New hy-gain sp-500 super penetrator questions,

[Needle Bender]

Maybe try the model at 41' at the radials (as was mine) with only the .625, .63 & .64 and only 108" radials to keep it less cluttered.

- And it would be cool to see the NV4K overlaid in a light olive green to keep it easier on the eyes to follow the main point of .625 through .64 .

 

[Marconi]

Here is the model for the (*V58 4 x 104 at 36') noted in the overlay. The (*) next to this title means the green dot cursor is reporting that models maximum gain and angle to the right of the page and under the frequency.



Here is the model for the (.625w 4 x 100 at 36')



Here is the model I think I made at your request above. That is why I added NB to the title, (NB's 64w 4 x 108 at 36). This .64 wave model's pattern is noted both in blue and black. Black is always the Primary model.

I can move the green cursor (o) to the maximum gain for any model in the list, and doing that will place an (* asterisk) next to the antenna in the list.

For the case of the yellow color...I duplicate this one in RED right below, because we cannot read the yellow title.

Also note that assuming two lines are identical in the graph, the last color will naturally cover up the previous line. So if you don't see your favorite color...then it might be covered by and antenna that likely produces identical performance results in these overlays.



NB, I also added a pdf file for the overlay (IMG_ 0003.PDF). Check below where I marked the locations of several colors in the graph, hoping for better understanding.

 

[Marconi]

Maybe try the model at 41' at the radials (as was mine) with only the .625, .63 & .64 and only 108" radials to keep it less cluttered.

Maybe tomorrow.

- And it would be cool to see the NV4K overlaid in a light olive green to keep it easier on the eyes to follow the main point of .625 through .64 .

I have all my old Eznec files in my old Dell and I just have not felt up to making the transferring of my Eznec files over to my new computer. I do have a model of the NV4K that I marked with a date title. This tells me this model shows what I think is the best model at the time. If I come back with an idea to do more mods on it...this is the model I select to work on.

When my computer broke and I got a new one I managed to find a model that I printed out the wires descriptions, so I used that to create in on my new computer.

Problem is I have no idea where I was in the almost 2 years modifying that NV4K model while I tried many times to improve and learn more about Eznec.

NB, you find the link you noted, let me know, and maybe I can tell you something. Can you tell me how high the antenna was in the model?

The big thing I typically find in the process of modifying any of my models is: the more accurate I get the model the lower the gain seems to report. This is not always the case, depending on the nature of the modification or fixing a dimension error, but in general most models tend to show less gain as they are made better.

Does this make sense to you?
Did you try a search on the forum?






I think I have a model that shows more gain, but not much, and it may be a little more accurate than this model. I'm just not sure.

The model does show an almost perfect Average Gain Test result, so maybe it is a very good model. I'm also happy with the gain of 4.01 dbi @ 8* degrees above the horizon. The model below is in Free Space, but the model above is over real Earth, but all the dimensions and setting are the same.

 

[Marconi]

The model does show an almost perfect Average Gain Test result, so maybe it is a very good model. I'm also happy with the gain of 4.01 dbi @ 8* degrees above the horizon. The model below is in Free Space, but the model above is over real Earth, but all the dimensions and setting are the same.

NB, my New Vector 4K here, is the model that got me started thinking "...is there a way that a model over real Earth can be verified for its accuracy by testing the Average Gain Test? Same model, same dimensions, same everything except the mast, done in a Free Space...the only mode where the AG test produces a result.

Look up at the bottom of my previous post and see that the AGT in the image equals 0.999 = 0.01 dB, almost a perfect result for testing a model, at least everything but the match.

Does this make sense?

 

[Needle Bender]

NB, my New Vector 4K here, is the model that got me started thinking "...is there a way that a model over real Earth can be verified for its accuracy by testing the Average Gain Test? Same model, same dimensions, same everything except the mast, done in a Free Space...the only mode where the AG test produces a result.

Look up at the bottom of my previous post and see that the AGT in the image equals 0.999 = 0.01 dB, almost a perfect result for testing a model, at least everything but the match.

Does this make sense?

Some of it does to me, but sometimes I'm a bit slow to follow.

I'm just going to search out the other models, but there's disagreement between them as I recall the .64 bested the .625 by .07dB at 8°-10° and by a full .5dB around 30°.
The NV4K was about .35dB stronger than either the .625 or .64 at 8°-10° but the .64 beat all up around 25°-30°.
Maybe I have some saved in my files, I'll check my computers and get back to you on that.

 

[Marconi]

NB, I had a turkey hang-over and went to bed early.

Have I done your idea yet at 41' feet where I think you see the results you posted in you remarks on #35?

Do you have models when you say you have some saved files?

Belated Happy TG & to all my WWDX friends.

 

[Needle Bender]

NB, I had a turkey hang-over and went to bed early.

Have I done your idea yet at 41' feet where I think you see the results you posted in you remarks on #35?

Do you have models when you say you have some saved files?

Belated Happy TG & to all my WWDX friends.

Yeah, I'm thinking maybe that's part of the difference, however, your new models look different, are smaller and a bit more 'crude' looking by comparison to the old ones like this one:

NB, I also added a pdf file for the overlay (IMG_ 0003.PDF). Check below where I marked the locations of several colors in the graph, hoping for better understanding.

...and I found some of the old files but they're pdf and I don;t know how to load or convert them.

 

[Marconi]

Yeah, I'm thinking maybe that's part of the difference, however, your new models look different, are smaller and a bit more 'crude' looking by comparison to the old ones like this one:

Oh Boy!

NB, the differences you see between a PDF file posted on this forum at the bottom, and the embedded images among the text that I might post using Windows Snipping Tool, are a little different. IMO the PDF files are much clearer showing better details.

Just to be sure, these differences are not the cause of the differences you are seeking in modeling between a .625 wave antenna and a .64 wave antenna.

You still didn't answer either of my questions above.

...and I found some of the old files but they're pdf and I don;t know how to load or convert them.

I would like to help, so are you telling me you don't know how to open these PDF files I post? If not, can you explain a bit more exactly what you mean, by load or convert?

 

[Needle Bender]

Yes I have models saved, they're at 41', in pdf I CAN open but I can't get them to upload.

I seem to have lost the one with the NV4K overlaid on the I-10K & .64.

 

[Marconi]

When you find what you lost and working what is not working...let me know and we can continue, OK?

IMO, an antenna at 41' feet is nothing special. I think my models with a mast at 41' feet show less CMC than at some other heights, but there is a bit more to why this happens...and it might not happen in any real world installation, because the magnitude of CMC is not predicated on height.

 

[Needle Bender]

When you find what you lost and working what is not working...let me know and we can continue, OK?

OK, I ran a deep virus scan and emailed this to myself, then uploaded from my laptop and I think I got it...

I recall I had asked you to try 41' since that's how high mine was.

I can't find the others now but if memory serves, I recall 2.79dB at 8° on the NV4K, 2.42dB @ 8° on the .64 and 2.35dB @ 8° on the 5/8
but at ~25° the .64 bested them by over 1/2 a dB.
I wish I could find those posts/ thread.

 

[Marconi]

NB, I don't think your model is at 41' feet like we've been discussing.

Using Eznec Demo can present a bit more of limitations, but I'm not sure how much difference right now.

Maybe when you emailed yourself...the email Demon corrupted the image. Here is a model of mine that looks similar.

 

[Marconi]

Here is my model with Eznec's segment limitation of 20 segments for a model. This one is not a 41' feet either.