ASTROPLANE best vertical antenna ever?

[Shockwave]

"http://fmbroadcastantenna.com/dominator.html"

".. It is a high gain vertically polarized .82 wave( ?? ) Coaxial antenna. It is the coaxial cone at the base of this antenna.. "

What is the coaxial wave???? .82 ??

"..It is the tapered 1/4 wave coaxial cone that sets this antenna apart from others..."


contradictions !!

No contradiction at all, just your misinterpreting the meaning or getting lost in the translation. That antenna is a .82 wavelength vertical with a 1/4 wavelength tapered cone to control the out of phase currents in the bottom of the vertical. Closer to a 5/8 wave over a 1/4 wave but just short of that to stop out of phase currents from developing any significant magnitude above the cone.

A phase radiation ONE lobe corresponding to the length of 3/4 wave antenna does not correspond to the frequency of 27MHZ.

You have no idea what you're talking about or have failed to explain what you mean. Once the antenna is scaled to another frequency the performance is the same other than the ground reflections if you don't take into account the fact the same heights will contain more wavelength at VHF.

ANTENNA LENGTH CAN NOT HAVE IN PHASE 3/4 WAVE

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE,

Rubber RF and Antenna??

Again you're completely lost. There are many collinear designs that have multiple wavelengths of in phase radiation once all radiator sections are summed together. What is impossible is to have 270 degrees of in phase radiation without any phase correction. Understand the difference and that the Sigma / Vector inverts the radiation phase at the cone.

 

[nosepc]

THE FREQUENCY PHASE 1/2 WAVE LENGTH in the total length of the antenna SHOWING WAVE ANIMATION, I COULD NOT APPLY TO 27 MHZ, 98 MHZ OR OF CREATION THE ANIMATION.

It may be a sub-harmonic, fundamental frequency not.

Only radio frequency laws are all wrong or erroneous.

(or are erroneous assumptions about the Vector 4000)





THIS ANTENNA LENGTH CAN NOT HAVE IN PHASE 3/4 WAVE

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, this is not a collinear antenna.

 

[AudioShockwav]

If you do not take the time to read what has already been written about this antenna time and time again, you will never understand.

As incredible as this may be for you to understand this antenna is not what you think it is.
This is why Cebic did not want to spend a decade of writing and trying to get people to understand ... to see in the mind's eye... what is happening here.

You are very correct that a J-pole is ....a j-pole.

This antenna, that can "appear" to be a j-pole, is not, therefore it is not constrained to the rules as perceived by the modeling program that you use.
It is not a 3/4 wave ground plane with high lobes of radiation, therefore it is not constrained to the rules as perceived by the modeling program that you use.
This has been talked about over and over and over and over....

If you will not be so focused on the idea of a j-pole or a 3/4 wave ground plane, look at the threads posted about the Avanti antennas and so on,you may see what has been talked about.
And, after reading you have questions and what to debate the validity of the antenna as a j-pole please feel free to post them.

You would not be the first one to dispute the antenna, but there is so much already written it needs to be read to answer the basic question about how this antenna works.

If you do not research the antenna here you have missed much already.

73
Jeff

 

[Shockwave]

Unfortunately when someone pretends to come here to learn, we often see the student attempt to become the teacher the first time they are presented with a fact that doesn't agree with what they have been told.

In this case "No See the PC" should start looking a little harder and typing a little less. I have to ask him what in his background would support his opinion in favor of the analysis L. B. Cebik gave on the antenna when he described it as a "non apparent collinear"?

 

[nosepc]

"NOSEPC" -- no se PC- is spanish, means in english "I do not know about as PC".

is an irony, I started with the PC in 1988.

Yo no hablo ingles, apenas lo interpreto. I do not speak English, just interpret it.

Pero yo estoy en radio desde 1980. No soy novato.

But I'm in radio since 1980, I am not a Rookie bud.

Yo he fabricado radios y receptores con mis propias manos, obviamente las antenas.

I have made ​​radios and receivers with my own hands, obviously the antennas.

Yo no soy un desempaquetador de equipos comprados, soy un experimentador de cosas fabricadas con mis manos.

I'm not a Unpackager equipment purchased, I am an experimenter made ​​things with my hands.

Para hacer las cosas, debes saber como funcionan, sino funcionaran mal o defectuosamente

To make things, know how they work, but to malfunction or defective

 

[Shockwave]

That is good but where in this history did you work with the Sigma design for 15 years on a daily basis? When in this past experience did you gain knowledge in excess of L.B. Cebik and come to a different conclusion of how it works than him? What can you provide as evidence that would contradict the experience of approximately 1200 satisfied broadcast customers using the design? Many of which replaced existing dipoles.

 

[AudioShockwav]

I'm not a Unpackager equipment purchased, I am an experimenter made ​​things with my hands.

Here is an opportunity to do something fun, there are detailed instructions here on the forum to build a vector, several have done it.
It would be a great experiment to compare the vector to a half wave.



73
Jeff

 

[nosepc]

That is good but where in this history did you work with the Sigma design for 15 years on a daily basis? When in this past experience did you gain knowledge in excess of L.B. Cebik and come to a different conclusion of how it works than him? What can you provide as evidence that would contradict the experience of approximately 1200 satisfied broadcast customers using the design? Many of which replaced existing dipoles.

An antenna does not work by itself.

Support, and coaxial is a very significant influence.

This is ignored by the majority, believing that the antenna works alone.

Many use the Vector 4000 on a small mast, and there it can get better result than other shorter antennas that are more influenced by the masts.

In my town there are many CB'er, but no vertical antennas can overcome all of them having a dipole in L home made at low altitude.

There is no way to overcome with a Vertical antenna.

He is in an area of open country side.

The location, and factors positively or negatively affect all antennas and performance

 

[Shockwave]

Most groundplane antennas have their performance deteriorated by CMC that could be present on the mast and coax because the phase between them and the antenna is inverted. The Sigma does NOT suffer from that problem even if the installation has CMC present.

Since the Sigma design has already inverted the currents allowed to radiate at the base of the antenna, they now match the phase of the CMC at the feedpoint where the currents would be strongest on the coax and mast. Another plus for the gain of this design. Add the mast and coax and add more gain. As little as this may be, it's still a win win situation.

You idea that location, ground or height above ground is true but misleading if your real goal is to compare one antenna against another. You're really comparing one mounting location to another. As long as you install any antenna you're testing at the same center of radiation height above ground, the difference in gain between them will be the SAME in accurate free space models.

That's why you CAN ignore variables like ground gain and height above it and just use the free space modeling option to arrive at the exact gain difference between any antennas installed in EQUAL locations. Minus the erroneous extra ground gain that can make the worst antennas appear to have gain to the layman.

 

[nosepc]

The cone can not radiate in phase with the rest of the antenna, their currents are inverted and hence canceled.
For that reason they can not show a pattern of gain in a model.
If you have a model, so I do it public as public do I design models.
I've published several, you publish any we serve the amateur?
As proof that it affirms? with words of cars salesman?

The Vector 4000 can not display absolutely free space gain over a dipole.*
The SIRIUS VECTOR 4000 is a fed dipole at one end as a Zeppellin or J-pole antenna.

 

[Marconi]

Donald without some more detailed info on what we see in the example you posted of the animated CST model of the New Vector 4000, your side of this discussion will always remain as vague as you imagine from the other side of the argument. That is a no win result.

As it stands I have not been able to get my point across, even when I post evidence <gotproof> that I think can be convincing to guys that can model using NEC based programs to agree or consider at the very least...what my point of view is on currents is all about.

Our getting personal never wins any argument and tends to show just how week our arguments can be if presented in the light of personal attacks. We should be able to disagree at least. Trying to convince other's of an idea should never be based strictly on faith among men either.

Are we to believe that the professional acclaim in the life of LB Cebik can relegate him to shying away from a discussion about antenna theory simply because it can get complicated with different ideas...even though he most certainly knew what was in store? I don't think so without good reason.

It has crossed my mind that Cebik was sick at the time and soon died...just like Bob tell us. I think that is why Cebik choose not to pursue the matter. I think he was just being polite and not wanting to reveal the truth about his personal health problems. I'm certain he knew from experience such a discussion was going to take a lot of work and time in order to be convincing.

Donald I've said this before, I think I see exactly what you see in the CST model output, but the only difference I see is the amount of RF that you suggest is generated. This idea was also suggested to you on the QRZ thread that Booty Monster started on his homemade Vector.

The amount of currents that I think I can show is radiating in phase with the top 1/2 wave radiator in my model is far less that what you suggest Donald. At any rate I don't find it even close to being collinear like.

I look at Sirio's specification details for their CB antennas longer than a 1/2 wave I see a dbi gain figure without angle noted that is almost double what I can generate using Eznec in free space. Donald you know I questioned those gain figure just like we both question what Solarcon says about their A99 having 9.9 dbi gain.

I can duplicate a 1/4 wave and a 1/2 wave radiator that shows the same gain as Sirio's SD dipole and their M400 in free space. However, I can't get close to their gain figures with any of my 5/8 wave models in free space. I think you'd agree there are no collinear currents working on a 5/8 wave ground plane, right? We just see out of phase current at the bottom of a 5/8 wave radiator that takes current away from the radiator currents in the far field. Because I see horizontal radials change their phase as I raise them higher by less than 15* degrees above horizontal...I think whoever said something about raising radials up tends to make radials not act like radials anymore was correct. When I raise the radials on my models they show a phase change occurring just a little above horizontal, less that 20* degrees. However, when I lower my radials down from horizontal, I don't see the phase changing like it does on raising. So see, continuing to have a dialog is not always a waste of time.

All of my models longer than a 1/2 wave (.625-.64-.75) in free space will show better gain, but that gain is always at some angle well above the horizon and I think that is the nature of a radiator longer than a 1/2 wave. If I was to compare a 1/2 wave in free space that maxed out its gain on the horizon...I would probably favor it over a 5/8 wave with more gain at 25* degrees above the horizon. So much for fee space models.

So, I agree with you that the bottom cone area of the S4/NV4 antenna does radiate just like you and Bob suggest, and I agree that my Eznec models supports the same idea...that all the current characteristics are just as you ascribe with the CST model. I just differ on how much net radiating current we have from the cone area of this antenna that is radiating in the far field.

IMO, what can be seen without supporting data from the CST model is like asking 100 people for their impressions of a Rorschach test. My answer is just as good as your answer. I at least have some evidence that supports what I see. If you choose not to believe what I show, then show me your evidence. That sound fair to me.

Like I mentioned before, I recently sent a coupon contact question, as it is noted on Sirio's Website. I asked the simple question if the 4.15 dbi noted on their spec sheet for the NV 4000 was an indication of gain over real Earth or in free space.

THEY NEVER RESPONDED, else I would have posted same.

Below I post again my idea for how the currents work in this type of 3/4 wave antenna with radials angled up and without the hoop.

A large + phased current field of +1.9538 amps shows at the 1st segment of the radiator for this model. It is inside the radial cone and is out of phase with the - phased currents for the top 1/2 wave of the radiator. You can see this as noted by the red line current indicator for magnitude in the Antenna View. You can see the details for the phase data in the attached Tabular Currents Log...where I provide notes as I understand these currents.

There is also - phased current flowing on each radial that is out of phase with the + phased currents inside the cone on the radiator, but in this case these radial currents magnitude must be summed together in order to determine their total magnitude effect within the radial cone area. So in this area of this antenna we have both in phase and out of phase currents flowing, it is like coax, transmission mode currents, and to the extent these currents are equal...such currents do not radiate into the far field...they are said to be canceled. Only the current with the excess current magnitude will remain and that current can be constructive if in phase with the radiating element, or it will be destructive if not in phase. Pretty simple. This principal in part explains how and why coax is not supposed to radiate.

When the - phased currents on the radials are summed together for the total - phased currents in the bottom of the antenna...they equal -1.95735 amps for the 1st segment of each radial. The similar value on the first segment of the radiator is +1.9538 amps, or a fraction less. See the Tabular Currents Log attached.

IMO theory makes a distinction regarding in phase currents vs. out of phase currents anywhere on an antenna. It suggests if there is a constructive difference in the magnitude of the currents...then that difference will radiate into the far field.

Again this is evidence of what we are talking about when we consider Common Mode Currents and coax. It is the same theory we see in theory for coax. Again, coax should not radiate because the magnitudes are equal and the phase is opposite in coax, but we see coax is not balanced so it has the potential to produce CMC. Pretty simple, and I don't see any mystery or magic in that claim. IMO, antennas work under the same principals.

To claim this antenna does not have perfect currents magnitude and the elements are not perfectly parallel like coax, does not mitigate the fact that some cancellation can still occur.

There is no doubt radiation is emanating from the bottom of this .75w design posted below. My model shows this in phase current is very small and the difference after cancellation does radiate into the far field. I consider the difference constructive in this case.

Is there some setup that could produce more constructive or destructive currents in the radial cone. Yes, but due to cancellation effects I see in this model...we will likely never see much current flowing from the bottom of the cone into the far field. Is .00355 amps much current? IMO it is not even significant, but it probably can be measured with the right equipment.

The attached model has notations for my work and thinking presented here. This model is just a demo and is not representative of my real models for my S4/NV4. I have minimized the number of segments use just to simplify and better demonstrate these currents per segment.

The last two pages show the cone area as a blow up for detail, and the tabular currents log for the data for the detail to support the numbers I provide. This is my support for my thinking on how this design might work. If you don't understand something here, please as questions.

View attachment Basic .75w DEMO at 32' over average soil..pdf

Free Space model of the antenna above.

View attachment Basic .75w DEMO at 32' over average soil in FS.pdf

 

[Lil'Yeshua]

Do you think Cebik would've wanted people like you Marconi to use his work and carry it even farther if that would be the case? Just thinking.

 

[Marconi]

Do you think Cebik would've wanted people like you Marconi to use his work and carry it even farther if that would be the case? Just thinking.

Explain the question. Be specific and I'll try to answer. Sometimes I don't guess too well. Right off hand I would say yes, but I'd bet he started that idea long ago, and I was not the guy.

 

[Shockwave]

The cone can not radiate in phase with the rest of the antenna, their currents are inverted and hence canceled .

Not only can it radiate constructively, it does. If you were even close to being correct the $2500.00 CST modeling software would be showing NO colors on the outside of the cone. This is why I question if you have a vision problem.

For that reason they can not show a pattern of gain in a model.

If you want to model a complex antenna like the Vector, you'll need to abandon your free or inexpensive software. I haven't seen anyone get it to work so I doubt you can.

If you have a model, so I do it public as public do I design models. I've published several, you publish any we serve the amateur? As proof that it affirms? with words of cars salesman?

I completely agree and you're welcome for the CST model that I've shared with the forum. The first and only accurate model to be published on the design.

The Vector 4000 can not display absolutely free space gain over a dipole.*
The SIRIUS VECTOR 4000 is a fed dipole at one end as a Zeppellin or J-pole antenna.

Figure out how much you can lose and let me know what you're willing to bet on this? I'll let you know if the profits are worth the time to fly you out here for a day on the test range.

Marconi, I'm sorry but I'm not responding to another war and peace posting until you take the time to show me that your models can work with a 90 degree phase shift and another 1/2 wave on top. Until this point all of the modeling work you have done is inaccurate and cannot be used as a foundation to work from.

Furthermore your opinion about the amount of radiation from the cone has also become irrelevant due to the ability of CST to pinpoint the field strength emitted from the cone. It was your choice to ignore the colors of radiation and the distance from the radiator that they propagate even though I took the time to break this distance down into quarters that represent individual radial currents. Can't waste more time on this until you reach the next level.

 

[Marconi]

Donald I'm just not convinced that you are right yet, and I don't understand your point in proving your ideas based on my adding a 4 wire collinear 1/2 wave above a S4. I wish I could understand what you have in your minds eye.

If I did do another model like you describe and it didn't produce the results you have in mind you would just tell me I had it wrong. What is the future in doing that?

I work this way. If I have a model that I think can help prove my idea, then I post the model and then we have something to consider. Me just guessing exactly what you have in mind is not productive.

I get no joy in disagreeing with either you are Bob, but I do have my opinions. I'm waiting for someone to question, as wrong or error, the model ideas or words that I just posted. I knew you would not check it out.

Thanks for the offer though.