jesus frickin christ , if you have nothing better to complain about than the size of a pic you have a wonderful life .
"Hey Booty or anybody else, how would you describe what we are seeing in this image?"
i certainly don't understand all of it , but you asked a question , i just posted the information given with the image telling what it is . hopefully shockwave will see this post and make a personalized answer just for you since you don't like the one from the link that tells what the pic is showing . forgive me for not thinking you would rather have a answer with my guesstimate of what is going on rather than the answer given by the article .
what do you think is going on marconi ?
Newegg.com - Monitors, LCD Monitors, LED Monitors
BM, what we are looking at may be right on the mark accurate, I don't know for sure. This is why I asked Shockwave if he could provide the real current and phase data that supports this graphic.
My new model of the New Vector 4000, does not indicate that the currents in the bottom radial cage are in-phase between the radiator and the radials, as others have suggested, or as I have suggested, saying earlier that everything on this antenna is in phase and thus is radiating. According to my Vector model, I was wrong.
As a result I have change my mind and I see cancellation in the area of the bottom of this antenna. I missed this in my Sigma4 model I made earlier, because the Vector, with its longer radials, shows to be far more effective in its work, and if asked I can demonstrate that too.
The radials are all noted to be in a + phase condition with each other, and their magnitudes are about equal, so they radiate as antenna currents. However, the portion of the radiator inside the radials shows a - phase condition, with an equal magnitude to the combined magnitude for the radials...
so we see cancellation due to the phase difference.
The data follows and indicates how I made the comparisons: I summed the magnitudes of currents for the 1st segment in each radial. They are in a + phased condition, and when their currents are combined they = 1.0217 Amps.
The I did the same with the 1st segment of the currents in the radiator, which is in a - phase condition = 1.1326 Amps.
These five parallel elements show us magnitudes that are all about equal...which fits one aspect for the rule on radiating currents. However, when we consider the phase, we find there is a difference,
and this fits the rule for cancellation. Thus there is little to no effective RF generated.
That said, there may be a little RF generated however, due to the very small difference in magnitudes, and we would refer to that as common mode currents.
All I have as evidence is my model. It is available for display, and is more descriptive for what I see than the graphic model that Shockwave produced.
I will post the tabular currents log and make some notes explaining things as I see them...depicting further what is going on in my model and in the bottom of the Vector.
Again, I have requested Shockwave to consider to show me a similar data set from the software he used to produce his graphic.
Now, since Shockwave has already declared that Eznec cannot model the Sigma4 design, without indicating an off-the-wall maximum high angle pattern, then all I have to counter that is...does my model display what SW suggested will happen when we try to use Eznec to model the Vector.
IMO, this model does not indicate what Shockwave claims, that Eznec will show a very high angle for the maximum signal at about 43* degrees which is undesirable for CB work. He further claims that this is due to the fact that Eznec cannot model the radials at sharp angles to the radiator, because Eznec does not recognize the radials in that position, while other's claim that Eznec limitations will not allow for radials that are close together. Don't you see the radials are close together on this model, and don't you see the model is working? If an Eznec model does not work due to its critical limitations the program will stop and produce a warning pop-up message, and you cannot proceed until the issue is resolved. I have a work around for this close radial condition in the Vector model, and I will share the info.
That said, how do we answer this question without further information, which I'm willing to produce for us to consider. Plus I add the question, why don't we see my model showing a very high angle of radiation in the 43* degree area of the pattern...instead of what we see with this model?
Booty Monster, here we are dealing with the rules that apply to radiating elements,
or conversely with the rule for non-radiating elements that are due to cancellation. I am referencing antenna mode, transmissionline mode, and common mode currents to be sure.
Since the question I've asked, regarding what Shockwave's image is showing us, appears to be too difficult for anyone to speculate on, maybe we could have a discussion on what the definition for the rules on radiating elements as noted above.
Thus we see magnitudes that are about equal, but phase is different. Thus we see cancellation. If Shockwave can show me his current data, and it shows to be to the contrary to the Eznec currents, then I will concede that the Sirio antenna software shows the correct data, and without doubt the Sigma4/Vector works just as he and others state.
I will post the model and the currents log soon.
View attachment New Vector 4000 model..pdf
Bill, also note that this model shows very little currents on the mast in the tabular currents list and the red indicator on the antenna view as well. Shouldn't have any common mode currents problems with this model at 36' high to the hub and feed point.
