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.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

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.

<blockquote data-quote="Shockwave" data-source="post: 498206" data-attributes="member: 10882">I find it funny how Marconi understands NEC needs added wires to display CMC but then he tells DB he&#039;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.&nbsp;DB, I think you&#039;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.&nbsp;I&#039;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&#039;s complaints about doing the collinear test on VHF. I&#039;ve scaled the antenna every place from 26 to 150 MHz. and the results are always the same once it&#039;s properly tuned.&nbsp;I think someone is just laying the foundation, preparing to reject your test once it&#039;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&#039;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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shockwave, post: 498206, member: 10882"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom