The Skeleton Sleeve Fed Monopole

[Marconi]

im not interested in talking about how you did your tests eddie, we saw how you did them and established they are useless for multiple reasons, i don't care what excuses you have for doing it like that, only a keystone cop would post those videos as evidence of signal performance,

Bob, I'm not interested either.

since you are the noisiest negativist im interested your theory of how the vector may work,
a detailed explanation of where and what currents flow equivalent in detail to barkleys paper explaining how the vector is different,
there are other papers out there but your hole is not deep enough yet eddie,

You seem to have all the answers regarding the work done by Barkley Bob. IMO you are the guy that should be trying to explain your references, not me. As time goes by, are you safer in your opinions by not saying too much? I put what I think out there...hoping the truth can come out some day.

if you know how the vector functions you must be able to explain the difference no propblem,

can you see my issue with the j-pole camp eddie?
10 years and the j-pole camp have still posted nothing but their opinion,

now is your chance to put that right eddie,

I don't know how the Vector works for sure Bob, but I have my opinions. For me, this is why we are discussing these issues. For you, it seems your concerns have more to do with what I say than what the truth is.

Most of the evidence out there, which ain't much for such a humdinger of an idea, supports the idea that the Vector and the J-Pole work similar, but you decry that comparison to a J-Pole...as a Cardinal Sin.

Siro calls the antenna a coaxial J-Pole.

You frequently reference articles "Some J-Poles that I Have Known" by none other than LB Cebik, where he talks about J-Poles. I can only guess you are trying to explain your opinions there too.

You reference the article "The Open Sleeve Antenna" which is about a modified idea for a J-Pole design making it radiate a better pattern.

Your reference article "The Skeleton Sleeve Fed Monopole" is suggesting an idea for making an antenna with an improved radial design (they call if a tuner) than the single tuning element for the J-Pole...which is discussed in the very beginning of the article.

where are your links to respected sources that explain in detail so that we may look at the info ?

There are a few noted above...look them up like you make us do in you brief posts.

if you can't do that and prefer to argue when you have nothing to offer by way of an alternative method of operation you could start by elaborating on how you think Za & Zt are just to do with tuning.

Bob, it is not my duty to prove your references. If you think there are important points for us to consider in the data above...then state them without just posting what is said in the article or tell us to go read a 90 pager and find specifical what your point is among all the words.

i want to understand the antenna and what Cebik meant by "there is more going on in that design than is immediately aparent to most people" and why he said the sleeve could radiate in phase with the upper 1/2wave.

Like Donald said about me earlier, I bird-dogged you for answers to those questions a long time ago. We still don't know exactly what he meant, and you and I have read his work over and over trying to see if there was something there that might give us some clues.

I'll tell you again, I believe the radial cone on the S4/NV4K radiates, but due to cancellation of those out of phase currents inside the cone and their nearly equal magnitude...the radiation left over after cancellation is not very much.

For my ideas on currents, I mostly draw on Maxwell's book on Reflections II, page 21-2 on. CMC's are about coax radiation, not RF on the antenna elements. Try getting the Gain Master to produce its CMC's in the bottom section if we replace the coax with a regular piece of tubing or a wire. It's all about coax and the way it is designed and constructed...to a specific ratio between the center conductor and the shield.

You can run a piece of coax up or down thur a specific 1/4 wave setup of tubing and, more or less, duplicate how coax works, but it is still coax and then I'll refer to it as coaxial.

 

[Shockwave]

I'll tell you again, I believe the radial cone on the S4/NV4K radiates, but due to cancellation of those out of phase currents inside the cone and their nearly equal magnitude...the radiation left over after cancellation is not very much.

For my ideas on currents, I mostly draw on Maxwell's book on Reflections II, page 21-2 on. CMC's are about coax radiation, not RF on the antenna elements. Try getting the Gain Master to produce its CMC's in the bottom section if we replace the coax with a regular piece of tubing or a wire. It's all about coax and the way it is designed and constructed...to a specific ratio between the center conductor and the shield.

You can run a piece of coax up or down thur a specific 1/4 wave setup of tubing and, more or less, duplicate how coax works, but it is still coax and then I'll refer to it as coaxial.

I tell you again your idea is utter bullshit based upon the fact the EZNEC 180 degree collinear version produces NO gain over the stock antenna because half of the new added section now bucks the phase of constructive radiation currents from the cone. You are making enemies by insisting your insignificant ideas hold more weight than what can be reproduced in the field.

In this case your ideas are useless because none of them can be demonstrated in the field. In fact they completely contradict all evidence WE see in the field. You'll never see this because you don't know how to conduct field tests. You also don't understand EZNEC can't show you what is going on with the cone unless you add the wires DB has. It's almost like you want to move the CMC from the cone to the mast but the resonant 1/4 wave cone won't let you.

 

[bob85]

you are full of shit eddie, twisting words yet again over and over,

its up to you to read the articles i post about and come up with an alternative article for us to look over,

i think i found a likely source of info in barkleys paper that herb used when he was designing the sigma4

"WHERE IS YOUR DETAILED EXPLANATION OF HOW THE VECTOR OPERATES ?"

i want the truth and that can only be decided by you posting a detailed explanation with links to respected sources of a possible alternative, not made up bullcrap about reactance and resistance tuners.

 

[Marconi]

Why don't you guys cool of a bit, and we'll see what DB can come up with.

I realize this has happened before, when somebody agrees to try some new testing idea...that might prove helpful in our understanding the S4 design...you get all nervous and start the old burn and destroy the opposition routines.

Good Lord willing...I'll stand by and talk if I think I can help.

Bob, I posted my theroy for how the S4 design works two posts up I think, I made it bold.

To save you the trouble of trying to find what you missed earlier and it is short and sweet:

"I believe the radial cone on the S4/NV4K radiates, but due to cancellation of those out of phase currents inside the cone and their nearly equal magnitude...the radiation left over after cancellation is not very much."

 

[Shockwave]

"I believe the radial cone on the S4/NV4K radiates, but due to cancellation of those out of phase currents inside the cone and their nearly equal magnitude...the radiation left over after cancellation is not very much."

An opinion that everyone reading would be wiser if they completely ignored, since it's based on your imagination and none of it can be replicated in the field. In complete contrast to the test I've offered where anyone willing to get off their ass can arrive at the same conclusion. The cone radiates so effectively, if you ignore it building a collinear, you will fail in every attempt.

You want me and Bob to clam down??? Stop thinking your opinion holds any weight when it's not possible to replicate in the field. Believe me when I tell you this or try it yourself. Do not tell me what I say is wrong until you do the work I've done which proves the Sigma is a 3/4 wave phase corrected radiator. You admit you can't produce a field test to prove the Sigma is a 1/2 wave so why not open your mind to the test I've done that proves it is an effective 3/4 wave? You're looking more ridiculous with your empty statements that you provide no means to confirm.

 

[Marconi]

I'll let you talk Donald and tell us again all about the stacked collinear test report you never posted...that proves your point. Even Bob has over the years provided us with his sources of information on many occasions.

I know your thesis by heart Donald. All I need now is some real results to compare and analyze...instead of just mulling over your words to back it up.
Let us see some efforts of work that you have verbally described of your testing. Maybe a picture or two, or a little report of something you did in the process of doing your high tech testing.

I've sent you some of my stuff to support my claims, but you refused to ever send me a thing, much less post something tangible on the forum. Don't complain to me about why this goes on and on.

I've posted a lot of links, pictures, work and reports I do, I even posted my videos for everyone to see...live and in color. I got some criticism is true, but I'm not afraid to show what I do.

You can at least see I was trying to report some work and effort to try and support what I was claiming and reporting.

 

[Shockwave]

I'll let you talk Donald and tell us again all about the stacked collinear test report you never posted...that proves your point. Even Bob has over the years provided us with his sources of information on many occasions.

I know your thesis by heart Donald. All I need now is some real results to compare and analyze...instead of just mulling over your words to back it up.
Let us see some efforts of work that you have verbally described of your testing. Maybe a picture or two, or a little report of something you did in the process of doing your high tech testing.

Stop pretending I don't supply all the evidence you need to prove this in the field. You know I've told you you can place the 4 wires on any model of the Sigma and it will replicate the same issues. I've made it very clear the determining factor is the addition of the 4 wires and the phase delay the program suggests. I've drawn you pictures of the 4 wires.

You whine that I don't give you a model of a Sigma to start from when you already have many you can add the 4 wires to yourself. The other issue is you won't learn anything until you see your perfect NEC model fail you in the field so who cares since you'll never test the model like I did anyhow?

I've sent you some of my stuff to support my claims, but you refused to ever send me a thing, much less post something tangible on the forum. Don't complain to me about why this goes on and on.

I've posted a lot of links, pictures, work and reports I do, I even posted my videos for everyone to see...live and in color. I got some criticism is true, but I'm not afraid to show what I do.

What you sent me is nothing different than all the other models that fail to represent what works with this design. All useless junk you attempt to use to debunk what you can't face. The reality that your simple assumptions fall apart when you test any of them.

I refuse to send you anything that could lead your mind off track on some miniscule trouble you see in any model of the stock Sigma I added the 4 wires to and let you do it to your "perfect Sigma model" so you have no wiggle room when you fail. I already admit my EZNEC model fails the test like every one before it, see if you can do better.

You can at least see I was trying to report some work and effort to try and support what I was claiming and reporting.

Not at all. After all these years, all you do is recklessly support your claims in denial of the facts. In order to deny the facts you have to assume those who do more than assume, can't measure anything to the extreme of double or half of a phasing section.

What you support is empty hot air, a wild mixture of anything and nothing all at the same time. How much more time will you waste relying on these uneducated guesses that can't explain the current CST shows and your EZNEC?

 

[bob85]

"I believe the radial cone on the S4/NV4K radiates, but due to cancellation of those out of phase currents inside the cone and their nearly equal magnitude...the radiation left over after cancellation is not very much."

is this your idea of a joke eddie ? your idea of a detailed description of how the vector operates ?

you got one thing right, i do share info on what i find post links ect so that anybody interested can go look,

you and the other j-polesmokers have posted NOTHING in 10 years for the rest of us to look at,

all you have given us is the pages of meaningless argument that Cebik warned me about whilst accusing me of only providing my words,

you told us you can't find anything from Cebik that suggests radials can act in a similar manner to coax, try 5 wire cage monopoles eddie, can you explain how they radiate?

you also talked some made up bullshit about what is coaxial and what is not coaxial,
i let that slide but you should buy a dictionary,

i posted the arrl article and barkley as a POSSIBLE modus operandi, a possible explanation to what Cebik told me,
if you don't agree with Cebik or the arrl article that the sleeve can radiate in phase with the upper 1/2wave explain why that is with links to respected sources to back up your words,

WHERE IS YOUR DETAILED EXPLANATION ??

 

[Shockwave]

[QUOTE="bob85, post: 498254, member: 18Is this your idea of a joke eddie ? Your idea of a detailed description of how the vector operates ? [/QUOTE]


No, you missed it Bob. His detailed explanation of how the Vector operates was "a 1/2 wave with 8 feet of extra mast jammed under it". Which is about as far as he should jam his humble opinions some place else.....

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Following this thread I am reminded of something I heard many,many years ago.

Give a man no knowledge and he will be child's play. Give him a little knowledge and he will play like a child.


That is all.

 

[Marconi]

[QUOTE="bob85, post: 498254, member: 18Is this your idea of a joke eddie ? Your idea of a detailed description of how the vector operates ?

No, you missed it Bob. His detailed explanation of how the Vector operates was "a 1/2 wave with 8 feet of extra mast jammed under it". Which is about as far as he should jam his humble opinions some place else.....[/QUOTE]

Let's act a little more professional son. My words won't hurt you, unless you start acting out.

 

[Shockwave]

Professional, like testing antennas on SSB with others close by and dismissing things you don't understand as anomalies or professional like giving no info we can use to determine if your ideas were worthy of a location other than the one I suggested?

 

[Marconi]

I'm no prof

Professional, like testing antennas on SSB with others close by and dismissing things you don't understand as anomalies or professional like giving no info we can use to determine if your ideas were worthy of a location other than the one I suggested?

I'm no antenna professional Donald. I was referring to your testing which you claim, but have never reported or shown here on WWDX.

I realize the work I did was dubious, but for the most part it is no more or no less than what other CB operators have shown in their videos.