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

DB, I think Homer has told us he has built at least 3 versions of the S4/NV4K. So, I don't really need Homer's dimensions, but I was curious what dimensions you used in the model you are talking about here. So, don't bother trying to dig Homer's dimensions out of all this record. I think you said you modified his results anyway, so that gives us another set of possible dimensions.

Above you explained your observations quite well and I tend to agree. However, I did not change the radial lengths as I made the loop larger in diameter. I will try that later. Can you give me the loop diameter and the radials lengths where you saw the peak in gain?

You are right, because the loop adds inductance to the supporting elements (radial cone) and this allows for these radials to be made resonant using shorter lengths. This is also noted in the patent. So to test this idea, both the loop needs to be made larger in diameter while the radials are made shorter.

I agree that would be a lot of work for me using Eznec.

I'm one to try and stick by these CB antennas modeled to the specs, but I don't recall the subject or the comment from the past...so I can't confirm if I said it or not.

This reminds me of Bob's recent thread on the new modified Vector idea by Vortex...where they extended the radial cone to 13' feet. Have you modeled that one yet? If so, maybe you could post your results and ideas in Bob's earlier thread.

I have claimed that matching made little difference in performance results. I know that eliminating Common Mode Currents (CMC) from a model sometimes makes a lot of difference.

W8JI makes it pretty clear on his Website how CMC, not using a mast, feed line, or radials on a model can make a big difference in results. I'm just not sure about matching...mainly because I'm not completely sure about my efforts to match properly and very little is written or discussed on the issues of matching.

DB, I have see the same thing happen. I've also seen the gain sometimes go up and sometimes go down in models as I attempted to fix small Eznec errors. The same is often true when I fix errors made in dimensions.

Thanks for your responses.

<blockquote data-quote="Marconi" data-source="post: 611478" data-attributes="member: 903">DB, I think Homer has told us he has built at least 3 versions of the S4/NV4K. So, I don&#039;t really need Homer&#039;s dimensions, but I was curious what dimensions you used in the model you are talking about here. So, don&#039;t bother trying to dig Homer&#039;s dimensions out of all this record. I think you said you modified his results anyway, so that gives us another set of possible dimensions.Above you explained your observations quite well and I tend to agree. However, I did not change the radial lengths as I made the loop larger in diameter. I will try that later. Can you give me the loop diameter and the radials lengths where you saw the peak in gain?You are right, because the loop adds inductance to the supporting elements (radial cone) and this allows for these radials to be made resonant using shorter lengths. This is also noted in the patent. So to test this idea, both the loop needs to be made larger in diameter while the radials are made shorter.I agree that would be a lot of work for me using Eznec.I&#039;m one to try and stick by these CB antennas modeled to the specs, but I don&#039;t recall the subject or the comment from the past...so I can&#039;t confirm if I said it or not.This reminds me of Bob&#039;s recent thread on the new modified Vector idea by Vortex...where they extended the radial cone to 13&#039; feet. Have you modeled that one yet? If so, maybe you could post your results and ideas in Bob&#039;s earlier thread.I have claimed that matching made little difference in performance results. I know that eliminating Common Mode Currents (CMC) from a model sometimes makes a lot of difference.W8JI makes it pretty clear on his Website how CMC, not using a mast, feed line, or radials on a model can make a big difference in results. I&#039;m just not sure about matching...mainly because I&#039;m not completely sure about my efforts to match properly and very little is written or discussed on the issues of matching.DB, I have see the same thing happen. I&#039;ve also seen the gain sometimes go up and sometimes go down in models as I attempted to fix small Eznec errors. The same is often true when I fix errors made in dimensions.Thanks for your responses.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marconi, post: 611478, member: 903"] DB, I think Homer has told us he has built at least 3 versions of the S4/NV4K. So, I don't really need Homer's dimensions, but I was curious what dimensions you used in the model you are talking about here. So, don't bother trying to dig Homer's dimensions out of all this record. I think you said you modified his results anyway, so that gives us another set of possible dimensions. Above you explained your observations quite well and I tend to agree. However, I did not change the radial lengths as I made the loop larger in diameter. I will try that later. [I][B]Can you give me the loop diameter and the radials lengths where you saw the peak in gain?[/B][/I] You are right, because the loop adds inductance to the supporting elements (radial cone) and this allows for these radials to be made resonant using shorter lengths. This is also noted in the patent. So to test this idea, both the loop needs to be made larger in diameter while the radials are made shorter. [I][B]I agree that would be a lot of work for me using Eznec.[/B][/I] I'm one to try and stick by these CB antennas modeled to the specs, but I don't recall the subject or the comment from the past...so I can't confirm if I said it or not. This reminds me of Bob's recent thread on the new modified Vector idea by Vortex...where they extended the radial cone to 13' feet. Have you modeled that one yet? If so, maybe you could post your results and ideas in Bob's earlier thread. [I][B]I have claimed that matching made little difference in performance results.[/B][/I] I know that eliminating Common Mode Currents (CMC) from a model sometimes makes a lot of difference. W8JI makes it pretty clear on his Website how CMC, not using a mast, feed line, or radials on a model can make a big difference in results. I'm just not sure about matching...mainly because I'm not completely sure about my efforts to match properly and very little is written or discussed on the issues of matching. DB, I have see the same thing happen. I've also seen the gain sometimes go up and sometimes go down in models as I attempted to fix small Eznec errors. The same is often true when I fix errors made in dimensions. Thanks for your responses. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom