Question on the Vector

[Shockwave]

It just occurred to me how ridiculous your 1/2 wave on a 1/4 wave mast opinion truly is Marconi. Do you realize if what you claim is true, I could sell all of my clients two and a half feet of mast to raise their half waves up and get the same results. Another way to look at this would be to claim they could move the dipole from 100 feet on the tower to 102.5 feet and gain 2dbd as a result! My goodness, if you only understood how foolish that thought is.

 

[Marconi]

It just occurred to me how ridiculous your 1/2 wave on a 1/4 wave mast opinion truly is Marconi. Do you realize if what you claim is true, I could sell all of my clients two and a half feet of mast to raise their half waves up and get the same results. Another way to look at this would be to claim they could move the dipole from 100 feet on the tower to 102.5 feet and gain 2dbd as a result! My goodness, if you only understood how foolish that thought is.

Well Donald, apparently you missed the point I made in the two S4 models I posted where I raised my S4 antenna up 9' feet from 32' to 41' feet and showing a nice increase in gain and a lowering of the angle by 1* degree...just on raising the antenna.

Why are you suggesting here that there was only a 2.5' change in the antennas I compared in another post above? I didn't even mentioned your antenna or a 1/2 wave dipole.

Why can't you shoot straight, and stop twisting my examples in support for my words?

 

[Marconi]

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.

I did take a break and had lunch, oyster's on the half shell, a nice salad, and a slightly chilled goblet of Cianty Riserva.

Donald you are trying to get nasty again.

 

[Shockwave]

Just pointing out how quickly your 1/2 wave on a 1/4 wave mast opinion falls apart once you take it out of your inaccurate realm of EZNEC modeling and start applying it in the field. If you fail to see how these measurements translate into the VHF spectrum, I can't help you to understand simple rescaling. I've also reconsidered your request to take a break. Between bickering with someone who insists upon things that defy reality and the time it takes to simply reload a page on this new resource hungry forum, I'm convinced my time is wasted. Have fun propagating myth.

 

[bob85]

Please try to keep up eddie, this is getting past stupid,

only you could think Donald meant your models when he's clearly speaking of what he said earlier about raising a 1/2wave with an extra 1/4wave of mast on a VHF antenna mounted at 100ft above ground,

I can't confirm what Donald claims but I can assure you what he is saying is nothing at all to do with your models,

once again I ask how can we take anything you say seriously when you can't even follow what's been posted in the previous post.

 

[Marconi]

It has been described that the basket area of the Vector acts in some ways like a coaxial feedline with separate currents on the inside and outside of the basket. That is fine, but...

What keeps the currents on the inside and outside of said basket on their respective sides?

DB, you started this thread and you asked a question in the very beginning. Did you get an answer to your question during all the discussion that followed?

Here again, is what I think in more detail, in case I did not try and answer your specific question.

I do not believe this cone has separate currents on the inside and outside of the basket, specifically, as some would have us believe,more specifically producing CMC's . So, I also don't believe the cone produces CMC on the outside of the radials.

I believe all such currents in the cone area net very close to zero RF, and even less than we see compared to the tips of the radials or the top 1/2 wave radiator...where currents are known to have very little to no currents flowing. These current in the cone area are that small.

IMO, this full cancellation in the cone area would be considered a good thing, because its parallel cancellation virtually eliminates the ill-effects on the pattern from the out of phase currents from the bottom 1/4 wavelength on the radiator, shielding as we understand it. This is unlike the ill-effects we find on the pattern for a 5/8 wave that has series effects between the bottom out of phase 1/8 wave portion, and the upper 1/2 wave portion of the radiator. IMO, this is for sure a net loss for the 5/8 wave, and whatever currents are in the top 1/2 wave are reduced by this 1/8 wave out of phase currents. I haven't compared the currents between these two models, but maybe I'll do that and report back what I find.

There are, however, antenna mode currents on the radials for the basket and antenna mode currents on the radiator inside of the basket, and they flow around and into the near field pretty well. These currents are pretty strong as noted in Donald's Sirio's CST image. However, these currents also have a problem flowing into the far field due to their being out of phase, like coax, and thus they cancel just like theory predicts. Pretty simple stuff the way I see it.

So said another way, if we sum the currents on the radials of the basket we will find the currents on the portion of the radiator, inside, are similar in magnitude and opposite in phase...to the sum of the radial currents. Again, when we have currents for two parallel type elements that are equal in magnitude, but opposite in phase...we have cancellation. In this case with the S4 cone we see almost complete cancellation. If there is a net difference between the currents however, the difference can be either constructive or destructive with the top 1/2 wave portion of the radiator, but in any case the radiation will be somewhat insignificant according to my Eznec model.

I can only suggest proof of this by showing currents on my S4 model, and to a lesser degree with my Vector model currents.

I ask only that you have an open mind when considering this as evidence however.

I am working to try and confirm this, so nothing this far is cast in stone. it is just my opinion.

 

[Marconi]

Please try to keep up eddie, this is getting past stupid,

only you could think Donald meant your models when he's clearly speaking of what he said earlier about raising a 1/2wave with an extra 1/4wave of mast on a VHF antenna mounted at 100ft above ground,

I can't confirm what Donald claims but I can assure you what he is saying is nothing at all to do with your models,

once again I ask how can we take anything you say seriously when you can't even follow what's been posted in the previous post.

Bob, again there are times that I do get corn'fused, but I have my days, and I have a clear idea about what I see in my Eznec model. If I miss something that folks say sometimes, I can only hope it is not stupidity, or even ignorance...but just maybe my confusion...due to out of controlled diabetes, which makes it difficult at times. I can't deny it, Bob. I'm also having some trouble seeing well any more...and that presents it own problems.

I just recently had a positive break thru in my lack of control with my diabetes. I'm taking a new drug that is working finally to lower my blood sugar to normal levels...if I eat like a rabbit. I've purposefully lost nearly 30 lbs, so bear with me a little. All I've ever wanted to do in this case is maybe help simply prove how the S4 design works.

Again I mean well, and I'm just trying to help solve a difficult question.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so to speak, but I think you have often said...you don't know exactly how much RD is generated by the cones area of the S4/NV4K. I may just differ with your understanding in this area only...based on my idea that the cone area does not generate much if any RF into the far field. However, I do conclude that some incomplete cancelled RF in the cone does radiate, and it can be either constructive or destructive, so the whole S4 antenna does radiate. Plus even if the cone is radiating CMC like you, Donald, and others describe...there is just not much radiating into the far field.

I'm asking you give me a little slack from the personal attacks Bob. I refer to you at times, and I should be more careful the way I do that, but I don't disrespect you Bob.

 

[The DB]

DB, you started this thread and you asked a question in the very beginning. Did you get an answer to your question during all the discussion that followed?

Nope. If you read what I was talking about in the original question at the beginning of this thread and my explaining it further, only a very small portion, maybe two or three pages, were on that topic. This is page 21 now. This thread did put me in a situation where I could push my knowledge of antenna theory further, but that is all.

Here again, is what I think in more detail, in case I did not try and answer your specific question.

I do not believe this cone has separate currents on the inside and outside of the basket, specifically, as some would have us believe,more specifically producing CMC's . So, I also don't believe the cone produces CMC on the outside of the radials.

Odd, it is putting those lines as two separate quotes? Odd. Anyway...

This has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. I was only interested in currents in so far as figuring out the three dimensional fields that they generate. Understanding currents is good, understanding the fields they generate is better. I have stated multiple times that this is where I think the solution to how this antenna actually works lies, and I stand behind that statement. I regards to the fields that are generated you have made no contribution, and instead tried to twist what I was asking about to fit your theory, this was and still is in vain.

I believe all such currents in the cone area net very close to zero RF, and even less than we see compared to the tips of the radials or the top 1/2 wave radiator...where currents are known to have very little to no currents flowing. These current in the cone area are that small.

IMO, this full cancellation in the cone area would be considered a good thing, because its parallel cancellation virtually eliminates the ill-effects on the pattern from the out of phase currents from the bottom 1/4 wavelength on the radiator, shielding as we understand it. This is unlike the ill-effects we find on the pattern for a 5/8 wave that has series effects between the bottom out of phase 1/8 wave portion, and the upper 1/2 wave portion of the radiator. IMO, this is for sure a net loss for the 5/8 wave, and whatever currents are in the top 1/2 wave are reduced by this 1/8 wave out of phase currents. I haven't compared the currents between these two models, but maybe I'll do that and report back what I find.

I on the other hand completely reject the idea of full cancellation. I can think of any number of reasons why that would not be the case, simply from a theory point of view. I have yet to see anything other than an opinion tell me otherwise. I have reason to believe that the standard NEC2 models are wrong in this case, and these reasons extend to real world testing that actual broadcast engineers testing a similar antenna design. You can look that data up on the FCC's web site yourself, although you have to do some digging to find it... When real world test results made by engineers disagree with the results from modeling software, I have to error on the side of the real world results. A model is useless if it doesn't, in fact, even come close to simulating the real world.

There are, however, antenna mode currents on the radials for the basket and antenna mode currents on the radiator inside of the basket, and they flow around and into the near field pretty well. These currents are pretty strong as noted in Donald's Sirio's CST image. However, these currents also have a problem flowing into the far field due to their being out of phase, like coax, and thus they cancel just like theory predicts. Pretty simple stuff the way I see it.

This goes with the above. I am very familiar with your opinion here as I have read it multiple times before. This opinion is, however, based on assumptions that you (and I for that matter) have been unable to demonstrate.

So said another way, if we sum the currents on the radials of the basket we will find the currents on the portion of the radiator, inside, are similar in magnitude and opposite in phase...to the sum of the radial currents. Again, when we have currents for two parallel type elements that are equal in magnitude, but opposite in phase...we have cancellation. In this case with the S4 cone we see almost complete cancellation. If there is a net difference between the currents however, the difference can be either constructive or destructive with the top 1/2 wave portion of the radiator, but in any case the radiation will be somewhat insignificant according to my Eznec model.

I can only suggest proof of this by showing currents on my S4 model, and to a lesser degree with my Vector model currents.

I ask only that you have an open mind when considering this as evidence however.

I am working to try and confirm this, so nothing this far is cast in stone. it is just my opinion.

I have considered this, and as I mentioned above, rejected the idea. I don't believe it to be true, and this belief is not based on Bob and Donald not believing it, but what theory and real world evidence tell me.

Something has to be said here, you asked me to have an open mind yet you have failed to open yours on any number of occasions including the ones mentioned here? You seem to be stuck on your idea, and unless you can find a way to imagine other possibilities you always will be.

I have considered your thoughts, however, the evidence I have come across during my research disagrees with your thoughts on any number of levels. I'm sorry.


The DB

 

[Marconi]

DB, your opinions are just as important to this discussion as any. You may be presenting a different point of view form mine, but Bob started this modern time discussion with his:

Avanti Sigma4: An alternative view point thread.

I think your point of view is just as fair, and should be discussed as you see fit.

I'm hopeful I can take a little break again, and maybe you have reached a point where you can present you ideas like I think you planed...when you started this thread.

I just hope I can at times present a question or two when I don't understand something, so I can try and keep this new work of yours in perspective in my mind.

I hope we all can keep open minds and still hold to our convictions, at least until we are convinced by something new on the issue...that we never considered.

Let me know if you think this is out of line...I do not wish to fight with you.

 

[bob85]

Put the violin and tissues away eddie, we have heard it all before several times,

It has got to the point where you are manufacturing your own chronology of fiction and twisted words to fit your paradigm,
you think that is not disrespecting people,

I have been asking that you provide an alternative modus operandi with links we can read from respected sources for 6 years,

refusal to explain why you ignore what barkley & the arrl tells us is not good enough eddie,
if you are correct you can show us what we need to read to understand it,

I have already noted the lack of ground-plane and the shorted base + gamma feed as possible deal breakers,
If you see the difference eddie, find links that explain it, we don't want your opinion,

there is nothing to be gained from further discussion with you until you come up with info from respected sources so we can look at it,

Your repeated refusal to read links, twisting of peoples words, creating your own chronology, false accusations, insinuations & retrospective mind reading are getting tedious.

 

[jazzsinger]

Hi Eddie.

As you know I as well as others have criticised your s meter readings on ssb as well as your two pole approach.

I know you can't do anything about the two poles. But here's a suggestion might at least give you steady readings. Its a little tone generator that you can set for sinewave between 400hz and a few khz. All you have to do is set it to 1khz tone and hold phone to microphone. It will give you a steady carrier. http://onlinetonegenerator.com/

I've even used it checking ssb alignment with my ext inline counter to see if it was worth opening a radio to align it. Set it for 1000hz play it through 27.555 usb counter reads 556. However many more digits your counter has. Radio I checked was 556.03. My counter is only 7 digit but wasn't worth opening the radio and cracking a slug for 30hz.

Its not lab technology but it also has the option for a two tone output in the menu. Ideal for a quick ssb power check. A lot easier than constant whistling.

I find it handy and if you want steady incoming signals will do the job. Nowhere near ideal measuring conditions I admit but I think would be slightly more accurate for your style of test.

A lot easier than trying to take average readings between voice peaks Jazz 73

 

[Marconi]

Jazz I remember many years ago my father got me a bicycle and he helped me learn how to ride it. Back then, 70 years ago I kept falling, but after a while I got the drift of the idea.

I always thought I was making progress in doing what I've done over the years with my antennas, but I realize now I was just falling off...all over again.

I also managed to piss-off some on the way down too. But that said, I've learned a lot...listening to you guys, and I thank you.

The only thing my old radio mentor managed to teach me was to be curious.

 

[jazzsinger]

Jazz I remember many years ago my father got me a bicycle and he helped me learn how to ride it. Back then, 70 years ago I kept falling, but after a while I got the drift of the idea.

I always thought I was making progress in doing what I've done over the years with my antennas, but I realize now I was just falling off...all over again.

I also also managed to piss of some on the way down too. But that said, I've learned a lot listening to you guys...and I thank you.

The only thing my old radio mentor managed to teach me was to be curious.

Don't be so hard on yourself mate. There's always room to learn and at the end of the day you can only do what you lnow with what you have.

I know it ain't ideal or lab spec but would get you that stable signal you need to give your tests more meaning to you. Which is what is important.

We all come here to learn, share and question.

No-one knows it all, no-one ever will. You just got to open your mind that others may have worse or better ways than you or I have.

Its a handy wee tool. I use it on my mobile. Comes in handy setting alc etc and like I say would give you the constant signal you lack either from phone or pc. It also has a hearing test on it. I can hear to 17.5khz but theres a couple of dips in my hearing range where i hear nothing then it comes back.

A friend got told his radio was 3khz off on usb and was panicking.

I said no way as its a radio I am very familiar with having 2 of them. Sure I went to see and align it if need be. With 1khz tone was 27.55603 on usb and 27.554.06.

Wasn't even worth opening radio for 30/60 hz. No doubt person who told him confused tens of hertz with khz.

But put his mind at rest seeing as it was even closer to spec than a 148 he had next to it that was 40 off on usb and 30 on lsb. It had just been serviced by one of the best rig docs in uk.

Allowing for accuracy of my counter and phone tone it could have been almost dead on, on either radio.

It certainly comes in handy if you just want cb accuracy or ballpark power readings.

End of the day if you don't question you don't learn, and we all interperet what we read differently anyway.


Curiosity killed the cat. But it helped me work the world. In my teens all I did was question everything. Now I read a lot. Your mentor was right to teach curiosity, caution is also a wise trait as I've found out being blown across room twice with mains voltage. 240v kicks some major ass. Lol.

Teach me to change a valve linear fuse whilst stoned and still plugged in. I was 15. I ain't done it again. Lol

I'm a firm believer if it ain't drastically off don't touch it.

Jazz 73

 

[Marconi]

Jazz, I have learned that the radio meters don't respond favorably for doing antenna comparison testing. Bob just posted a video recently that spoke on that subject. So, I guess all the reports we use to hear when guys gave us there signal comparisons on the forum and in videos are like you say...miss reporting or worse CBBS.

I remember Bob one time told me he was going to send me a little circuit device that somehow I would be able to fix that problem...but I guess he got busy. Maybe that was similar to what you are describing here.

I think I understand the isssue, but I don't know how or what I can do about it. I can only compare what I see on my meter and all of my radios produce pretty close to about the same thing. so I guess you are right...all of the radios are wrong and won't see a small differnece that is really necessary for antenna comparisons.

Aside from that, much has been said about A/B switching too. That is basically all that I have ever done and I could see differences, but they were always rather small, so that is what I reported. Now I understand the differences I reported were all wrong and they should have been much larger differences that I missed.

Based on what you suggest here...what kind of difference might I see if I put too antennas 36' feet apart where we know there will still be an influence between the two antennas. What really happens in such cases. I hear it is a bad way to test, but how does it affect what I see on my radio?

For example: if I had such a setup and one antenna was a 1/2 wave vertical center fed dipole and the other was my A/P up beside it, both about 30' feet high, and a wavelength apart, what do you think the transmitting consequences for such would be improved somehow or made worse as I switch between the signals from a buddy that is putting about s7 on me?

Would my signal be more or less, and if you can guess about how much.

Like we both said it is good to be curious.

 

[Needle Bender]

This has all been very fun to read, lively strand to say the least!

But I am curious about one thing, Donald; How does this Vector design defy vertically-stacked collinear gain theory? In this "non-apparent collinear" the alleged current maximas aren't spaced the 1/2 wavelength apart needed for 2dBd?
The graph shows maybe .5dBd for 1/4 wave spacing of 2 full 1/2 wave dipoles, but the lower one of these two in your Dominator & the Vector design is only HALF of a 1/2 wave dipole.

http://www.w8ji.com/stacking_broadside_collinear.htm

Lets be clear on this one Marconi. While some clients are forced to share tower space in close proximity to other antennas, I would not be attempting to run gain tests or confirm the pattern while other antennas are present and could interfere with the results. All of my tests were conducted with no other antennas around for many wavelengths and done in the FM mode. The Sigma design produces the exact same signal as a 1/2 wave dipole when the Sigma has a 2db attenuator inline with it. Not measured in needle widths on a signal meter but with the accuracy of digital instruments.

At what distance were these tests performed?