting his words no Leaving anything out that was a deal breaker,
cebik did not fall off his chair and bump his head on the sand at my claims,
on the contrary he told me that radial angle makes very little difference to radiation angle,
that is until we fold the radials up towards the monopole where a form of co-linear can be created that is not immediately apparent to most people & that such an antenna would outperform a 5/8wave,
also that what I was seeing was very much possible but declined to get involved with the pages of meaningless argument such misunderstood antennas can generate from people who don't understand the antenna,
its up to the reader to decide who is telling the truth of what cebik meant by his comments,
No misdirection from me eddie,
I have posted links to the only 3/4wave antennas I can find that have a 1/4wave radiating sleeve with a detailed explanation of how they work, i am still waiting for the j-pole camp to do the same,
your theory of currents disagrees with the arrl and barkleys description of a second impedance seen in parallel with the antenna mode impedance and current flowing in that parallel impedance,
how do you reconcile your single single current idea with the arrl and barkleys claim eddie?
I'M not saying eznec can't accurately model parallel transmission-lines because the link I posted tells us mom is what we use when we want to model a transmission-line that radiates and cites reasons that radiation may occur,
I think its likely that you only need to add the extra wire to simulate the outer braid when using the TL function in eznec to model the feedline but im not sure and no necman has answered my question yet,
I very much doubt that ne2 can accurately handle close spaced tapered conductors of dissimilar diameter at acute angles especially when you add the hoop,
how much error is possible I don't know as nobody has demonstrated it to me yet,
I only know that cebik said it would be very difficult which he demonstrate is not true for the regular j-pole,
barkley also says that using skinny radials around a fat monopole and flaring them out from the monopole can increase loss by radiation,
the avanti patent claims a further .6db increase in gain can be had when the radials are flared out more,
I think there is a very good chance herb got his ideas from barkleys paper,
is the lack of groundplane the deal breaker with the sigma/vector? , it could be but nobody has said it much less tried to explain why the vector is unlike the open sleeve antenna.
I explained the desert rats claimed it was a simple 1/2wave with inferior performance than a 5/8 groundplane, i knew they were wrong but never said that to cebik,
I posted what he told me as near to been cebiks own words as I could recall, there was no Embellishment no Twisting his words no Leaving anything out that was a deal breaker,
cebik did not fall off his chair and bump his head on the sand at my claims,
on the contrary he told me that radial angle makes very little difference to radiation angle,
that is until we fold the radials up towards the monopole where a form of co-linear can be created that is not immediately apparent to most people & that such an antenna would outperform a 5/8wave,
also that what I was seeing was very much possible but declined to get involved with the pages of meaningless argument such misunderstood antennas can generate from people who don't understand the antenna,
its up to the reader to decide who is telling the truth of what cebik meant by his comments,
No misdirection from me eddie,
I have posted links to the only 3/4wave antennas I can find that have a 1/4wave radiating sleeve with a detailed explanation of how they work, i am still waiting for the j-pole camp to do the same,
your theory of currents disagrees with the arrl and barkleys description of a second impedance seen in parallel with the antenna mode impedance and current flowing in that parallel impedance,
how do you reconcile your single single current idea with the arrl and barkleys claim eddie?
I'M not saying eznec can't accurately model parallel transmission-lines because the link I posted tells us mom is what we use when we want to model a transmission-line that radiates and cites reasons that radiation may occur,
I think its likely that you only need to add the extra wire to simulate the outer braid when using the TL function in eznec to model the feedline but im not sure and no necman has answered my question yet,
I very much doubt that ne2 can accurately handle close spaced tapered conductors of dissimilar diameter at acute angles especially when you add the hoop,
how much error is possible I don't know as nobody has demonstrated it to me yet,
I only know that cebik said it would be very difficult which he demonstrate is not true for the regular j-pole,
barkley also says that using skinny radials around a fat monopole and flaring them out from the monopole can increase loss by radiation,
the avanti patent claims a further .6db increase in gain can be had when the radials are flared out more,
I think there is a very good chance herb got his ideas from barkleys paper,
is the lack of groundplane the deal breaker with the sigma/vector? , it could be but nobody has said it much less tried to explain why the vector is unlike the open sleeve antenna.
I'm not out to side with or against you Eddie. I gave "my" opinion right or wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I'm not mistaken the duga 3 array in Ukraine (known as the woodpecker) uses exactly that method of construction.
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.
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.
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
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.
If we all agreed we would learn nothing. I'm quite happy for anyone to prove me wrong cause I'll learn from it.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I'm not mistaken the duga 3 array in Ukraine (known as the woodpecker) uses exactly that method of construction.
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.
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.
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
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.
lolDon'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.
If we all agreed we would learn nothing. I'm quite happy for anyone to prove me wrong cause I'll learn from it.
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
LolBob, this new information for me may suggest I was right in wondering if Cebik knew 1st hand about this antenna, and maybe he had never considered the design before you two talked,
I think you might have mentioned this to me before, and I understand the point.
Bob, if I ever said you were not being truthful in recounting this discussion...then I apologize. My only questions has to do with how we evaluate what and maybe why he said what he said. I'm just and outsider looking in Bob. I know you wish you had more time with Mr. Cebilk...we all do.
I can't recall ever disagreeing what those words Bob. I think my model proves that the antenna is collinear. I make the same claim about the 5/8 wave being collinear...but with a distinction...the lower 1/8 wave part of the radiator does not radiate into the far field. Collinear is just a name, and maybe it has been misapplied as to its real meaning, but HyGain use to refer to the CLR2 as a collinear antenna, right?
It is true that each will have to figure out the truth.
Bob, I understand about folks making meaningless arguments, and not understand how the antenna works. This has been our quest for years now. Maybe I'm misreading your words here, but did Cebik specifically tell you that Eznec would find it hard to model the S4 design or was he saying that folks would find this design hard to understand?
If what you claim disagrees with Barkely...then I dead wrong on everything. I would defer to him in a minute. ARRL, I read what you linked us too and you shot down whatever I said about the articles the...so be it.
You keep accusing me of some single current theory I'm hung up on. Can you be more specific?
Can you remind me of the link?
All I think I know is noted in the manual page I posted for you a while back. I think you and others have misconstrued what the article said about feed lines, and instead you want to replace the idea to working with the radials. I think that was the idea that DB presented and he got something out of the idea, but he won't describe stuff for me. He obviously does not like to be questioned...even if we misunderstand what he says and tells him so. Maybe I said some things to him badly, but that was not my intentions.
I've spoken on this issue and claim that both Homer and Booty Monster experience the same problem with their first efforts at building their ideas for a real Vector. They will either confirm or deny what I just said. My words on this matter are out there.
If Barkley said that so-be-it. Both you and Donald are suggesting your real antennas shows more gain than my Eznec model is suggesting. Maybe Eznec is right, and that is the results it shows...more radiation losses, then Barkley must be right.
I have not consider this idea Bob, but I think it was W8JI, Mr. Radial man himself, that suggested that radials will help the S4 design to work better. However, I think his deeper point was really about improving decoupling of the feed line from the antenna.
One day well get there Bob.
Last edited:
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,
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,
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,
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
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,
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,
barkley does say what i posted he says,
i have no idea how anybody that read it missed it,
i don't know what gain the correctly adjusted antenna has,
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?
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,
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,
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,
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
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,
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,
barkley does say what i posted he says,
i have no idea how anybody that read it missed it,
i don't know what gain the correctly adjusted antenna has,
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?
Marconi, the problem with your opinion is that it's very easily proven completely inaccurate in the field. Not only is the opinion useless, it can only serve to misguide others to the same extent you have been. Opinions are only useful when the facts are unclear. The operation of this non apparent collinear antenna becomes VERY APPARENT in the collinear test. If you trust your opinion and your EZNEC models, build the collinear version. As I've said before it will show no more gain than the stock antenna because half of what we added gets cancelled by the constructive cone radiation.
You are now stuck with two options, either trust me that the cone is an effective 1/4 wave radiator or go out in the field and prove me wrong like I've done years ago with your J-Pole camp idea. Every time you attempt to replace fact with your humble opinion, we will beat it back into an accurate view rather than a misguided and unfounded opinion. For your opinion to even have an opportunity to be considered, you will need to provide a field test that contradicts the 4 wire test which already proves your idea wrong.
It's very simple Marconi and it's time you wake up and look at things with less opinion involved. If your idea was close to accurate, the EZNEC collinear model with a 180 degree phase delay would show gain. That is logical since if we believe your opinion, we have just stacked one 1/2 wave on top of another 1/2 wave that was simply on a 1/4 wave mast. LOL. The fact it is impossible to produce gain with the 180 degree delay PROVES the cone has already served as an effective 1/4 wave radiator and that this 1/4 wave cone is virtually identical in gain to a free standing 1/4 wave.
Argue it all you want until you're blue in the face with opinions, you can't alter what works in the field and you're too stuck on nothing more than opinion that you've become blinded to the only thing that remotely matters. What CAN BE reproduced in the field. There is a wealth of information revealed with my 4 wire field test, none of which you understand or acknowledge because you can't let go of an opinion as you claim to seek the truth.
I noticed you'll take my word on things like the CST model being of the new antenna but you'll only offer me this courteously when I agree with your opinion. When I tell you the CST model shows a gain of 2db without ground gain, you express a different opinion. When I tell you we can prove the cone is an effective 1/4 wave radiator, you express a different opinion. When I tell you we can prove your EZNEC models miscalculate phase and gain in the field, you express a different opinion based on those models. How can you claim to be interested in the truth while you ignore what can be shown in the field with respect to gain and phase?
We are not arguing relative differences here or minor discrepancies that could be overlooked between your opinions based on EZNEC and the results that are reproduced in the field. The differences are literally 100% in the required phase delay to keep the currents in a constructive phase. It's the difference between the misguided 1/2 wave J-Pole ideas and the "non appearing collinear" one of the brightest minds in the history of antennas recognized it as.
You are now stuck with two options, either trust me that the cone is an effective 1/4 wave radiator or go out in the field and prove me wrong like I've done years ago with your J-Pole camp idea. Every time you attempt to replace fact with your humble opinion, we will beat it back into an accurate view rather than a misguided and unfounded opinion. For your opinion to even have an opportunity to be considered, you will need to provide a field test that contradicts the 4 wire test which already proves your idea wrong.
It's very simple Marconi and it's time you wake up and look at things with less opinion involved. If your idea was close to accurate, the EZNEC collinear model with a 180 degree phase delay would show gain. That is logical since if we believe your opinion, we have just stacked one 1/2 wave on top of another 1/2 wave that was simply on a 1/4 wave mast. LOL. The fact it is impossible to produce gain with the 180 degree delay PROVES the cone has already served as an effective 1/4 wave radiator and that this 1/4 wave cone is virtually identical in gain to a free standing 1/4 wave.
Argue it all you want until you're blue in the face with opinions, you can't alter what works in the field and you're too stuck on nothing more than opinion that you've become blinded to the only thing that remotely matters. What CAN BE reproduced in the field. There is a wealth of information revealed with my 4 wire field test, none of which you understand or acknowledge because you can't let go of an opinion as you claim to seek the truth.
I noticed you'll take my word on things like the CST model being of the new antenna but you'll only offer me this courteously when I agree with your opinion. When I tell you the CST model shows a gain of 2db without ground gain, you express a different opinion. When I tell you we can prove the cone is an effective 1/4 wave radiator, you express a different opinion. When I tell you we can prove your EZNEC models miscalculate phase and gain in the field, you express a different opinion based on those models. How can you claim to be interested in the truth while you ignore what can be shown in the field with respect to gain and phase?
We are not arguing relative differences here or minor discrepancies that could be overlooked between your opinions based on EZNEC and the results that are reproduced in the field. The differences are literally 100% in the required phase delay to keep the currents in a constructive phase. It's the difference between the misguided 1/2 wave J-Pole ideas and the "non appearing collinear" one of the brightest minds in the history of antennas recognized it as.