-
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.
sigma4 article is online
- Thread starter bob85
- Start date
Marconi, let these people defend their own statements and actions please. You of all people should know the efforts I've made to separate my business from the experiences I've shared here. I had to ask a moderator to remove your own specific references at least once before it became impossible to avoid. Thanks for your help.
Bob, I could see you misunderstanding Cebik's statement except for the fact you misunderstood it in such a way that you believed it was responsible for the notable performance characteristics you've seen in the field since a kid. Now am I to understand Henry's theory is so powerful it has altered every last thing you've seen in your field tests too? Some of us would like you to make a little more sense. Please don't use the mast, coax or tip height excuse again unless your willing to address Homer's questions about his results this time too.
Any useful response Bob or do you think the thumbs up is the best you can offer now?
Bob, I could see you misunderstanding Cebik's statement except for the fact you misunderstood it in such a way that you believed it was responsible for the notable performance characteristics you've seen in the field since a kid. Now am I to understand Henry's theory is so powerful it has altered every last thing you've seen in your field tests too? Some of us would like you to make a little more sense. Please don't use the mast, coax or tip height excuse again unless your willing to address Homer's questions about his results this time too.
Any useful response Bob or do you think the thumbs up is the best you can offer now?
Last edited:
Okay, I will try this one more time. If someone insults my intelligence again I will have to go.
I have no interest in insulting anyone. And I am not trying to belittle either Henry or the article. I just think it is not speaking to this antenna as we've long time discussed and experienced it.
I have already supplied a copied portion of Henry's article in a previous post that clearly says that a newbie who might be excited over a new antenna, or someone who's spent money and has a financial investment to defend, or the previous antenna this poor antenna illiterate had in the air was a bad antenna, or maybe he now had new coax were the only reasons the antenna might be thought to be a better performer than any other.
Henry also said in the article the only reason this antenna would perform better than a 1/2 wave is because it was mounted on the same pole and was taller than the shorter antenna.
I am compelled to agree with Donald on the point he's stressed but has not been answered about how those statements do not reflect my experiences with this antenna. I did not just stick my new antenna on the same pole I had used the shorter antenna on.
Also, I personally read in the article that Henry was making claims for this antenna as opposed to others out to 30km, a distance of only 18.6 miles. This is not at all what the previous discussions on the forum have been about. I spoke of my experiences of reaching stations beyond 60 and 80 miles in this rugged terrain that surrounds me - terrain that tends to defeat long distance local, or fringe zone communications (I realize these distances don't impress those who may live in the areas like Eddie does, the Gulf Coast coastal plains of Texas, but it is a big deal here). 18.6 miles is meaningless in a valid comparison of any base antenna, and particularly of this one.
This is one, and a major one, of the discrepancies I see between this article and thread to previous threads about this antenna.
Also, I find it difficult to respect the tone of this thread for more than the bitterness it has gone to at times.
This discussion is based on an article that belittles those who report exceptional performance with the V4k.
Bob, you have clearly reversed yourself on your beliefs regarding some of the mechanical aspects of the antenna. I can not credit your reversal for any particular reason, but I find it incredible that you have not at least made a clear statement of
1.) why your antenna(s) performed as they did before Henry's article surfaced, and
2.) why you think disbelieving the antenna is a collinear changes it's performance as you reported it for your own antenna(s), or that anyone else should disavow their experiences with the antenna just because you disbelieve it is a collinear.
Please do not answer that Henry explained it in the article if I would just go read it. I have read it more than once. Henry's article does NOT describe this antenna with respect to the performance we have discussed for several years. 18.6 miles does not relate to the discussion of the performance of this antenna in any respect at all except that one and all have said the S4/V4k does not distinguish itself from any other antenna we've used until the distance is at least 3x to 4x or more distant than 30km.
I have only asked simple questions in this thread, but apparently not too clearly. So again:
1.) "is this a 1/2 wave, or is it a 3/4 wave?
2.) If it is a 1/2 wave why does no other 1/2 wave perform as well at the same current maximum height? [the models say they do, but you, Bob, me, Donald, and others say other 1/2 waves do not]
3.) if it is a 3/4 wave why does the main radiation lobe not go out/up at a 40+ degree angle?
4.) if it is radiating against the horizon and is 3/4 wavelength long then why is the lower 1/4 wave of radiation so typically out of phase to the upper 1/2 wave of the antenna not pushing the radiation steeply upward?
5.) if it is 3/4 wavelength long and the radiation is against the horizon then how can it either {a} not be a 3/4 electrical wavelength antenna, and {b} not have the cone positively contributing to the radiation into the far field?
Homer
I have no interest in insulting anyone. And I am not trying to belittle either Henry or the article. I just think it is not speaking to this antenna as we've long time discussed and experienced it.
I have already supplied a copied portion of Henry's article in a previous post that clearly says that a newbie who might be excited over a new antenna, or someone who's spent money and has a financial investment to defend, or the previous antenna this poor antenna illiterate had in the air was a bad antenna, or maybe he now had new coax were the only reasons the antenna might be thought to be a better performer than any other.
Henry also said in the article the only reason this antenna would perform better than a 1/2 wave is because it was mounted on the same pole and was taller than the shorter antenna.
I am compelled to agree with Donald on the point he's stressed but has not been answered about how those statements do not reflect my experiences with this antenna. I did not just stick my new antenna on the same pole I had used the shorter antenna on.
Also, I personally read in the article that Henry was making claims for this antenna as opposed to others out to 30km, a distance of only 18.6 miles. This is not at all what the previous discussions on the forum have been about. I spoke of my experiences of reaching stations beyond 60 and 80 miles in this rugged terrain that surrounds me - terrain that tends to defeat long distance local, or fringe zone communications (I realize these distances don't impress those who may live in the areas like Eddie does, the Gulf Coast coastal plains of Texas, but it is a big deal here). 18.6 miles is meaningless in a valid comparison of any base antenna, and particularly of this one.
This is one, and a major one, of the discrepancies I see between this article and thread to previous threads about this antenna.
Also, I find it difficult to respect the tone of this thread for more than the bitterness it has gone to at times.
This discussion is based on an article that belittles those who report exceptional performance with the V4k.
Bob, you have clearly reversed yourself on your beliefs regarding some of the mechanical aspects of the antenna. I can not credit your reversal for any particular reason, but I find it incredible that you have not at least made a clear statement of
1.) why your antenna(s) performed as they did before Henry's article surfaced, and
2.) why you think disbelieving the antenna is a collinear changes it's performance as you reported it for your own antenna(s), or that anyone else should disavow their experiences with the antenna just because you disbelieve it is a collinear.
Please do not answer that Henry explained it in the article if I would just go read it. I have read it more than once. Henry's article does NOT describe this antenna with respect to the performance we have discussed for several years. 18.6 miles does not relate to the discussion of the performance of this antenna in any respect at all except that one and all have said the S4/V4k does not distinguish itself from any other antenna we've used until the distance is at least 3x to 4x or more distant than 30km.
I have only asked simple questions in this thread, but apparently not too clearly. So again:
1.) "is this a 1/2 wave, or is it a 3/4 wave?
2.) If it is a 1/2 wave why does no other 1/2 wave perform as well at the same current maximum height? [the models say they do, but you, Bob, me, Donald, and others say other 1/2 waves do not]
3.) if it is a 3/4 wave why does the main radiation lobe not go out/up at a 40+ degree angle?
4.) if it is radiating against the horizon and is 3/4 wavelength long then why is the lower 1/4 wave of radiation so typically out of phase to the upper 1/2 wave of the antenna not pushing the radiation steeply upward?
5.) if it is 3/4 wavelength long and the radiation is against the horizon then how can it either {a} not be a 3/4 electrical wavelength antenna, and {b} not have the cone positively contributing to the radiation into the far field?
Homer
Attachments
Last edited:
Donald I support this report, because it says what I believe and what I've been saying about this CB antenna design as far back as when I started realizing and seeing the net differences of the out of phase currents produced in the cone area...the radiator portion within and the radials without...were both opposite in phase and virtually equal in magnitude after summing the current in the radials.
There is a difference in these currents due to the difference in the element dimensions, there is a slight slanting of the radials, and the top of the radials terminate into thin air instead into more radiator mass. This is also true in a sense to the J-Pole. Fortunately this design can be considered more symmetrical, and thus the cone area...basically does not radiate.
This tends to solves much of the ill-effects we see with the idea for the 3/4 long vertical monopole with a ground plane attached, and the more common asymmetrical J-Pole design. It can just works better,
We see it in models, and we see it in real world installations.
I followed feed line theory as I understood it, and I determined the cone area basically did not radiate much if any destructive or constructive currents. In my thinking...that was due to cancellation, virtually like we see in feed line theory.
This is the start and end of my opinion of how the S4/NV4k antennas both work.
To me that is beautifully simple and explains why and how I see the currents work, but Henry's report goes into much more detail on this matter.
At typical CB antenna heights 20' to 50' feet this height advantage, can but not always produce measurable and/or detectable differences that can be seen just using our radios. The higher we go, of course, the less these small changes in height are effective, just as noted in the report on pages #33-34.
I've defend my own ideas here with nobody's support and very little assistance using self-training in modeling only.
I don't think I need to assists anybody in defending what they believe.
My only hope is that I'm right, or close to right, and that what I claim and demonstrate is simple enough for others to maybe understand. It should be obvious that I was not able to give the answers that were convincing enough to make the argument.
This report does that for me, but only time will tell regarding others.
The overlay models below are listed in the order of the list on the page. The (*) asterisk beside each model is the active model among the images, and the * Primary is the model in black and it is the model's title below the image. Sorry the overlay is so busy.
One model printed out in yellow and I tried to delete from the list and make it a better color and I messed up the order a bit for the last few models, but the order is still correct.
I think if you will check close you will find the more symmetrically designed antennas (1/2 waves mostly) look to have an edge when up high. Also note that the models are not all at the exact tip heights. That is NOT what I wanted to do, but I decided just to take models I already had on file as long as the tip heights were close to 63' for the Primary model, the "Vector Per Manual 36' ISO" noted in black ink.
Also take note that at these heights 2 models broke over into the 7* degrees angle, and they were the:
1. Starduster at 60' feet to the mount.
2. Marconi, at 69.4' feet to the tip - which is my homemade SD'r type antenna I make using 4 or 5 x 102" stainless whips, on a mobile mirror mount, and a radial hub from a A99 GPK.
These models may also indicate why I tend to see similar results for all of my CB antennas.
But your mileage may vary.
Last edited:
Homer,
I have not changed my mind about how well they perform as i stated in the thread,
or made a sudden reversal of opinion due only to Henry’s article,
I have been thinking about it and said that some of Eddies ideas are not as unpopular as he thought they were some time back, i also said it may not be extra gain that produces the better results some time back,
The bitterness started when somebody started telling lies about why he came to the forum that involved me, I posted the proof,
I never said my antenna had 2-3db gain over other antennas only that it put more signal on the horizon when adjusted as me and Donald do,
If it produced 2-3db more gain, the gain would not only show up out on the horizon as Donald claims,
Im not asking you to change your mind, I don’t disagree they perform better than other antennas out in the distance,
To answer your questions
1, Id say its an efficient 1/2wave with some radiation from the cone when its adjusted correctly but not enough to make 2-3db more gain,
2, Efficient 1/2waves are difficult to build, show me a 1/2wave with a low loss matching coil wound on a low loss dielectric former properly decoupled,
The gamma is not as lossy as people claimed when this all started as i posted way back,
W8JI tells us “The gamma match capacitor can only cancel reactance, it cannot modify the "real part" (resistance) presented to the feed-line. It is the most simple form of matching, and has the lowest operating Q and loss of any system (when it is useable)”
A j-poles matching may be even more efficient as they don’t have any coils or a gamma,
3, The cone cancels out of phase radiation from the lower 1/4wave when its adjusted correctly,
That stops the upward radiation angle seen from a 3/4wave monopole, A J-pole does the same thing,
4, The lower 1/4wave is not out of phase with the upper 1/2wave much like a j-pole,
5, If it was an electrical 3/4wave it would be a cloud warmer as you say,
There is no need for the cone to be contributing significant radiation into the far field in order for the design to put more signal on the horizon,
An efficient 1/2wave raised up higher will do that without significant in phase radiation from the cone, all the cone need do is cancel the out of phase radiation from the lower 1/4wave, raise the upper 1/2wave higher and provide an efficient method of feeding the 1/2wave above it,
The taller design mounted on top of a tower will provide better coverage than a dipole mounted lower on the side of the tower,
And the difference will be most apparent out on the fringes of coverage just like Donald tells us,
You can adjust them to give more or less signal at low angles just like me and Donald claim,
Donald claims that the gainmaster works at least as well as the vector4000 and it is a shorter antenna,
The vector may have an edge on an efficient 1/2wave endfed mounted at the same tip height if there was such an antenna available,
They certainly perform better than the best 5/8waves i own out in the distance when mounted on the same pole/coax which is what i claimed when the debate started,
I don't agree that the vector or gainmaster has 2-3db more raw gain than a dipole, That's all.
I have not changed my mind about how well they perform as i stated in the thread,
or made a sudden reversal of opinion due only to Henry’s article,
I have been thinking about it and said that some of Eddies ideas are not as unpopular as he thought they were some time back, i also said it may not be extra gain that produces the better results some time back,
The bitterness started when somebody started telling lies about why he came to the forum that involved me, I posted the proof,
I never said my antenna had 2-3db gain over other antennas only that it put more signal on the horizon when adjusted as me and Donald do,
If it produced 2-3db more gain, the gain would not only show up out on the horizon as Donald claims,
Im not asking you to change your mind, I don’t disagree they perform better than other antennas out in the distance,
To answer your questions
1, Id say its an efficient 1/2wave with some radiation from the cone when its adjusted correctly but not enough to make 2-3db more gain,
2, Efficient 1/2waves are difficult to build, show me a 1/2wave with a low loss matching coil wound on a low loss dielectric former properly decoupled,
The gamma is not as lossy as people claimed when this all started as i posted way back,
W8JI tells us “The gamma match capacitor can only cancel reactance, it cannot modify the "real part" (resistance) presented to the feed-line. It is the most simple form of matching, and has the lowest operating Q and loss of any system (when it is useable)”
A j-poles matching may be even more efficient as they don’t have any coils or a gamma,
3, The cone cancels out of phase radiation from the lower 1/4wave when its adjusted correctly,
That stops the upward radiation angle seen from a 3/4wave monopole, A J-pole does the same thing,
4, The lower 1/4wave is not out of phase with the upper 1/2wave much like a j-pole,
5, If it was an electrical 3/4wave it would be a cloud warmer as you say,
There is no need for the cone to be contributing significant radiation into the far field in order for the design to put more signal on the horizon,
An efficient 1/2wave raised up higher will do that without significant in phase radiation from the cone, all the cone need do is cancel the out of phase radiation from the lower 1/4wave, raise the upper 1/2wave higher and provide an efficient method of feeding the 1/2wave above it,
The taller design mounted on top of a tower will provide better coverage than a dipole mounted lower on the side of the tower,
And the difference will be most apparent out on the fringes of coverage just like Donald tells us,
You can adjust them to give more or less signal at low angles just like me and Donald claim,
Donald claims that the gainmaster works at least as well as the vector4000 and it is a shorter antenna,
The vector may have an edge on an efficient 1/2wave endfed mounted at the same tip height if there was such an antenna available,
They certainly perform better than the best 5/8waves i own out in the distance when mounted on the same pole/coax which is what i claimed when the debate started,
I don't agree that the vector or gainmaster has 2-3db more raw gain than a dipole, That's all.
1) If you've not changed your mind about how well they perform Bob, can I ask the simple question why have you changed anything other that your opinion on why it works so well? The why behind it should have no bearing on any of your previous tests with the antenna.
2) If it still works as well as it did before you talked to Henry, how little increase do you think you needed in order to see what you have over the years? Less than 2db? Can less than 2db allow your previous claim of hearing things other antennas couldn't make sense?
3) How does a 1/4 wave matching stub and a gamma match work out to be more efficient than a center fed dipole?
4) The few feet difference in height you keep referring to makes no difference at 10 wavelengths. You already know this from DB's models but still have to ignore those aspects. Homer's antennas did not have this variable yet he saw the gain too.
You've claimed the antenna picks up stations others can't even hear but you're sure enough that can't be a 2db difference that you'll call me a liar over it? Why weren't you aware of that years ago if only the theory changed now? I've asked you to explain this aspect several times already. I would like to know in your opinion, how many dbd increase does it take to pull in a signal a 1/2 wave couldn't?
Some of us are bright enough to know you can't cause those changes with virtually no change in signal and are offended by the way this theory has been used to not only redefine why we see the results we do but it's been used to try and redefine the results too.
There is nothing new in this theory. It's the same stuff Marconi has been saying and you've been confident enough in your testing to flatly reject for years. The only difference is Henry packaged it all up with a nice looking bow on top and hypnotized you to forget about all your years of first hand experience you told us about going back to your parents house.
2) If it still works as well as it did before you talked to Henry, how little increase do you think you needed in order to see what you have over the years? Less than 2db? Can less than 2db allow your previous claim of hearing things other antennas couldn't make sense?
3) How does a 1/4 wave matching stub and a gamma match work out to be more efficient than a center fed dipole?
4) The few feet difference in height you keep referring to makes no difference at 10 wavelengths. You already know this from DB's models but still have to ignore those aspects. Homer's antennas did not have this variable yet he saw the gain too.
You've claimed the antenna picks up stations others can't even hear but you're sure enough that can't be a 2db difference that you'll call me a liar over it? Why weren't you aware of that years ago if only the theory changed now? I've asked you to explain this aspect several times already. I would like to know in your opinion, how many dbd increase does it take to pull in a signal a 1/2 wave couldn't?
Some of us are bright enough to know you can't cause those changes with virtually no change in signal and are offended by the way this theory has been used to not only redefine why we see the results we do but it's been used to try and redefine the results too.
There is nothing new in this theory. It's the same stuff Marconi has been saying and you've been confident enough in your testing to flatly reject for years. The only difference is Henry packaged it all up with a nice looking bow on top and hypnotized you to forget about all your years of first hand experience you told us about going back to your parents house.
Last edited:
Thank you for your replies, Bob.
I am left to assume that you agree that Henry's article does not address this antenna as it has been discussed regarding working stations that are inaudible to other monopole types seeing you did not reference the 18.6 miles test distance Henry used in the article.
I know you were answering some specific questions, but in so doing without referencing the 18.6 miles test distance in the article your answers also have you speaking outside of the limited context of the article.
Henry has worked hard on the article. Many may learn some things about RF theory pertaining to antennas from it, but nothing about this antenna's performance in the far distant horizon. Because the article only covers a test distance of 18.6 miles, and a lot of antenna models and theory, I believe it is a correct assumption that Henry has rested his case for the antenna on a conclusion the matter is settled without proper testing in the far field distant horizon. He thinks his theory presentation has answers his experience does not have. Perhaps Henry doesn't think the antenna, nor the years long discussion, deserves more all embracing test. This looks like bias going before objectivity to me.
A Metaphor seems appropriate here:
I once knew a vegetarian fellow who had little patience with we weaker mortals who were carnivores. However, he loved his little cakes he purchased prepacked from the store. I would have left him alone with his delicious little cakes except this otherwise nice guy was so obnoxious about we carnivores. So, I pointed out to him how the packaging showing the ingredients of his little cakes revealed there was animal fat (lard) in the recipe of those cakes.
He was so sure of his position's superiority he concluded he was right about his food choice before he had reviewed all the information he should have.
Moving on.
Marconi and Bob seem to now agree that this antenna can outperform a high loss, low mounted 1/2 wave, disagree that it will outperform a 5/8 wave, and agree that it will not outperform a 1/4 wave GP with slanted radials (some argue is actually an efficient 1/2 wave).
No wonder this thread is in shatters.
1. The article does not reflect actual far distant horizon experience or testing.
2. Bob is talking about a half wave and cares not at all that the article cannot address the previous area of interest - the behavior of this antenna in the far field - because it does not bring the two components of discussion about the antenna together, far field performance and what the antenna is.
3. the article does not reflect actual experiences of the author in the far field horizon with antenna current maximums equal height, but rests solely on conclusions based on the RF theory based on the antennas physical properties as they relate to 18 miles performance and same mounting height compared to shorter antennas.
4. Marconi is so happy the article supports his ideas that he is unable to contribute to any discussion about the potential of the antenna beyond his position. (Bravo to you, Marconi, whether or not we are on the same page. At least you aren't sliding all over the place like a drunk man on a ship's deck in a typhoon).
5. Donald and I refuse to allow the conversation to be solely about a 1/2 wave comparison at only 18 miles out from the antenna.
6. No one has been listening to each other.
In fairness, the time difference between Henry, Bob, and Central time zone folks, as well as English not being Henry's first language sets him at a bit of a disadvantage in the thread. The thread moves on rapidly before he can sort it out and respond. He has his hands full.
@Marconi
You may have become the bff of the Merlin antenna folks who believe their version of the 1/4GP (efficient 1/2 wave) outperforms all other monopole antennas. Imagine that!
I think I'll revisit your Merlin models you made for me.
I am left to assume that you agree that Henry's article does not address this antenna as it has been discussed regarding working stations that are inaudible to other monopole types seeing you did not reference the 18.6 miles test distance Henry used in the article.
I know you were answering some specific questions, but in so doing without referencing the 18.6 miles test distance in the article your answers also have you speaking outside of the limited context of the article.
Henry has worked hard on the article. Many may learn some things about RF theory pertaining to antennas from it, but nothing about this antenna's performance in the far distant horizon. Because the article only covers a test distance of 18.6 miles, and a lot of antenna models and theory, I believe it is a correct assumption that Henry has rested his case for the antenna on a conclusion the matter is settled without proper testing in the far field distant horizon. He thinks his theory presentation has answers his experience does not have. Perhaps Henry doesn't think the antenna, nor the years long discussion, deserves more all embracing test. This looks like bias going before objectivity to me.
A Metaphor seems appropriate here:
I once knew a vegetarian fellow who had little patience with we weaker mortals who were carnivores. However, he loved his little cakes he purchased prepacked from the store. I would have left him alone with his delicious little cakes except this otherwise nice guy was so obnoxious about we carnivores. So, I pointed out to him how the packaging showing the ingredients of his little cakes revealed there was animal fat (lard) in the recipe of those cakes.
He was so sure of his position's superiority he concluded he was right about his food choice before he had reviewed all the information he should have.
Moving on.
Marconi and Bob seem to now agree that this antenna can outperform a high loss, low mounted 1/2 wave, disagree that it will outperform a 5/8 wave, and agree that it will not outperform a 1/4 wave GP with slanted radials (some argue is actually an efficient 1/2 wave).
No wonder this thread is in shatters.
1. The article does not reflect actual far distant horizon experience or testing.
2. Bob is talking about a half wave and cares not at all that the article cannot address the previous area of interest - the behavior of this antenna in the far field - because it does not bring the two components of discussion about the antenna together, far field performance and what the antenna is.
3. the article does not reflect actual experiences of the author in the far field horizon with antenna current maximums equal height, but rests solely on conclusions based on the RF theory based on the antennas physical properties as they relate to 18 miles performance and same mounting height compared to shorter antennas.
4. Marconi is so happy the article supports his ideas that he is unable to contribute to any discussion about the potential of the antenna beyond his position. (Bravo to you, Marconi, whether or not we are on the same page. At least you aren't sliding all over the place like a drunk man on a ship's deck in a typhoon).
5. Donald and I refuse to allow the conversation to be solely about a 1/2 wave comparison at only 18 miles out from the antenna.
6. No one has been listening to each other.
In fairness, the time difference between Henry, Bob, and Central time zone folks, as well as English not being Henry's first language sets him at a bit of a disadvantage in the thread. The thread moves on rapidly before he can sort it out and respond. He has his hands full.
@Marconi
You may have become the bff of the Merlin antenna folks who believe their version of the 1/4GP (efficient 1/2 wave) outperforms all other monopole antennas. Imagine that!
I think I'll revisit your Merlin models you made for me.
Last edited:
Homer, I have an opinion on your concerns about Henry's testing, but he can speak for himself. He has also promised to write an article specifically about testing.
In the CB world you and I work, it is pretty normal to test by checking the signal reports from others, maybe even jot the results down and compare. I did mostly A-B testing and I have taken some grief in doing it that way, but I learned a lot in the process.
IMO, nobody is arguing the results you've reported and at times you arguably might have done much the same, with more than 1 antenna up and testing similar to what I've done. I'm told this process of testing is fraught with problems, and I've learned by these discussions, and I've changed my mind as a result of listening.
Henry briefly explained the process of controls he used, and it would make no sense for his test following in the same pattern as you and I have done. Henry was comparing with more control, not just some random signals from buddies around the area on an Smeter...like I and maybe even you did.
I figure he may have at least made sure he was safely in the far field range, and maybe 18 miles is good enough. This distance may even be more significant if he tested a scaled down model too.
Just my opinion on your question, but I did not participate.
Last edited:
@ Homer:
If I offende you in anyway...i am sorry...it was never intended that way for you.
Thank you for the questions...
1.) "is this a 1/2 wave, or is it a 3/4 wave?
Hmm...always difficult to give a yes or no answer...
well its a 3/4 wave.
2.) If it is a 1/2 wave why does no other 1/2 wave perform as well at the same current maximum height? [the models say they do, but you, Bob, me, Donald, and others say other 1/2 waves do not]
Lets look at it from another perspective:
You probarbly have witnessed several S units different from time to time ?
But how would that be possible if the advertised gain is 4,15 dBI ?
That would mean it is only 2dB "better" compared to a dipole.
Well 6dB is one S unit ....so we are speaking about a fraction of an S unit.....
Though often we "see" more improvement ?
How is that possible if evan we know some manufacturers are "optimistic" with gain figures ?
And yes, we oten see more diference between antennas.
That can only indicate there are "causes"...
But not the "freespace gain figure" of the antenna it self.
What those diferences are ?
.....oef so many....and they can not be desribed for each situation
Antenna height, diffent coax, ground circumstances CMC, obejct...near by other antennas etc etc.
Homer, i realise you would like a staigth up answer...but i can not provide.
But I can promisse....there always is a reason.
As it is not possible that a dipole suddenly has "more gain" than a dipole
And that is true for all antennas.
So it can only indicate for some reason the 'other" peforms "worse".
Ehm...you could try to make a J pole ? and compare that with a Vector ?
(same materials etc and of course switch between the masts etc)...
But it would be interesting to "see" any difference ...
As i was unable to do so. (besides the "not complete round pattern of J pole)
And that is allready "very accurate".
3.) if it is a 3/4 wave why does the main radiation lobe not go out/up at a 40+ degree angle?
Because its a mechanical 3/4 wave.
Look at it as an halve wave antenna with a 1/4 wave mast underneath.
And that 1/4 mast is also capable of chaninging the high impedance to low impedance.
4.) if it is radiating against the horizon and is 3/4 wavelength long then why is the lower 1/4 wave of radiation so typically out of phase to the upper 1/2 wave of the antenna not pushing the radiation steeply upward?
That is cause the bottom part of the antenna isnt really radiating the "radiation wave" yet.
That is "made" around the antenna from the combination of fields. and at say ....10 wavelengths from the antenna we really have our "wave" as we know it.
Near the antenna its "forming".
And if you watch that "surface wave" film you can notice the currents are opposite.
(one go up...and other radial go down)
The net result of that is zero.....yes there are "fields", but those fields "cancel" each other
5.) if it is 3/4 wavelength long and the radiation is against the horizon then how can it either {a} not be a 3/4 electrical wavelength antenna, and {b} not have the cone positively contributing to the radiation into the far field?
A: it is not a 3/4 wave electrical wavelength antenna as we speak "electrical wave length when we talk about the "effective" antenna.
Its a 3/4 wave antenna but its not a "3/4 wave electrical" antenna.
As there is only 1/2 wave radiating...the other 1/4 is cancelled.
B: the cone is not producing enough "radiation".
And if the cone was....there still wouldnt be a "significant phase shift".
Ehm...thats those "arrows" indicating in he article...
We need to have the correct phase....we need to both pull in the same direction to have "combined" forces.
I hope it helped....
Kind regards,
H>
If I offende you in anyway...i am sorry...it was never intended that way for you.
Thank you for the questions...
1.) "is this a 1/2 wave, or is it a 3/4 wave?
Hmm...always difficult to give a yes or no answer...
well its a 3/4 wave.
2.) If it is a 1/2 wave why does no other 1/2 wave perform as well at the same current maximum height? [the models say they do, but you, Bob, me, Donald, and others say other 1/2 waves do not]
Lets look at it from another perspective:
You probarbly have witnessed several S units different from time to time ?
But how would that be possible if the advertised gain is 4,15 dBI ?
That would mean it is only 2dB "better" compared to a dipole.
Well 6dB is one S unit ....so we are speaking about a fraction of an S unit.....
Though often we "see" more improvement ?
How is that possible if evan we know some manufacturers are "optimistic" with gain figures ?
And yes, we oten see more diference between antennas.
That can only indicate there are "causes"...
But not the "freespace gain figure" of the antenna it self.
What those diferences are ?
.....oef so many....and they can not be desribed for each situation
Antenna height, diffent coax, ground circumstances CMC, obejct...near by other antennas etc etc.
Homer, i realise you would like a staigth up answer...but i can not provide.
But I can promisse....there always is a reason.
As it is not possible that a dipole suddenly has "more gain" than a dipole
And that is true for all antennas.
So it can only indicate for some reason the 'other" peforms "worse".
Ehm...you could try to make a J pole ? and compare that with a Vector ?
(same materials etc and of course switch between the masts etc)...
But it would be interesting to "see" any difference ...
As i was unable to do so. (besides the "not complete round pattern of J pole)
And that is allready "very accurate".
3.) if it is a 3/4 wave why does the main radiation lobe not go out/up at a 40+ degree angle?
Because its a mechanical 3/4 wave.
Look at it as an halve wave antenna with a 1/4 wave mast underneath.
And that 1/4 mast is also capable of chaninging the high impedance to low impedance.
4.) if it is radiating against the horizon and is 3/4 wavelength long then why is the lower 1/4 wave of radiation so typically out of phase to the upper 1/2 wave of the antenna not pushing the radiation steeply upward?
That is cause the bottom part of the antenna isnt really radiating the "radiation wave" yet.
That is "made" around the antenna from the combination of fields. and at say ....10 wavelengths from the antenna we really have our "wave" as we know it.
Near the antenna its "forming".
And if you watch that "surface wave" film you can notice the currents are opposite.
(one go up...and other radial go down)
The net result of that is zero.....yes there are "fields", but those fields "cancel" each other
5.) if it is 3/4 wavelength long and the radiation is against the horizon then how can it either {a} not be a 3/4 electrical wavelength antenna, and {b} not have the cone positively contributing to the radiation into the far field?
A: it is not a 3/4 wave electrical wavelength antenna as we speak "electrical wave length when we talk about the "effective" antenna.
Its a 3/4 wave antenna but its not a "3/4 wave electrical" antenna.
As there is only 1/2 wave radiating...the other 1/4 is cancelled.
B: the cone is not producing enough "radiation".
And if the cone was....there still wouldnt be a "significant phase shift".
Ehm...thats those "arrows" indicating in he article...
We need to have the correct phase....we need to both pull in the same direction to have "combined" forces.
I hope it helped....
Kind regards,
H>
Oke....
The 30 Km thing:
Well, antenna radiation always becomes weaker as soon as we have more distance.
(not talking about skip conditions of course)
That can be found from the "friss formula".
(google.....friss transmission equation or so)
What it comes down to...
A signal will get weaker with distance "equal" for all antennas.
(of course things like gain is a primairy aspect)
There are things to "influence".
As antenna "tilt".
But that only is used if you are for example in a valley and want "up"
(or visa versa) like :cell phone communication
(thats why those antennas are often "tilted"). and there are "other" situations.
But all those situations are "direct line of sight where the issue often is because of "height" ...too deep vally....too high building ....etc.
Tilting the antenna is elevating....its "rotating" the beam...but then vertical.
Oke...so if we want maximum signal at distance...we need to "beam" to the horizon.I think it is fair to say...for most that would roughly be without tilt.
The argument that "tests" need to be done at a distance beyond 30 Km.
Is not really of interest.
As if i would enlarge my power...that distance would go futher away.
If I would lower my power....it will become smaller....
It however very true that S meters often indicate "more" at low reading...
And it is true the "wave" behaves different over various grounds.
(sea water = perfect !
And it is true that things like the frequency and the polarisation have influence on that "wave".
It is not for nothing that MW broadcast use long verticals and can be heard over large regions.
But for us on 27 MHz?
If needed I could just turn my power down so low..that it is "just readible"
Its oke... gain difference between antennas should not "change" over distance.
Ehm...well not entirly true...but that goes to deep....
Overall you can say :
If I measure S1 difference with low power at 5 Km i should measure S 1 difference at 50 km with high power...
Hope it was of use.
H>
The 30 Km thing:
Well, antenna radiation always becomes weaker as soon as we have more distance.
(not talking about skip conditions of course)
That can be found from the "friss formula".
(google.....friss transmission equation or so)
What it comes down to...
A signal will get weaker with distance "equal" for all antennas.
(of course things like gain is a primairy aspect)
There are things to "influence".
As antenna "tilt".
But that only is used if you are for example in a valley and want "up"
(or visa versa) like :cell phone communication
(thats why those antennas are often "tilted"). and there are "other" situations.
But all those situations are "direct line of sight where the issue often is because of "height" ...too deep vally....too high building ....etc.
Tilting the antenna is elevating....its "rotating" the beam...but then vertical.
Oke...so if we want maximum signal at distance...we need to "beam" to the horizon.I think it is fair to say...for most that would roughly be without tilt.
The argument that "tests" need to be done at a distance beyond 30 Km.
Is not really of interest.
As if i would enlarge my power...that distance would go futher away.
If I would lower my power....it will become smaller....
It however very true that S meters often indicate "more" at low reading...
And it is true the "wave" behaves different over various grounds.
(sea water = perfect !
And it is true that things like the frequency and the polarisation have influence on that "wave".
It is not for nothing that MW broadcast use long verticals and can be heard over large regions.
But for us on 27 MHz?
If needed I could just turn my power down so low..that it is "just readible"
Its oke... gain difference between antennas should not "change" over distance.
Ehm...well not entirly true...but that goes to deep....
Overall you can say :
If I measure S1 difference with low power at 5 Km i should measure S 1 difference at 50 km with high power...
Hope it was of use.
H>
Last edited:
I believe it is a correct assumption that Henry has rested his case for the antenna on a conclusion the matter is settled without proper testing in the far field distant horizon
If I may ask...based on ?
Or could it be that I actually have tested several on 2 meters for example ?
A band with quite some distance repeaters...etc...
Not meant in a bad way...but assuming isnt good.
Before you know it things like that start living and before you know it it is "true".
That happens a lot within antenna theory.
Again...not meant to be "irritating" but we need to be...accurate.
English not being Henry's first language sets him at a bit of a disadvantage in the thread. The thread moves on rapidly before he can sort it out and respond. He has his hands full.
Indeed it is...and house building.... so not much time.
Thank you for your understanding.
Kind regards,
H>
If I may ask...based on ?
Or could it be that I actually have tested several on 2 meters for example ?
A band with quite some distance repeaters...etc...
Not meant in a bad way...but assuming isnt good.
Before you know it things like that start living and before you know it it is "true".
That happens a lot within antenna theory.
Again...not meant to be "irritating" but we need to be...accurate.
English not being Henry's first language sets him at a bit of a disadvantage in the thread. The thread moves on rapidly before he can sort it out and respond. He has his hands full.
Indeed it is...and house building.... so not much time.
Thank you for your understanding.
Kind regards,
H>
@Marconi
I have tested antennas on separate poles, but I also abandoned that practice. My second (or third) mast could not get high enough to compare antennas at the same tip or current maximum height.
Lets just say I completely disagree with you that an 18 miles test distance relates in any way to an 80 miles distance. I look forward to when and if Henry, or any other qualified person, steps forward with more complete data on this, It is clear that Bob no longer has an interest in this and neither Donald nor I are considered reliable or competent to report on our findings.
@Marconi and Henry
I have never tested this antenna by looking at the S units on a meter. I did compare several homebrew mobiles that way once to a single test station, but never the V4k nor any of the antennas I compared to it. I have never said anything except I was able to work stations with this antenna i never heard on any of the others. I also said the AP was better at doing this than all of them except the V4k when I raised it to the same tip height as all the others. My proofs were not based on S-units. I know that is too unreliable. I inserted no other variable other than comparing the antennas ability to read stations at a given distance compared to each other. I didn't even offer the standard approximation of read quality such as 5/9, 5/8, 3/8, etc.
@Henry
I personally think introducing the controversial topic of what an "advertised gain" figure into the discussion draws the attention away from a more pure discussion of the antenna. But since it has already been done I'll make myself clear on this on two points.
1.) Donald has already spoken to that saying many things written and said by all parties over the years do not represent where they stand today. If it is acceptable for Bob to say the very same thing about his shift in position on some things "as he learned" more, then I think personalizing this point as a means of attacking Shockwave should end.
2.) I don't care about gain figures where my interest in this antenna is concerned any more than I care about S-units or even how big my amplifier is. Truthfully, when I can use a smaller antenna to achieve my communications goals equally well or better I do. That is precisely why I have the diminutive Moxon up instead of a clumsy (IMO) space hogging yagi. I realize gain has a place in the discussion of antenna potential as models do, but when it comes down to real world performance a "hands on" person like me does not measure performance by the theoretical potential of an antenna. I measure it by the way it gets the job done.
Also Henry, I know you have not meant to insult anyone with your article. It is, however, an imbalance in the approach to the way you have labored in the article to make a "scientific" proof of your point of view, and the way you dismiss the points of view of those who experience something different with the antenna than your models have led you to believe. You owe me no apology. You guys may have to sort out whether you owe each other apologies.
Perhaps if I were to model antennas I would be more useful to this discussion. Likely I would be ridiculed. A model no matter how well done will never replace real world results, even if I made the model.
I have tested antennas on separate poles, but I also abandoned that practice. My second (or third) mast could not get high enough to compare antennas at the same tip or current maximum height.
Lets just say I completely disagree with you that an 18 miles test distance relates in any way to an 80 miles distance. I look forward to when and if Henry, or any other qualified person, steps forward with more complete data on this, It is clear that Bob no longer has an interest in this and neither Donald nor I are considered reliable or competent to report on our findings.
@Marconi and Henry
I have never tested this antenna by looking at the S units on a meter. I did compare several homebrew mobiles that way once to a single test station, but never the V4k nor any of the antennas I compared to it. I have never said anything except I was able to work stations with this antenna i never heard on any of the others. I also said the AP was better at doing this than all of them except the V4k when I raised it to the same tip height as all the others. My proofs were not based on S-units. I know that is too unreliable. I inserted no other variable other than comparing the antennas ability to read stations at a given distance compared to each other. I didn't even offer the standard approximation of read quality such as 5/9, 5/8, 3/8, etc.
@Henry
I personally think introducing the controversial topic of what an "advertised gain" figure into the discussion draws the attention away from a more pure discussion of the antenna. But since it has already been done I'll make myself clear on this on two points.
1.) Donald has already spoken to that saying many things written and said by all parties over the years do not represent where they stand today. If it is acceptable for Bob to say the very same thing about his shift in position on some things "as he learned" more, then I think personalizing this point as a means of attacking Shockwave should end.
2.) I don't care about gain figures where my interest in this antenna is concerned any more than I care about S-units or even how big my amplifier is. Truthfully, when I can use a smaller antenna to achieve my communications goals equally well or better I do. That is precisely why I have the diminutive Moxon up instead of a clumsy (IMO) space hogging yagi. I realize gain has a place in the discussion of antenna potential as models do, but when it comes down to real world performance a "hands on" person like me does not measure performance by the theoretical potential of an antenna. I measure it by the way it gets the job done.
Also Henry, I know you have not meant to insult anyone with your article. It is, however, an imbalance in the approach to the way you have labored in the article to make a "scientific" proof of your point of view, and the way you dismiss the points of view of those who experience something different with the antenna than your models have led you to believe. You owe me no apology. You guys may have to sort out whether you owe each other apologies.
Perhaps if I were to model antennas I would be more useful to this discussion. Likely I would be ridiculed. A model no matter how well done will never replace real world results, even if I made the model.
Last edited:
Precisely why I used the term assumption. I do not know for sure, but I am speculating.
I don't know whether you tested on 2 meters.
my assumption is based on the fact that you've been so adamant in the defense of your position throughout the thread, and so difficult in your handling of some of the remarks between you and Donald. Instead of trying to sort through things offering so many hard replies. I just thought there was no more discussion going to come forward.
I appreciate standing for one's position, but not throwing up a wall of negative responses. You aren't the only one guilty of this, but you are the one whose article is the catalyst for this thread.
I am only answering the question. I happen to like you.
You're welcome.