New antenna from Sirio Gain-Master

[Shockwave]

Yeah, ok, well this snake oil "sentiment" measures .64λ not .625λ, and that's a 6.5" difference, enough to retune a Scottish CB 5/8λ from the center of the CB band to the center of the 10m Amateur band.

The Hy-gain Penetrator is 6.5" longer than the Sigma 5/8, the I-10K, the Wilson Alpha V-5/8 and the Sirio 827, however, it is the same length as the Radio Shack .64, Taylor GLR-4 .64 and the Wolf .64, all of which are proven performers, but must be a silly .64 waste if shockwave says so.

If adding 6.5" to an antenna just can't make a hoot of difference then let's see the Vector shortened or lengthened by 6.5" and not sacrifice it's perfection, since shockwave insists it must be so much better than the LW-150 from the 1980s (which had it's lunch eaten by my Penetrator) due to Sirio's new 'precise measurements'.

Interesting how supposedly insignificant a foot of radial relocation and more than ½ a foot of radiator length are a when it's not on his pet antenna, the LW-150 clone called the Vector 4000.

Why quote professionals? They simply buy coaxial J-poles like the one SW markets. Why would they want or need to know antenna theory?
- And I've already used the professionals of Hy-gain, Taylor, R/S and Eddie-Wolf who were manufacturers of a .64, isn't that enough?



HUH?? Sound theory???

Shockwave proposes something silly which won't work, then explains why his silly proposition won't work.

So the F#CK what?

Proves nothing except Hy-gain didn't do this silly shockwave extendo-radial idea, but instead did do what DOES work.



Childishly blaming my lack of agreement with your unfounded 'theories' as reason to hide the CST from everyone doesn't make you look like anything other than the Charlatan and fraud I now believe you to be.

And I'm not yelling to "Make you" do anything, I'm showing the rest of the world just what a fraud I have come to believe you have made of yourself.

"Waaaah, You taunted me! Now I'm not going to let you play with my toys!!!"

...like THAT'S real mature.

No, you will NEVER show it because it clearly disproves your magic containment pseudo-collinear theory.

There could be a hundred people asking for it and you will NEVER let it be seen.

...I just wonder what your next excuse will be.

- Oh yeah, you've already used it. Tell me if I have it wrong:

You are a fraud and a liar, and when you said you had the full CST so you know it's at full bloom you actually didn't have it at all and truly have no way of actually knowing.

Is that what you meant when you wrote above that I should now go ahead and believe you don't have it?

Is that supposed to make it all go away?

Is that supposed to make people believe you actually do have it but won't show it because you want me to think you don't have it so you look like a liar, and that somehow justifies keeping it well hidden from everyone else?

...makes as much sense as the rest of your hooey.

Don't forget to read my signature, Shockwave.




Henry, he has no way of knowing this to be true, he simply believes that if he states it as if it is fact everyone will believe him.

There is no need to keep radials above the mast, actually in his theory the lower the better, and as he stated, the RF will go to the ¼ radials anyway because they are a "Low impedance" resonant ¼ wave.

No, this is just another one of his red herrings designed to throw you off into another direction so you'll believe that it simply cannot be as it clearly and obviously is.



Anything but the obvious, huh?

The highest 20% of the inverse current portion of the radiator is 'under-ground' and that means nothing?

Wait a minute, is this a CB forum or something?


Congratulations, I clearly showed how misleading you are with your emphatic but absolutely wrong, BS-filled posts.

Hey Shock, remember not to miss my signature below.
Stop hiding behind your flimsy excuses and

POST


THE


FULL


VECTOR


CST


MODEL,


SHOCKWAVE

Scott, I have done my best to be patient with you in order to share knowledge and learn from others in this forum. I've resisted calling you names while you've implied I've been deceptive, held back pertinent information, speak of things I don't have the technical background to support, lied, and now have you've childishly modified your signature line in an attempt to antagonize me into submitting to your demands.

I'm a man of my word. I've explained to you exactly what the active Vector file contains and that I will not be posting it here. Both of which are 100% accurate. In the interest of members on this forum I suggest that you not feel compelled to consume the entire page with your self serving signature line. If you can't accept the things I've explained, then at least make some attempt to respectfully disagree.

Rather then put so much effort into trying to discredit everything I say, why not put a little effort into learning something? Like why the bottom 11 inches of your Penetrator doesn't radiate because it is in direct parallel to the grounded mounting bracket with the grounded radials right above it.

Here are a few more sound reasons to blow holes in your Sigma 1/2 wave with cone radiation cancellation theory. They are not parallel radiators. You see the Vector model in either NEC or CST as having less current on the radials then the main radiator. You are in agreement with the models and the experts on this.

How is it possible for the weaker currents in the radials to actively cancel the radiator currents and still have enough energy to radiate in phase outside the cone? Wouldn't that absolutely require more currents on the radials then the radiator to reverse this effect if it were due to active cancellation?

This is the evidence that proves the cone effect has more to do with containment due to shielding then active cancellation. If you wish to continue the discussion with me, you will need to demonstrate a little more maturity and stop seeing this as some battle. To many of us you just appear to be chasing your tail around the block in an increasingly offensive manner.

 

[Shockwave]

Childishly blaming my lack of agreement with your unfounded 'theories' as reason to hide the CST from everyone doesn't make you look like anything other than the Charlatan and fraud I now believe you to be.

And I'm not yelling to "Make you" do anything, I'm showing the rest of the world just what a fraud I have come to believe you have made of yourself.

"Waaaah, You taunted me! Now I'm not going to let you play with my toys!!!"

...like THAT'S real mature.

No, you will NEVER show it because it clearly disproves your magic containment pseudo-collinear theory.

There could be a hundred people asking for it and you will NEVER let it be seen.

...I just wonder what your next excuse will be.

- Oh yeah, you've already used it. Tell me if I have it wrong:

You are a fraud and a liar, and when you said you had the full CST so you know it's at full bloom you actually didn't have it at all and truly have no way of actually knowing.

Is that what you meant when you wrote above that I should now go ahead and believe you don't have it?

Is that supposed to make it all go away?

Is that supposed to make people believe you actually do have it but won't show it because you want me to think you don't have it so you look like a liar, and that somehow justifies keeping it well hidden from everyone else?

...makes as much sense as the rest of your hooey.

Don't forget to read my signature, Shockwave.

Hey Shock, remember not to miss my signature below.

Since I have been completely truthful in my posts, it is very easy for me to prove Scott's accusations about me not having the complete Vector file are absurd. I will actually enjoy this post because I can make my point without submitting to his obnoxious demands. See the image below where I took another screen shot from the active file showing the radiation currents just before the phase angle reaches zero degrees?

This screen shot was taken at a 350 degree phase angle and clearly shows the field approaching full collapse before reversing it's phase again. Exactly what I've described since the day I received the information I shared. You will also notice the slight radiation currents shown at this angle are of the opposite phase from the last screen shot. Would you like some salt to go on your hat that you're about to eat Scott? Be careful when calling me a liar because I'll be quick to put that shoe on your foot.

 

[jazzsinger]

Hey George, here is something regarding .64 wavelength from back around 1924, when the idea was being considered for the US Broadcast Industry.



I still contend that the problem with the mis-interpretation of this study was overlooking the fact that the idea was over a perfect ground plane that extended out to infinity. Upon post-study testing this idea was later discounted because in the real world, "Mother Nature Rules," and the .64 produced a lobe pattern characteristic that was unfavorable when in use. The 5/8 wave solved the problem.

Source: Moncton Area Amateur Radio Club Inc.

not sure if thats the original article you've mentioned on previous occasions Eddie and couldn't find or an entirely different one, but its a very interesting read,especially this part:

[SIZE=+1]One problem in the broadcast application became apparent with the first installations. Radiation from the higher angle minor lobe returned to ground from the ionosphere at night, and caused severe fading several miles from the transmitting point by interfering with ground wave major lobe. The solution was reduction in antenna height to 0.528 wavelength. Ballantine’s later developments in ground radial systems further improved the efficiency of broadcast vertical type antennas.









[/SIZE]

 

[bob85]

jazz, not sure what to make of that,
did shortening the antenna reduce the magnitude of the high angle secondary lobe or did it change its angle to put the reflected wave where its less disruptive?,

cebik has some interesting models of 5/8wave upper hf monopoles over different ground conductivity suggesting that 5/8wave groundplanes perform best over very poor soil but when over better soil the upper high angle lobe dominates,
http://www.cebik.com/content/gp/58-3.html

another article claims that the lower lobe only becomes dominant again when they are 2 wavelengths or more above ground,
few people have their antennas at 2 wavelengths or more nor do they have very poor conductivity soil,
cebiks models could help explain why the desert guys claim they perform so well.

 

[Marconi]

not sure if thats the original article you've mentioned on previous occasions Eddie and couldn't find or an entirely different one, but its a very interesting read,especially this part:

[SIZE=+1]One problem in the broadcast application became apparent with the first installations. Radiation from the higher angle minor lobe returned to ground from the ionosphere at night, and caused severe fading several miles from the transmitting point by interfering with ground wave major lobe. The solution was reduction in antenna height to 0.528 wavelength. Ballantine’s later developments in ground radial systems further improved the efficiency of broadcast vertical type antennas.[/SIZE]

No George, this is not the article I recall, but I was looking for it again when I found this. You can look up K7DBA, Donald K Reynolds, and find more reports based on the Ballantine study. Even Cebik refers to the article about the Reynolds study, which was based on the previous Ballantine study.

Reynolds developed more on the issues using the 5/8 wave and was entitled "The 5/8-Wavelength Antenna Mystique," published in The ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 1, 1985. It is this article that I think has been the source of some misinformation regarding 1/4, 1/2, and 5/8 wave radiators.

The post-WWI study that I'm looking for was made by the Japanese. I remember reading it some years ago, and it still alludes me. This is why I was searching the archives of the I.R.E. The references are in Reynolds article noted above.

 

[loosecannon]

The double extended Zep uses two 5/8 wave radiators. The .64 wave only seems to have a home on CB.

ok, dont know what to think about that. i know you know your stuff, but my ARRL handbook says to use .64 wavelength. of course its from 1964 so... LOL

sorry for the hijack. im on the side.
LC

 

[Marconi]

not sure if thats the original article you've mentioned on previous occasions Eddie and couldn't find or an entirely different one, but its a very interesting read,especially this part:

[SIZE=+1]One problem in the broadcast application became apparent with the first installations. Radiation from the higher angle minor lobe returned to ground from the ionosphere at night, and caused severe fading several miles from the transmitting point by interfering with ground wave major lobe. The solution was reduction in antenna height to 0.528 wavelength. Ballantine’s later developments in ground radial systems further improved the efficiency of broadcast vertical type antennas.[/SIZE]

Henry, here is the ARRL Antenna Compendium article "The 5/8-Wavelength Antenna Mystique" by Donald K Reynolds. An important factor for all to consider is these articles all deal with this original study: "“On the Optimum Transmitting Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth," and we have to consider the affects of an antenna over perfect Earth, so the data noted is affected accordingly.

View attachment The 58th-Wavelength Antenna Mystique.pdf

 

[Shockwave]

ok, dont know what to think about that. i know you know your stuff, but my ARRL handbook says to use .64 wavelength. of course its from 1964 so... LOL

sorry for the hijack. im on the side.
LC

Loosecannon, your ARRL reference made me dig out the 1959 handbook I had in the attic. The reference is good in my book and certainly qualifies as reputable. Thank you for teaching me something about the double extended zepp. Most of my experience is with higher frequencies then where you commonly find this antenna used. However, we must look a little deeper to expose the differences between the balanced horizontal double extended zepp and the .64 or 5/8 wave vertical ground plane that started this topic.

When you extend the radiator out to .64 wave it creates stronger side lobes. These side lobes can be an advantage when horizontally polarized since they provide coverage into areas that are not broadside to the radiator. Side lobes on the vertical detract from the gain on the horizon by placing a secondary lobe at approximately 45 degrees while reducing the primary lobe. These are the reasons you don't see the .64 wave ground plane marketed for commercial use. So let me clarify things by saying you only find the .64 wave ground plane on CB.

 

[loosecannon]

to all, i am very appreciative to shockwave for taking the time to educate me in the middle of all this.
please let this post be the end of that side track.

i do not wish to nudge my way in here and start a new tangent.

suffice to say, it WAS like comparing apples and oranges.

BTW, shockwave, i think you just provided me with a new signature!
hope you dont mind! LOL

"Loosecannon, your ARRL reference made me dig out the 1959 handbook I had in the attic. The reference is good in my book and certainly qualifies as reputable. Thank you for teaching me something about the double extended zepp." -shockwave


LC

 

[Shockwave]

to all, i am very appreciative to shockwave for taking the time to educate me in the middle of all this.
please let this post be the end of that side track.

i do not wish to nudge my way in here and start a new tangent.

suffice to say, it WAS like comparing apples and oranges.

BTW, shockwave, i think you just provided me with a new signature!
hope you dont mind! LOL

"Loosecannon, your ARRL reference made me dig out the 1959 handbook I had in the attic. The reference is good in my book and certainly qualifies as reputable. Thank you for teaching me something about the double extended zepp." -shockwave


LC

No problem Loosecannon. Certainly not the worst signature line I've seen.

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

eddie will be disapointed .

Wolf Radio.com CB, Ham, Pirate Radio Antennas [CB Antenna]

Where does the gain come from?
The gain of a omni-directional antenna comes from bringing energy that's being wasted into the sky down to the ground. Two basic factors control this effect, the length of the antenna and it's height above the ground. The diagram below shows the side view of the lobe pattern coming from a 1/4 wave, (black line) 1/2 wave, (blue line) and .64 wave (red line) antenna at a height of one wavelength. The antenna is located at the bottom left corner of graph. The vertical axis points strait up and the horizontal axis is level to the ground. The difference is obvious, the pattern of the 1/4 wave is almost round and the pattern of the .64 is much flatter the difference in gain is almost 4 dB. This is called the "angle of radiation" or just "radiation angle" and is stated in degrees above the horizon.

So then the gain is achieved by moving energy that went almost strait up and getting it down onto the ground where the receiving antennas are. The radiation angles are as follows: 1/4 wave = 32 deg., 1/2 wave = 24 deg., .64 wave = less than 15 deg. It can now be seen that the lower the angle of radiation the greater the distance will be. This is true for local and DX.

 

[Shockwave]

eddie will be disapointed .

Wolf Radio.com CB, Ham, Pirate Radio Antennas [CB Antenna]

Where does the gain come from?
The gain of a omni-directional antenna comes from bringing energy that's being wasted into the sky down to the ground. Two basic factors control this effect, the length of the antenna and it's height above the ground. The diagram below shows the side view of the lobe pattern coming from a 1/4 wave, (black line) 1/2 wave, (blue line) and .64 wave (red line) antenna at a height of one wavelength. The antenna is located at the bottom left corner of graph. The vertical axis points strait up and the horizontal axis is level to the ground. The difference is obvious, the pattern of the 1/4 wave is almost round and the pattern of the .64 is much flatter the difference in gain is almost 4 dB. This is called the "angle of radiation" or just "radiation angle" and is stated in degrees above the horizon.

So then the gain is achieved by moving energy that went almost strait up and getting it down onto the ground where the receiving antennas are. The radiation angles are as follows: 1/4 wave = 32 deg., 1/2 wave = 24 deg., .64 wave = less than 15 deg. It can now be seen that the lower the angle of radiation the greater the distance will be. This is true for local and DX.

Notice how that secondary lobe on the .64 wave was "omitted for clarity". That's a generic plot you can find all over the internet. The original plot doesn't even mention a .64 wave. Someone also omitted where it said 5/8 wave and put .64 on the same picture. Maybe that explains why it jumps from 1/2 wave to .64 wave and skips the 5/8 wave.

 

[okiebob]

Well I got the Gain Master up on the mast Yesterday between rain showers and this evening made contact with a couple of locals.
I had a heck of a time convincing them that I wasn't running any power and the it was a bare foot base station. Both of the other station were running in the 500 watts area. I told them I had a Galaxy DX 2547 that was bone stock out of the box and not super tuned.
My meters show 4 watts am and about 12 SSB.
Then I told them about the Gain Master, they both came to the conclusion that it was the antenna that was making the differance.
Now I realize this is not a scientific comparison and more of a testimonial.
But there are to CBers in my home town that will tell you what I already knew.
This antenna kicks butt.

 

[jazzsinger]

jazz, not sure what to make of that,
did shortening the antenna reduce the magnitude of the high angle secondary lobe or did it change its angle to put the reflected wave where its less disruptive?,

as it's referring to broadcast antennas i'm thinking it may be some nvis that was causing the disruption, while this wouldn't be a problem at higher hf frequencies like 11m, it does suggest that second higher lobe would detract from its performance on the horizon at 11m due to wasted power being humped skyward.

i would imagine shortening the radiator would indeed reduce the magnitude of the second lobe and force the power wasted into a single more horizontally directed lobe.

it also suggests that while scaling antennas up or down may produce similar performance on different frequencies that there is also other aspects which may come into play that could either detract or enhance an antennas performance dependent on which frequency its scaled for.

well that's how I interpret it anyway but like most things in life, when you make a comment on something theoretical you stand to be shot down in flames, in much the same way all the numbnuts that claimed our planet was flat for god knows how long were proven wrong.todays facts can very easily become tomorrows fiction.

 

[jazzsinger]

Notice how that secondary lobe on the .64 wave was "omitted for clarity". That's a generic plot you can find all over the internet. The original plot doesn't even mention a .64 wave. Someone also omitted where it said 5/8 wave and put .64 on the same picture. Maybe that explains why it jumps from 1/2 wave to .64 wave and skips the 5/8 wave.

the thing that stirs my curiosity about that plot is why compare a .64 to 1/4 or 1/2 wave?

why not a direct comparison on a 5/8 wave seeing as that would have been the direct competition, i get the feeling the 5/8 wave was ommited for a very good reason, the difference between them is so small its immeasureable.