sigma4 article is online

[HomerBB]

@DB
I think Henry is warning that flattening the degree of signal to the horizon will make the antenna more beneficial to long distance communications, but make it less effective for close in local comms, if the trade off for more gain is less local capability.

@Marconi
I am not sure why you think that I am in disagreement regarding the similarity in performance between various types of monopoles when the current maximums are the same height above earth. I, in fact, tend to agree with this. I thought this was implied if not expressed in several threads I've been a part of.
What I have seen is this, if I can express it clearly:
a.) When modeling different vertical monopole antennas over earth at the same mount height there tends to be differences in gain.
b.) When modeling different vertical monopole antennas over earth at the same current maximum height there tends to be much less differences in gain.
c.) When modeling different vertical monopole antennas in free space there tends to be differences in gain.
Am I wrong?

I believe longer to wavelength (ie. 1/4 vs 1/2 vs 5/8, etc) antennas by nature exhibit greater gain as that dimension to wavelength ratio increases. even using Extended Zepp dipoles, double wavelength doublets and longer exhibit this. Some like to think of it in terms of capture area, which I do not, but prefer to think of it as a matter of the electrical properties of a given antenna. Some antennas do this better even among monopoles because their physical properties are better for doing so. Free space models show this to be when there is no ground/earth to induce reflections that contribute to gain nor anything else one could consider.
When I consider certain monopole antennas I attempt to formulate a ground zero for performance expectations based upon three basic things.

1. How big is it in terms of it physical size to electrical wavelength
2. what can I expect from this particular antenna at a given height above the ground, and
3. what do I think the designers were trying to accomplish when they designed and made it the way they did.

Return to virtually any thread I participated in and I believe you'll find this to be true when that thread is about antenna types and their performance. I have never argued against the notion that most antennas at the modest heights most of us tend to mount them (more or less a wavelength), will deliver similar results. Where I have set aside a two or three differences between most is an EFHW that I added radials to and meticulously over hours of tuning brought to a state of performance that in my experience had exceeded that of any other EFHW I had used, the Astroplane when it was mounted at the same tip height of any other 1/2 wave or .625 I had ever used being equal to a 5/8 and better than any of the 1/2 waves I used, and the V4k being better than all of them whether it was mounted near the ground or higher up. By near the ground I found its performance out to 35 miles when mounted on a 10' mast superior to any other monopole mounted at heights that put their tips the same, and by higher up manipulating the tip heights of a quarter wave, a 1/2 wave, a 5/8 wave, and the AP so that they were comparable to the tip height of the V4k when it was mounted 1/2 wavelength or more above the ground.

That simply leaves me to ask what I have, what is it about this antenna that causes this difference. Location may play a part, but according to available soil type info I have found this soil is not very conductive, especially compared to yours. Maybe its my morning prayers - IDK.

I do stand on this until it is proven not to be so. An antenna as long as the V4k will send its most dominant lobe into the clouds at a less than optimum angle. This one does not. It is likely the cone that captures the out of phase current in the lowest 1/4 wave of the antenna that causes this, as we know. If in no other way, this alone contributes to the positive gain of the antenna against the horizon. But there is more in the inescapable fact that the consensus of agreement within this thread points to (regardless of where we may not agree on this antenna), in Henry's words, "will likely outperform a 5/8 wave" (unless you disagree which voids the consensus turning it into the majority). Undoubtedly this points to there being more going on to give it a performance edge over a 5/8 wave. If the containment of the out of phase current is all that happening and all else is equal then the antenna is no more than a 1/2 wave (similar to the 1/2 wave radiator over the 1/4 wave stub J-pole) antenna and should not be outperforming 5/8 waves nor 1/2 waves, nor be expected to. Yet it does.
I am still willing to explore that detail not yet resolved.
So again, maybe we have come to a point where we have decided what the CST plot is not showing, and maybe some are satisfied that the antenna is not collinear. But so far, in everything I've read about this antenna on this forum and other places, too, no one has determined exactly what it is that makes this antenna stand taller than others in more ways than inches.
Donald has settled on the collinear possibilities of this antenna, and now seems to be the only one willing to stay in the fray out on that limb. Personally, I don't blame him for sticking to it even now because no one else has forwarded anything else except to say what it isn't.

Anyone know what it is? Standing by listening.

Homer

 

[HomerBB]

@bob,
I have attempted to do the things you ask me about with the antennas. Granted, as a backyard enthusiast I can't lay claim to perfection in any regard. What I do have, however, is the consistency of my meticulous attempts to do the best I can with all of them. Mast isolation by way of non-conducting hickory shovel handles or fiberglass between the mast and antenna, chokes as close to the feed points as I can get them. I have been choking and isolating the AP antennas I've had since I first got them in the air a quarter wave below the ring for a long time. No I haven't used the exact same tubing on every antenna, but neither have the manufacturers. I have recycled a lot of the same metals into the next experimental antenna.

I understand your question - it's easy to blame the antenna for user error.
I agree about end fed half waves and Imax antennas being better than their reputations. I have built some EFHWs for a few guys around here who swear by them and think I reinvented the things, loving them over their A99 and and Imax antennas they had used previously. But these are antennas I worked tightly on, and when I could I helped to mount them so they were done right.
You are correct that the variables are many affecting antenna performance.

And then there is controlled margins of consistency.

 

[The DB]

@DB
I think Henry is warning that flattening the degree of signal to the horizon will make the antenna more beneficial to long distance communications, but make it less effective for close in local comms, if the trade off for more gain is less local capability.

I would think that, unless you had the side of a mountain next to your antenna or something, you would want as much of the power as low as you can get it for local contacts as well, would you not? As the environment the antenna (height/ground type) is the main determiner of the lowest lobe of radiation, and you aren't getting it lower without changing that environment, you use what you have to work with...

I believe longer to wavelength (ie. 1/4 vs 1/2 vs 5/8, etc) antennas by nature exhibit greater gain as that dimension to wavelength ratio increases. even using Extended Zepp dipoles, double wavelength doublets and longer exhibit this. Some like to think of it in terms of capture area, which I do not, but prefer to think of it as a matter of the electrical properties of a given antenna. Some antennas do this better even among monopoles because their physical properties are better for doing so. Free space models show this to be when there is no ground/earth to induce reflections that contribute to gain nor anything else one could consider.

That simply leaves me to ask what I have, what is it about this antenna that causes this difference. Location may play a part, but according to available soil type info I have found this soil is not very conductive, especially compared to yours. Maybe its my morning prayers - IDK.

Something I have noticed about length when it comes to modeling is the longer the antenna the more efficient it tends to be. Another thing that affects efficiency over a lossy earth is height. The comparison of the dipole and the modified vector form the GHZ24 model I mentioned a few of my posts ago, the Vector model was nearly 10% more efficient (dipole was near 55% and the Vector was near 65% efficient). This isn't the first time I've seen this with longer antennas in models. That may, at least in part, be why some longer antennas seem to have an advantage over some shorter antennas, and may contribute, at least in part, to you and others seeing an edge when comparing a Vector 4000 antenna to a smaller antenna.

That being said, I have also seen shorter antennas outperform longer antennas in models. For example, I modeled a 1/2 inch diameter aluminum 5/8 wavelength (with four horizontal radials) and a simulated matching network (L network, the most efficient one I could use). I put that against a slightly modified Starduster design, stainless steel 1/4 inch, four radials at 15 degrees off of vertical. No matching network as the design didn't need one... The Starduster model not only showed more gain at the same tip height of the 5/8 wavelength antenna, but also at the same feedpoint height. In that case the tip was bout 3/8 wavelengths lower, and the antenna was shorter overall, and made out of a material many will consider a lesser material, and it still outperformed the 5/8 wavelength antenna... Fun fact, a Starduster model with those dimensions also outperforms a center fed dipole made out of the same materials at the same tip height, at least in models...


The DB

 

[bob85]

Homer,
i would not say that i blame the user, its more an issue with the manufacturers not giving them the information they could in order minimise the potential for bad results,

I have no doubt you built your buddies a better 1/2wave than the typical offerings on the market,

my sig shows a vector 4000 on a fiberglass pole with a choke, feed-line need taping to the mast,
i did not have mine isolated like that, i tried isolation but no choke and a choke but no isolation years ago,
if id had the sense to do both i may have seen some improvement,

I in no way disagree with Donald with regards to been able to peak signals out towards the horizon and its visible on a cb s-meter ( uniden), or that the vector tuned correctly outperforms other antennas on the same pole except the BIG-MAC,

i just don't think the reason is what i first imagined,

Id bet my last dollar that in my yard with the antennas at the same feed-point height the vector would show more than 2db over a dipole but that would be partly due to the surrounding obstructions and the vector having close to 20ft height advantage over those obstructions,

welcome to the fork handle club.

 

[Shockwave]

Donald you construct a max 3 Kw version.
The term "professional broadcast" ...I believe the FCC has "classes".
I tend to think the majority of those stations are "low power" or educational ?
I don't think most of them will have the best engineers available.

You have given me a name over the personal mail, who i all ready forgot.
Wasn't that some sort of Christian low power radio station on ...Guam ?
With respect for the guy...he could be very good !
But its not really helping me to find some "proof"

Most class B 50kw FM stations only use about 7kw TPO and it's divided into 8 bays Henry. It's very easy to get that type of ERP on this band without exceeding 3kw into any single antenna. Yes, I've stacked them for clients in the past and have designed arrays using up to 8 of these antennas.

I wrote about Clear Channel Communications in the private conversation but you never responded once it was clear I was not going to accept theory over consistent field results. Published on my site you'll find a list of a dozen or more FCC licensed stations. Had you given me some faith you could have checked them. You may notice many have call signs with numbers. Those are all Translator stations (boosters) owned by the big commercial broadcast networks. The ones with the full staff of engineers you question.

Though i could imagine the FCC has done some "measurements"
If the antenna was able to produce whatever gain it is you say...wouldn't the low power stations be forced to turn the power down ? for sure that has happen to one of your 1500 clients ? Or doesnt it work that way if the ERP is too much ?

For sure many US clients have had to reduce TPO so as not to exceed the licensed ERP when switching from a dipole or CP bays. Even better is when they were using a small exciter and low gain antenna that did not meet maximum ERP and the only change was the antenna. Even "Joe the plumber" can tell the new antenna is working better when he hears the station miles further down the same road traveled every day.

No, who says Eznec cant show that ...I told you all ready it can.
Not accurateI said...the earth will have influence it sure can have downward tilt
But the effects wil be NEGATIVE for the CB user. NOT for direct wave communication as is the case with cell phones for example

That's where the problem is Henry. We don't see the effects as negative in the field. We see them as providing gain in the distance as compared to a dipole. Even a commercial grade $1000 center fed dipole. Bob saw that on CB as well as myself and Homer.

Donald you have seen one test antenna in the beginning from that you draw a inaccurate conclusion that it is the only one.
Your claim that a gamma match will enhance performance...
Oke...imagine a single dipole...it can be direct fed as it it resonant (depending on a few things) but we could also feed it with a gamma-match...
That wont effect performance besides the possible loss of the matching unit.
So...Not accurate.

I've only seen one antenna you've posted online because you stopped responding in the 4 way private conversation. I was clear with my claim that the antennas distant performance was enhanced by lengthening the elements. DB has been able to confirm in models that I was nearly dead on in determining a length where the gain peaks above a dipole. Not bad for just using field tests to arrive at that longer length. Especially for someone being jugged as inaccurate.

This also produces inductive reactance that would be difficult to cancel without the capacitive reactance the gamma match offers. You make it sound like I said adding a gamma to a dipole would increase gain. Not accurate but coming from someone who hasn't been able to find any gain, I'm not surprised.

Ehm...oke...tell me... how do we feed a 2el cubical quad ?
Yes, with a piece of 1/4 wave coax line.
A transmission line and a coax cable can both be used to transform impedance.
So...not accurate.

That paragraph didn't seem to relate to anything I said about the wire mesh over the cone proving your theory of fields rotating in and out of the cone structure is wrong and that it's more likely the fields inside the cone and outside the cone are isolated with the outside field spinning around the entire cone just the way we see it around the top radiator does it?

No donald, they will not...the radials will enhance the ground verticals depend on but some can work without. And we allready provided proof they will help especially at large height...now..that is something you can test.

I tested adding the horizontal radial idea long before it occurred to you. I found a barely noticeable reduction in gain until you began to fold the extra radials upwards like the originals. Hardly the scenario you and W8JI suggest in theory.

I cant help it Donald, I appreciate you cause you are one of the few manufacturers willing to come online !

But i see the tendency of being not accurate.
Neither have you done anything I have asked, for which i am disappointed.
Now, you can continue your search with something "new"
as i did mention yesterday....i would expect nothing else...

So...happy searching

If you're going to describe me as a manufacturer, you might as well get that accurate by mentioning I'm the ONLY ONE willing to back all those field proven results with an unconditional 30 day money back guarantee.

I see a tendency where you expect others to forget what they know in order to contradict results with theory. I see a tendency where you avoid how a wire mesh cone contradicts your theory of rotating fields around each individual radial rather than around the entire cone. I see a tendency to ignore the fact we see a field in the shape of a 1/2 wave forming around a cone that is only a 1/4 wavelength.

You want me to believe there are virtually no constructive currents on the outside of the cone when the shape of the near field generated around it suggests there are two currents present. That the near field around the cone doesn't make it into the far field due to cancellation when the only part that doesn't make it into the far field is the lower confined portion of the inner monopole. I can't help it Henry, I can't ignore everything in favor of theory.

No,
You may look at it as you want.
The "thing" is one has to be precise. A J-pole is straigth. the Sigma 4 has a cone.
Normally the J-pole has one radial The cone version has either 3 or 3.
So yes...its a J pole with the differeneces mentioned.A dipole is straigth...a inverted V is still a dipole...but we dont call it that way.
It is not MY job to decided at which point the antenna should be named otherwise.

On the other hand if you publish more than 40 pages of Sigma theory it is your job to understand the base of the Sigma does not function like the J-pole. It does not have two parallel and open conductors that form cancellation if the two are able to mix together equally. You really need to do "all you can" to test your ideas and wrap the cone with mesh on your test antenna so you understand the effects are not as you claim. What you see in CST outside the cone does combine in the far field because it was isolated and confined from the field inside the cone.

No, it reacts to is the same...
Though i am tempted to say the S4 handles it better as it is more "symetrical due to extra vertical radials.

Saying it's just "more symmetrical" over simplifies things. It doesn't recognize that more that just cancellation effects are occurring in the cone structure. That a coaxial shield has been put in place around the base of the antenna. That constructive CMC are allowed to flow back over the outside surface to combine with a second current forming the unusual 1/2 wave shaped field around the cone.

Im not denying the real world results Donald has made...
Im absolutly positive in some cases he has noticed some advantage.
However im confident there are reasons for it which NOT are a "collinear" effect or the mentioned high gain.

I've seen you do you're best to allow "some" of my claims to coexist with your theory but it's not helping accuracy or to explain any of the key issues. In this case it would be more accurate to say "none" of the people I've worked with have had a "J-Pole like" experience. We don't just see 2dbd increases when the tower is the "right" height. Imagine how quick a 2db drop would get noticed if we ever got the tower height wrong? In theory, you're talking about a possible 4db variable when the largest ones recorded are within 1db of advertised specs.

I couldnt agree more.
However, I have done everything....really....everything...
Now i am asking those who think they have measured something to look where they went wrong...as it is clear that is the case.

Really? You know that's not just a hand full of people that you're asking to look where they have consistently measured wrong Henry? Surely one of them was doing more than walking around with a Micronta field strength meter? Better yet, surely one of them would have been posting about an actual experience similar to what you claim?

As mentioned before, the power the Dominator can handle...is max 3Kw.
It is my guess we can count say 90 + percent as relative small radio stations.
Take a look at your own local radio station...
You might know who runs it....tell me what expectations do you have of the guy who is using the antenna ?

Where is that faith Henry? As mentioned before these antennas can be stacked like any other to achieve whatever ERP is required. Stop guessing and recognize some fairly big names in the broadcast market with qualified engineering departments are seeing the advantages over a dipole while none say "it doesn't work any better than the dipole did."

lets do it otherwise...give me proof of 1 percent of those 1400 or 1500 happy clients who can provide gain measurements as they should be.
And as asked ? wouldnt the FCC have measured at least some of them ?
And wouldnt the ERP of them be to large if the gain was real ?
Or am I missing something ? US FCC broadcast rules is not my cup of tea.

None of them can report the .1dbd or the huge variables you theorize happen with various tower and transmission line lengths. The FCC doesn't measure gain on non directional antennas. Although I've had several cases where they have required stations to hire outside engineers to conduct pattern analysis regarding potential interference to 2nd adjacent channels. Wouldn't the ERP be too large if a station used 8 dipole bays like many do? Of course not, you adjust your TPO to match your ERP based on antenna gain, HAAT and coax loss.

Is it mast length ? Is it CMC ? is it reflections ? Is it tip height ? etc.
You could probably write a A4 paper full with possible options.
I can only tell what will happen in "best" or "expected" circumstances

Yes Henry, and they all get it perfectly right without any mention of specific lengths or height just by luck. When do you think we will start hearing people got the wrong length of mast and got 2db less than their Antron 99 with the right length of mast. The Antron is known for this variable related to CMC while the Sigma is not. If it were as easy to just "tell" what could happen in the "best" circumstances the subject would not be in debate.

But i cant support his theory, and am disappointed he keeps on going.
I was hoping he went after "the search" why ...instead of holding on to his currents in cone collinear theory thing.

You got the carriage out in front of the horse again here Henry. It's you trying to promote a theory that has yet to be tested with more than a decade of field results. I'm disappointed you didn't respect my request to keep certain photos private. That I shared them with you while stating it was for our testing purposes and only to aid in the construction of a test antenna. That after building it you thought posting pictures of that test antenna online would circumvent my concerns. That you see holding onto results as less tangible than holding onto models, theory, and a month worth of first hand experience working with questionable test antennas.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Hello All,

I have added a film of the SURFACE currents on the SIGMA IV page.

http://cb-antennas.com/?page_id=965
(blue bottom line "surface currents)


Its uploaded in dropbox and will open in a new window.
will that help marconi ?

Please see the surface currents are displayed with arrows.
Now please notice the direction on the radials and main bottom radiator are opposite.

That isnt a collinear is it ?

Now, MY CST plot shows 2,22 dBi gain (see article.)
Donald again I am asking...instead of publishing a CST plot of the magnetic Near H Field.
Why dont you provide a freespace CST plot ? Why are you making things so difficult ?

By the way...
your last alinea is one i will carefully consider.
I do not like to be accused of something.
I said to you: i would not use some of my findings in MY ARTICLE for YOUR sake.
And I havnt, actually i have done you a favour of not mentioning it here on forum either.

I hope to find some time to go through all the lines...
please allow me some time, as mine is limited.

Kind regads,

H>

 

[Shockwave]

I'm sorry if my last line offended you and have mentioned it in the private conversation at least two times without a single response from you. The only way I could see you feeling this way would be if you completely overlooked my request for confidentiality on page 12 of the 4 way private conversation when I shared the photo.

I think you are like the 5th or 6th person now to ask me to publish more CST information going all the way back to 007 years ago. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to explain I've shared every last detail including the CST fields. On the other hand you claim to have connections and access to CST information. I only asked if you could provide the same piece of information regarding this plot so we might be able to compare any differences between the two and you just assured me yours shows the same field around the cone but no gain.

Henry, I'm not sure you've done anyone a favor here and if you did, it certainly was not me. I think a better way of describing it would be you were not as destructive as you could have been but I see no favors or clear conclusions within the 40 pages. It's years of speculation and a few weeks of experience working with disproportioned test antennas that led you to this conclusion and that just doesn't move 15 years of field experience working with professionals in the broadcast industry even though you're under the impression they are all unqualified.

By disregarding my request for privacy in this matter, I have to say you've destroyed my ability to trust you and caused me to become very hesitant to share anything sensitive in the future. You have the right to be offended by the fact I won't give any theory including your own the time of day when it misses the field results by miles in every case I've worked with in 15 years and not a single client response is similar to your theory. You were wrong for ignoring my concerns for privacy and the sad thing is the photo wasn't even used to prove any theory and appears to be posted just to show off. Should I now thank you for doing me this "favor"?

As I look back, I'm not as disappointed as I was originally about your 40 pages of theory. It's just one more J-Pole article in a long list. The differences are most of them were written by people with no first hand experience and I held out hope your knowledge should have been able to lead you to the same results I'm able to provide others on a regular basis. Instead, we've gone trough countless pages of debate in order to produce 40 pages that say "it's a 1/2 wave J-Pole". Thank you for your time...

 

[Shockwave]

Bob, I think there may be some misunderstanding on our part regarding the Sirio engineers comments on CMC and mast radiation. While he specifically mentioned a small amount of CMC descending on the first portion of the mast under the antenna as being beneficial, I'm confident he understands the currents will continue in a sinusoidal manner throughout the entire length.

What may not be so clear to us is his reason for stating why CMC just below the antenna is a benefit and why the engineer sees this first section of mast as being the most significant portion. If the CMC descending on the mast were of an inverse phase like we can see with an Antron 99, that causes the angle of radiation to increase and distant signal to go down.

Since the cone on the monopole in the Sigma contains the out of phase fields, the outside of the 1/4 wave cone and the first 1/4 wave of mast will all be in a constructive phase and hold the pattern down on the horizon. It is that strong inverse field we see DIRECTLY under a typical 5/8 or 3/4 wave ground planes main radiator that tends to drive angles upwards.

Here is some food for thought... If we know having a section of radiator under a 1/2 wave that emits an out of phase field causes energy to go upwards, why can't that work vise versa? Shouldn't we expect another in phase field directly under that 1/2 wave could compress the field down towards the horizon?

 

[bob85]

Donald,

In my minds eye ( i could be blind ) i see two possible sources of cmc on the mast/feed-line,
only one of them been common mode on the radials flowing down onto the mast due to impedance imbalance at the top of the cone,

The issue i have with that is if cmc on the radials and first section of mast were in phase with the upper monopole the next 1/2wave of mast would be out of phase and so on in a sinusoidal pattern,

i can just as easily imagine that we are adjusting the radiator to put the zero crossing point at the hoop height causing the highest end impedance and lowest cmc on the cone & mast,

i know we end up physically longer than 1/2wave but are we electrically longer when you take the shortening effect of the cone in proximity to the monopole into effect?

Ponder on this,
with an extended monopole and 90" cone, lengthening the cone moves the hoop towards the zero crossing point reducing the imbalance,

maybe if we could put a current probe on the mast we could see if the peak in signal occurs when mast currents are higher or lower.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Donald,

Im not happy the way you are going towards me in the discussion.
In my mind im having difficulties to escape the thought of why you would:

Start accusing me of something
Speak bad of my work done
Wont share information. (or hesitate as you mention..but i still havnt seen anything)
Somehow have lost "trust" in me

Why would you do that Donald ? Its not normal behaviour is it ?

Now at the beginning you have mentioned something in the line of:
There were several things in my article that are not correct ...please do say so ...

So far I heard one:
The "elevated angle" where you said it could only indicate it is a collinear....

And you are right, I am sorry...it indeed doesnt take long for me to proof the statement was not accurate.

I can understand that is irritating, but I cant help it.

So...I am trying again:

Please do provide some proof of the collinear theory...besides saying it.
Would that please be possible ?

(and no, i dont take your explination of the CST film for granted hihi)


Warm wishes,

H>

 

[Shockwave]

Donald,

In my minds eye ( i could be blind ) i see two possible sources of cmc on the mast/feed-line,
only one of them been common mode on the radials flowing down onto the mast due to impedance imbalance at the top of the cone,

The issue i have with that is if cmc on the radials and first section of mast were in phase with the upper monopole the next 1/2wave of mast would be out of phase and so on in a sinusoidal pattern,

I can't disagree with you there. As I try and figure out what the engineer meant by "the most significant portion of the mast" being the first portion under the antenna, I can only assume he meant eliminating the out of phase field in close proximity to the main field improved performance. I admit this is a guess in an attempt to make sense of his explanation. I'm confident the man knows what he's talking about and the only issue may be our interpretation of the translation from Italian to English.

i can just as easily imagine that we are adjusting the radiator to put the zero crossing point at the hoop height causing the highest end impedance and lowest cmc on the cone & mast,

i know we end up physically longer than 1/2wave but are we electrically longer when you take the shortening effect of the cone in proximity to the monopole into effect?

Ponder on this,
with an extended monopole and 90" cone, lengthening the cone moves the hoop towards the zero crossing point reducing the imbalance,

maybe if we could put a current probe on the mast we could see if the peak in signal occurs when mast currents are higher or lower.

I can tell you this for sure, lining up the cones loop close to the zero crossing point does indeed peak gain in the distance.

In my mind if we had not passed the point of resonance, the radiator lengths would peak their gain in a shorter length that DID NOT require capacitive reactance to match. Direct feed or directly feeding the radiator through a DC shunt without a cap forces a reduction in radiator length in order to accomplish tuning.

 

[Shockwave]

Donald,

Im not happy the way you are going towards me in the discussion.
In my mind im having difficulties to escape the thought of why you would:

Start accusing me of something
Speak bad of my work done
Wont share information. (or hesitate as you mention..but i still havnt seen anything)
Somehow have lost "trust" in me

Why would you do that Donald ? Its not normal behaviour is it ?

Now at the beginning you have mentioned something in the line of:
There were several things in my article that are not correct ...please do say so ...

So far I heard one:
The "elevated angle" where you said it could only indicate it is a collinear....

And you are right, I am sorry...it indeed doesnt take long for me to proof the statement was not accurate.

I can understand that is irritating, but I cant help it.

So...I am trying again:

Please do provide some proof of the collinear theory...besides saying it.
Would that please be possible ?

(and no, i dont take your explination of the CST film for granted hihi)


Warm wishes,

H>

Henry, if you're not happy with my comments and you feel I'm wrongfully accusing you of something, then we need to address that concern immediately to understand how this could be. The picture I provided in private was to assist you in constructing a suitable antenna to test the 4 wire theory.

1) My first question is did you read where I specifically mentioned at the time I shared the photo that is was only for our private use and not to be published anywhere? That would be on page 12 of the private conversation involving the four of us.

2) If you read that, do you somehow feel my concerns about this topic should be different since you haven't used my actual photo but one of the similar antenna you made afterwards for the same test?

I really haven't accused you of anything. All I did is describe what you've done. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you may not have read the details in my post regarding the picture and is why I'm offering the chance to explain yourself if I've misunderstood your reasoning behind the actions I've observed?

 

[bob85]

Donald,
You need capacitive reactance even when the monopole is resonant,
the capacitor cancels the inductive reactance of the gamma rod and strap,

imho,
If the signal peak is found when the hoop is at the zero crossing point, that presents the highest end impedance possible,
The end impedance of an electrical 1/2wave above the cone and minimum radiation from the cone and mast.

 

[Shockwave]

Donald,
You need capacitive reactance even when the monopole is resonant,
the capacitor cancels the inductive reactance of the gamma rod and strap,

imho,
If the signal peak is found when the hoop is at the zero crossing point, that presents the highest end impedance possible,
The end impedance of an electrical 1/2wave above the cone and minimum radiation from the cone and mast.

That may very well be the case where the radiation on the cone is at minimal. I haven't experimented with the models to see if it lines up that way or not. The problems are you know alignment in this area was responsible for peaking gain in the distance with your CB antenna beyond the point of other vertical antennas. I've seen too many years of consistently beating every commercial dipole on the market. They include center feds, folded dipoles and broadband versions too.

To me it appeared as soon as Henry convinced you the CST pattern was showing the H field, you seemed to have backed way off as though this somehow effected the results you've seen in the field. Lets say CST is showing the H field, it still shows the same phase near field remains on the outside of the cone regardless of the fields inside the cone.

I've sat patiently and listened trough all of the analogies using 5 spinning paddles to simulate the cone and monopole. To me it's all insignificant and would be to others if they installed wire mesh around the cone. That prohibits the possibility of Henry's theory that suggests the radials have individual rotating fields that are canceled by the inner monopole in the far field. Wire mesh around the cone in the field tests does not noticeably effect performance (especially in Henry's no gamma version). Therefore the entire theory of operation cannot be changing from 4 individual fields to one field rotating around the entire cone simply by adding the mesh.

 

[Shockwave]

imho,
If the signal peak is found when the hoop is at the zero crossing point, that presents the highest end impedance possible,
The end impedance of an electrical 1/2wave above the cone and minimum radiation from the cone and mast.

Bob, I just wanted to add that the alignment with the zero crossing does more than just raise the impedance or minimize CMC. I see other reasons peak gain occurs in this region due to better confinement of the monopoles out of phase field inside the cone. Reducing the height of the loop too much allows more out of phase radiation to escape. Making the height of the loop too high blocks constructive fields from combining in the far field.