1. 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.
    Dismiss Notice

New thread to debate V-4000

Discussion in 'CB Antennas' started by nosepc, Nov 12, 2013.

  1. nosepc

    nosepc On Vacation

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    8
    AudioShockwav:
    The function of forum, comment, and discuss radios, antennas and technology.

    Users assigned to the antennas fantastic properties, are the ones to try.

    It is not my case, I deny these fanciful or commercial intent properties.



    In the case of V4000, the Dominator, all "tests" are empty words and drawings marketing.

    No single calculation made with EZNEC, 4NEC2, etc, giving to a V4000 or DOMINATOR a gain than a simple dipole.

    This is what has been proven in this thread, made by you, to whom I give my thanks really.

    Greetings Ernesto.
     

  2. AudioShockwav

    AudioShockwav Extraterrestrial Admin
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    5,797
    Likes Received:
    1,808
    We understand your position.
    Some do not share your view.
    Thats about it.

    It will be OK.


    Jeff
     
  3. Shockwave

    Shockwave Sr. Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    1,491
    The definition of a Co-linear antenna means the antenna has more than one radiating element operating in the same physical axis. It must have some form of phase shift or delay in order to keep the radiator elements in a constructive phase. As we know, end fed verticals suffer from common mode currents. Some designs exhibit extreme cases of this.

    Thank goodness the Vector design has extreme common mode currents. Even better is these CMC's have been given and ideal resonant element to radiate from on the Vector design. That element is the 1/4 wave coaxial cone at the base. CMC's are effectively drawn to this resonant element just like we see with 1/4 wave radials on a 5/8 wave groundplane. These radial currents on the Vector are also in the same phase as the 5/8 wave.

    The major difference is when we fold those radials upwards as in the Vector / Sigma design. Now those radials are in the same vertical axis as the longer main radiator above it. Now let's examine the phase shift that forms Cebik's description of a "non apparent colinear antenna." Most of us understand the 5/8 wave has inverted radiation currents along the lower 1/8 wave portion of the antenna. If the antenna length is increased to 3/4 wavelength, the inverted currents at the base will also increase their wavelength to 1/4 wavelength.

    When you sweep the radials upwards on the Vector, the entire lower 1/4 wavelength that is out of phase on the 3/4 wave antenna has been blocked and its radiation prevented from being mixed into the pattern. What people overlook here is that the blocking of the first 1/4 waves radiation currents also creates a 90 degree phase shift between the feedpoint and the point where currents on the vertical can begin to radiate. This elusive phase shifting method has just lined up the phase of the vertical with the normal CMC currents flowing on the outside of the cone.
     
    The DB likes this.
  4. The DB

    The DB Sr. Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    943
    Not PC, I love how you love to use software written for and scaled down to computer limits 33 years ago as absolute fact. You continue to ignore the well known limitations of said software. You need to do more research on that software before making such claims with it.

    Besides the software argument you swear by, your argument boils down to "it looks to me like a j-pole so that is what it must be". The problem with that is the software you swear by clearly shows that you don't understand the j-pole as well as you think as it verifies that the "perfect cancellation" your theory depends on isn't complete. Further, looking at the antenna, it may look somewhat similar to a j-pole, but not just like one. I have yet to see a j-pole that requires a gamma match for tuning as the design of the j-pole has another tuning method built in.

    Where all this leads is should I believe the dated and limited software you swear by or what you think the antenna looks like? I would like to know because the two of those are mutually exclusive.

    In the end, believe what you want. It isn't the end of the world that many others believe differently than you, and quite honestly, you haven't done any better than you claim those you disagree with have done in explaining your case. Actually some of your past claims, if they were true, would make the physics of how antennas work very different than they do. Some of your arguments would make anything other than a 1/4 wavelength groundplane or a center fed 1/2 wavelength dipole worthless, and these include the j-pole you seem to love as well...

    Also realize, you are not really helping anyone with all of this, and to many people you are making yourself look bad. I honestly believe you are just causing trouble, and that isn't based on your arguments but your own words.

    BTW, my challenge for you still stands... Do you even remember what it is?


    The DB
     
    Shockwave likes this.
  5. Shockwave

    Shockwave Sr. Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    1,491
    In the case of this design, I've provided the evidence of the latest CST software which runs circles around the modeling toys you've played with. The evidence that CST produced has been thoroughly explained so that even people with little or no background in the field can arrive at a basic understanding of how the design functions as a non apparent colinear. Unfortunately you do not fall into either one of those categories.

    Once again you've gone beyond misunderstanding and right into spreading the false misinformation that got you a vacation from this site last time. I beg of you to provide a shred of evidence to support anything you have said about this design???? You'll get yourself kicked out of here again for making an ass of yourself before you could make the first step at that challenge.
     
    #381 Shockwave, Sep 9, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014
    The DB likes this.
  6. nosepc

    nosepc On Vacation

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    8
    Shockwave

    Those are his arguments, all you have provided is advertising how great it is the latest software from CST, an animation of it, who knows that sees radio frequency antenna is working out of phase, they look like ordinary in a transmission line, not how a dipole antenna, which gives more gain than a Dominator, and it shows the CST software, but you hide it and is only an animation, deleting all the rest of the vast information that the software CST teaches about the antenna.

    If I tell lies, then I try it showing the rest of the royal CST software information. The CST software shown in GainMaster shows a phased array antenna without running out of phase, the animation also shows the degree and timing, which until removed from the animation Dominator.

    Since it is so good, only that you teach? It teaches a lot more than you do not want to know.
    Again draws his knife, threatening me to expel me from the forum, as it has done before, because he knows that destroyed his lies because he knows that every letter I write is the truth ..

    His threats, demonstrate their impotence. If they expel me, then I am right, how the crucified Christ.

    Best regards to everyone.

    Ernesto.
     
    #382 nosepc, Sep 9, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014
  7. Shockwave

    Shockwave Sr. Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    1,491

    If they expel you it will be due to the fact you've put extreme effort into misleading people in a forum where accuracy counts. This forum puts up with a lot of nonsense from some members including myself. I have notice when someone like yourself is intent on disrupting the learning process of others.....it doesn't last long. Just about every word you've said is absurd and proven wrong on a daily basis but you will still try this childish play as if it will stick.
     
    #383 Shockwave, Sep 9, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014
  8. bob85

    bob85 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Likes Received:
    656
    the fantasy island claims come from a guy who believes his homebrew iron astroplane has MORE THAN 8dbi gain
    http://www.worldwidedx.com/threads/astroplane-best-vertical-antenna-ever.160317/

    that cebik's the arrl and many other coaxial current diagrams are bullshit with missing currents,

    a guy that compares himself to jesus, i say he's much more like tatoo,

    da plane da astroplane boss.
     
  9. nosepc

    nosepc On Vacation

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    8
    Shockwave:
    Excuse me, I have not tried to deceive anyone, on the contrary, I have shown that lack real evidence to validate their tests.
    I owe nothing, you are refusing to put the rest of the documentation of CST on the antenna, and how I mentioned above.
    Also other forum said they would do field tests and would bring results. Still we are waiting.
    I bet in a field test a Dominator with 1 watt, you can not get better signal than a dipole in the same conditions at 1000 meters.
    Shockwave, know you condone, but his "evidence" are just words and pictures.
    I owe nothing, if anything it is you who is indebted to the forum.
    I think we all please let us have real evidence and not advertising.
    A hug to everyone.
     
  10. nosepc

    nosepc On Vacation

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    8
    "..At optimum heights, a common 1/2 wave dipole actually has about 8.5 dB gain over an isotropic radiator!
    Always remember that when you see antenna models over earth that tell you an antenna's gain in dBi. .."

    http://www.w8ji.com/end-fed_vertical.htm

    regards.
     
    Marconi likes this.
  11. bob85

    bob85 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Likes Received:
    656
    stop trying to piss down my back, perfect soil does not exist in the real world,
    ground losses spoil your fantasy.
     
  12. Shockwave

    Shockwave Sr. Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    1,491
    In the event you can figure out some fair an honest way to conduct a test, I'd bet you any dollar amount that the Vector design will beat the dipole by about 2 db in every well structured distant field test. You forget how many times I've already done this and stood behind it with a 30 day money back guarantee. Care to guess how many clients requested a refund after removing a dipole and installing this antenna? None! If you were even close to right on this one, I'd be giving refunds left and right. Stop acting like a moron, you've already lost the battle.

    I'll also point out that at the very close distance of 1000 meters, the dipole just may have the edge. No one installing an antenna cares about increasing the field strength at 1000 meters more than they do at 50 miles where low angle gain rules. Customers don't pay to increase their signal around the block, they pay for more range in the distance where things like collinear radiators compress the beamwidth down on the horizon.
     
    #388 Shockwave, Sep 9, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014
  13. Shockwave

    Shockwave Sr. Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    1,491
    You have pinpointed the exact reason why reputable manufacturers will always provide the free space gain. They are selling you an antenna, not the real estate under the antenna! The only reason to add ground gain to the antenna specs is to mislead customers. You'll note that 8.5 db sounds a whole lot better than the true ZERO gain a dipole has.
     
  14. The DB

    The DB Sr. Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    943
    I'm actually surprised this thread hasn't been locked long ago. There is no new information here that hasn't been covered in other existing threads already. It is just a place for someone to try and fail at making us angry. It was amusing to watch for the first hundred posts or so as he fumbled around contradicting himself multiple times, but now it is nothing more than a waste of forum space that would be much better filled by, well, nothing.


    The DB
     
    bob85 and Shockwave like this.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    The WorldwideDX Radio Forum was originally established in 2001. We pride ourselves on welcoming Radio Hobby enthusiasts of all types, while offering unbiased, informative, and friendly discussion among the members. We are working every day to make sure our community is the best Radio Hobbyist's site.
  • Like us on Facebook

  • Premium VIP Member

    The management works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best designs, and all the other bells and whistles. Care to buy us a beer? We'd really appreciate it!

    Donate to us!