sigma4 article is online

[Henry HPSD]

@ Donald..
What i meant to say...
Most field strength measuring devices measure the electric field.

Would it be possible that the correct formulas to translate them into antenna gain havnt been applied ?

As that is something i have seen happen...

Kind regards,

H>

edit: Marconi...if your model shows in the area of 2.2 to 2.5 dBi and the avg is oke. dont worry.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Just to "tell"...a question through the mail...

Now, if one models in eznec a coaxial Jpole...
The calculation is correct.



To the eye of the not knowing viewer....
One would say...but hey i see current from the bottom radiator and they are in phase !

NO...the bottom single line is indicating the magnitude of the current not current it self.
The current magnitude line is not telling you where the current "remains"
Only the magnitude of it.

end of today...off to bed soon....early day tomorrow.

Kind regards,

H.

edit..neither does it show the phase angle in this case, before someone gets excited
You see how easy it is to draw wrong conlcusions for someone not to familiar with it...

ps Donald, if you need a help with those formulas...feel free to ask of course.

 

[The DB]

I also have a model from DB that explores adding wires to a Vector to check CMC's on the cone as while back, but he stopped discussing that when I questioned the thinking about that application, and I asked several times in the course of other discussions...what where those results.

Just a note. I didn't stop because I was being questioned, I stopped because of everything else that happened in that thread, and the feeling I was being pushed one way or another.

Also, even if that model is shown to be completely the antenna it was meant to explore, there are other aspects of it that I intend to explore at some point. As I mentioned multiple times in that thread, there were multiple anomalies that I could not explain, things that I have not seen on any other model I have made or downloaded. What can I say, because of said anomalies, I think it is an interesting model in its own right, and worthy of study.


The DB

 

[Henry HPSD]

..almost in bed...then i was thinking you guys wanted me to be clear..
And im not sure if i should mention it or not..

But say we have someone without modelling knowledge
Who claims each time eznec isnt capable and i only have seen one or two models that are correct.

If i posted just that plot with that J pole.
Such a person would have said:
"you see I see current from the bottom part in phase and it is outside the cone !"

And I understand...

But that person does not have the knowledge to interperotate it correct.
So each time someone like that mentions or draws conclusion from a plot
The value of it is a consideration and should be understood by someone not familair.

and now really of to bed......good question though

 

[Marconi]

Just a note. I didn't stop because I was being questioned, I stopped because of everything else that happened in that thread, and the feeling I was being pushed one way or another.

Also, even if that model is shown to be completely the antenna it was meant to explore, there are other aspects of it that I intend to explore at some point. As I mentioned multiple times in that thread, there were multiple anomalies that I could not explain, things that I have not seen on any other model I have made or downloaded. What can I say, because of said anomalies, I think it is an interesting model in its own right, and worthy of study.

The DB

I think I understand Steve, but I hope I was not that mean in my approach for information. That was not my intentions.

I was just trying to warn you...IMO that was not the idea behind adding a wire to the model so we can see the currents when we add a Feed Line in Eznec/NEC. I could be wrong, but I think I recall your idea then was to check for CMC on the outside of the cone, but I'm not sure about your results.

I did some similar work on the S4 radials, but my wires were just floating in space very close to the real radials...in hopes of seeing what currents would present...and the results showed me very little current was flowing on the wires I added. From that, I figured this result suggested there was not much current flowing in the cone area, and that result supported my idea that the cone does not radiate much current if any that will effectively effect the antenna. In conclusion to this is...this is the purpose for these up turned radials...to minimize all the bad effects of the out of phase condition we see in a typical 3/4 wave GP...similar to what we see happen in the J-Pole/Zepp design.

 

[Marconi]

..almost in bed...then i was thinking you guys wanted me to be clear..
And im not sure if i should mention it or not..

But say we have someone without modelling knowledge
Who claims each time eznec isnt capable and i only have seen one or two models that are correct.

If i posted just that plot with that J pole.
Such a person would have said:
"you see I see current from the bottom part in phase and it is outside the cone !"

And I understand...

But that person does not have the knowledge to interperotate it correct.
So each time someone like that mentions or draws conclusion from a plot
The value of it is a consideration and should be understood by someone not familair.

and now really of to bed......good question though

Henry, it is also important to remember most don't understand modeling. Just a plot might also prevent most from ever understanding the full implications for a model also...even if they have studied the books and attained some little grasp on modeling.

There is an old saying: "...a picture is worth a thousand words."

IMHO, humans can handle implications pretty well...if give a chance, and given an opportunity to ask questions and get pertinent answers.

Good morning,

 

[Marconi]

edit: Marconi...if your model shows in the area of 2.2 to 2.5 dBi and the avg is oke. dont worry.

That is alright Henry, don't answer the question why your FS Vector model shows 2.27 dbi @ 23* degrees as posted in your report, while my Vector model shows 2.49 dbi at 3* degrees with a perfect Average Gain reporting a value of 1.0.

But, does this then mean you are telling these folks such a difference does not matter in modeling? I want to learn why my model shows 2.49 dbi which is out of the range and way different in the angle you note in your model...even though the AG report shows the model is perfect at 1.00 = 0.000 db.

These guys are smart enough to know the difference if they care.

 

[Shockwave]

You keep referring to your field tests, but you fail to show any proof ? You keep referring to those broadcast engineers who "found" those results to be accurate... Isn't there any proof of it besides your words ?

How about you post some proof from those Broadcast engineers you keep telling us have taken measurements, Why should we have to contact them from a list on your website when its you making the claim and their your customers ?Your testimony is becoming increasingly unreliable, we want proof from a second party not your words.

Below are direct quotes posted in a forum where unfamiliar hecklers were giving their unfounded opinions. Easy enough to copy and paste into a Yahoo search to find the source and any needed contact info already published. Note Bob is the engineer at this station and it's no little low power 100 watt station with an incompetent staff. KOLG is a full service Class C station licensed by the FCC.

"I have used the high power Dominator antenna as an auxiliary antenna for KOLG. It has been effective for this use. I have also used it for an STA on a public radio station.while waiting for approval of a new 6 bay array. It is easy to mount, light weight and low cost. I have verified the antenna gain and have been within a dB stated power. Bob."

The next email quotes are from the Chief Engineer of Clear Channel Communications. This well known US broadcasting network operates over 1200 stations serving major commercial markets.

Donald,

Thanks for your quick response. An immediate situation is coming upon me where I am having our tower painted but still must maintain an on air presence. I have a 500 watt Crown xmitter and a Scala vertical one bay antenna. In checking out your website, it looks like maybe I could get a lot better coverage with your antenna. I would need it tuned to 92.3 Mhz. How quick could you ship to me and what would the shipping costs be?

Thanks

XXXXXXXXXXXX
Chief Engineer,
ClearChannel,XXXXXX
XXX-XXX-XXXX

This was sent via email to me and even though it was not protected by a privacy statement, I'm not going to publish these people names here. I've already seen how some have approached Sirio on this topic and I'm not putting this at risk again. Although I would consider allowing an unbiased person to confirm all names, job titles, contact info and that these statements were made by them.

I saw this as an opportunity to get some good qualified field results from people very experienced in professional commercial broadcasting. I followed up later by asking how the antenna worked in comparison to that "Scala center fed 1/2 wave dipole".

His results were good enough that he convinced the Vice President of Clear Channel's Engineering department to use the antenna in Translator applications Stateside as shown in his next email below.

Hello, I bought one of your antennas previously and have been very happy with it. I've convinced my Clear Channel engineering VP to go with it again. We are installing a translator at 99.1 MHz. Can we do a billing rather than a credit card? I have a CC Purchase order.
Thanks

XXXXXXXXXXXX
Chief Engineer,
ClearChannel,XXXXXX
XXX-XXX-XXXX

Notice the Clear Channel Engineer didn't test the first antenna against the dipole and then send it back for a refund. He found it beat the performance of a well known and efficient center fed dipole enough that he convinced his boss to buy more.

Then we have an onslaught of other users ranging from the well qualified CBC Canada (too long to post here here) all the way down to the low power stations who shared reviews on my site. Many comparing against existing antennas. I'll post a few of the shorter ones below since they shared them publicly.

1) Dominator antennas are real performers. We have noticed a significant improvement in our coverage area since we began using the Dominator FM antenna. Formerly we had been using a dipole. The radio station KTR FM 94.1 is located in Kapchorwa, Africa. The Dominator is side mounted on a communications tower shared with microwave links and cell phone antennas. It has worked flawlessly since installed with very low SWR and increasing our broadcast coverage. Thanks for making a solid product. Sidney B. Anderson, KTR FM 94.1

2) The Dominator FM antenna made an unbelievable difference for our station. The tower structure is 87 feet high, and the antenna is up at the 100 foot level. I'm using Andrew 1/2" healiax hardline and driving the antenna with 600 watts. The station covers 35 to 40 miles solid, with some directions 50 miles from the tower site. I had been using a J-pole antenna. When I decided to try the Dominator, I could not believe the difference it made! It was like I went from 600 watts to 2,500 watts! For a small FM, our station covers like a full powered radio station. I had thought the price was high and wondered what the catch was until I put it up. It is truly worth the price as the Dominator increased the coverage of our signal incredibly! For any LPFMs, or medium power stations that want good solid coverage, I recommend this antenna. Anything else and your just throwing your money away. Doug Pringle.

3) Thanks for a great product! It does everything you say it will do. Just installed it last Thursday and was astounded at its performance! It will run circles around any of the expensive ones from the big broadcast equipment companies and its durable too!! Buy it, buy it, buy it! Dave Cash, WRMV Fellowship Broadcasting.

4) Dear Donald, Wow!!! What a wonderful antenna system. We installed it on Sunday and couldn’t imagine the results. Our coverage area has greatly increased with crystal clear stereo and super sound quality. I hope my brother Pastor Charles called you earlier today as well. Ojimba Davies, Head of Broadcast/CEO, Magic 99.2 FM Monrovia, Liberia.

Then we have all these stations listed on the FCC database who used this antenna in favor of center fed dipoles: WMDI, KTIM, KHEL, WEZG, KAVZ, KMRD, KOLG, K234AQ, W289BU, K279BC, K289AI, K265DW, and W296CH. At what point do we recognize the gains are noticeable on the horizon and do you think it could be noticed with less than a 2 or 3 db advantage over a dipole? That is considered to be about the least amount of signal change that could be detected.

I'll give you things like one clients J-Pole may not have been optimum but where is the ONE report from a credible source in the field to suggest these are not the typical results? That's the heart of the matter I'm getting at here and I'm sorry if I've been aggressive or offensive in the process.

I didn't want to bring my business into the forum or be viewed as advertising anything here but when you keep questioning the sources and their credibility or ability to repeat the same results, what option did you offer me?

 

[Shockwave]

@ Donald..
What i meant to say...
Most field strength measuring devices measure the electric field.

Would it be possible that the correct formulas to translate them into antenna gain havnt been applied ?

As that is something i have seen happen...

Kind regards,

H>

Henry, devices like the Potomac Instruments FIM-71 use calibrated receivers to measure signals at a substantial distance. Not like the simple meters with an RF detector diode CB'ers use. I can measure a signals strength in actual microvolts or any changes between signals in decibels at distances over 50 miles away. Can I ask the same about your test equipment?

 

[Shockwave]

I also see how Henry and Bob have been ridiculing the fact I've revised the gain specifications over the years. It would be nice to know everything when you first start something but sometimes there is a learning curve involved. Honest people make changes when they spot errors and don't "explain them away".

Notice that old 6db sounds familiar? Kind of like the 6.14 db gain Avanti put on the box in the 1980's? When I first started making these antenna I simply took what they said. Thinking it was a bit high, I rounded it down to 6db. As things progressed and more professional broadcasters became interested in filing for use with this antenna on the FCC database, independent testing was obviously required and done by several sources including myself.

That's when testing in my applications revealed the gain was closer to 3db over a center fed dipole. Now of course you question that last db of discrepancy between 2 and 3dbd. That is the maximum variable we see in the field based on the side mounting requirements all other antennas used in this field require. End feeding allows an unobstructed mounting position clear of the tower while side mounting just a few feet down forces parasitic interaction with the tower.

Now the only thing left is going from 3dbd to 5.15dbi. We've all seen where it's common to quote the dipole gain in dbi, giving it that extra 2.15db. Not dishonest in the least bit once you disclose it is rated over isotropic and not the dipole. Now it may come to light that these gains are only evident where it counts, in the field. Therefore any reference to a free space isotropic condition could be different.

If that pans out you'll see yet another revision on the website but it won't waiver from the 2 to 3dbd we see anytime it's accurately measured on a proving ground based on results rather than what looks good on paper. As I look back, I think I've been as honest as I could. When revisions are required like my 4 wire theory or specifications, I own it quick and make the change, easy or not. What would you have said if I took the other option and hid these facts?

 

[bob85]

Now we are finally getting closer to the truth Donald!

Your taller antenna mounted up on top of the tower or as high as possible vs side mounted dipoles as described on your website way back,
That's not anything like the same as 2 or 3dbd and requires no collinear gain,

Nobody measured your antenna at 3dbd in any proper test,
Some gave anecdotal evidence based on increased coverage due to factors other than raw gain,

Where have i heard a similar claim before ?
Oh i remember that's what Henry indicated,

Nobody said your Dominator was not a good antenna,
id bet it does outperform the other vector clones as we both know adjusting them correctly does put more signal on the horizon as you claim,

We are not ridiculing you,
You are rubbishing Henry's work without a shred of proof he's wrong,
You stopped reading the article as soon as you realised he was not going to agree with you, preferring to twists his words to suite your agenda,

Admit it Donald we were both wrong about it been a collinear,
Neither of us fully understand how it operates, its not so hard,

As i look back i know you lied multiple times,
"The Truth Is Out There"

Your Move.

 

[HomerBB]

Im not saying the antenna cant outperform others.
Im saying actually...it most likely will. (see article)

Why?
I read the article word-for-word. You said this, but I found nothing in the article in support of this statement, but tons of stuff refuting it.

Perhaps if this article had tried to discover why this antenna will "likely" (sic) outperform others then we would be nearer understanding the antenna, and each other.

So, my opinion remains that this several times repeated statement from within the article on this thread is a complete contradiction to the objective of the article itself - to find out why this antenna can't outperform others.

I understand why Henry has seen no contradiction. My mistake.
I have now realize it was not to provide insight into how the antenna outperformed others, but just the opposite (The one small statement he made then set about disproving is the one glaring contradiction within it).
I wish it had been. I would be happy to read it many more times.


There is but one value related to this antenna I see in the article. It clears up the confusion anyone might have about whether the V4k/S4 antennas might be a reconstructed J-pole. Henry has done a great job of further setting apart the exceptional performance difference between "other" (J-poles, etc) antennas and the V4k antenna as experienced by many.

Homer

 

[HomerBB]

I wish to remind everyone that I never constructed any of my antennas to be test models for debates on performance. I made them all for fun, and to show others how antennas could be made from commonly found materials.

It came as a surprise to me when the V4k antenna I built was so much more the performer it was over other antennas. I said so. It was after that point that I was queried about where it was mounted, and what I compared it to. I painstakingly tried to answer those questions and was drawn into the discussion of its performance in some of the popular pinned threads on the forum. I am not as deep into theory as many others, but grasping fundamentals is easy enough. This is where I have stayed. On the other hand, I, as others, have become intrigued by the discussion around this antenna, and especially by why I saw what I saw. I often have said this is what I saw at my QTH. Yet, I wasn't alone in this regard, as I've learned.

We've crossed a lot of thresholds in this discussion. The idea of the isolation and choke isn't new. When I published the thread "Made In America Sigma 4" on this forum I pointed out within it that the antenna was choked and isolated. Henry gave me a like on that point. When I was a boy we went often to the coast. I watch the waves crash into the beach and then recede constantly. That's what I've seen some do in the course of this discussion from time to time.

I may sometimes miss the finer nuances of these discussions, but the obvious I rarely miss. And I see more from this antenna when I have it in the air than any other vertical monopole or GP I've ever used.

I lack a lot of fine science in my background, but I am overeducated in common sense. I remain firmly seated in one empirical truth - the fellow with an experience is never the servant of one with an argument.

Homer.

 

[Shockwave]

Now we are finally getting closer to the truth Donald!

Your taller antenna mounted up on top of the tower or as high as possible vs side mounted dipoles as described on your website way back,
That's not anything like the same as 2 or 3dbd and requires no collinear gain,

Nobody measured your antenna at 3dbd in any proper test,
Some gave anecdotal evidence based on increased coverage due to factors other than raw gain,

Where have i heard a similar claim before ?
Oh i remember that's what Henry indicated,

Nobody said your Dominator was not a good antenna,
id bet it does outperform the other vector clones as we both know adjusting them correctly does put more signal on the horizon as you claim,

We are not ridiculing you,
You are rubbishing Henry's work without a shred of proof he's wrong,
You stopped reading the article as soon as you realised he was not going to agree with you, preferring to twists his words to suite your agenda,

Admit it Donald we were both wrong about it been a collinear,
Neither of us fully understand how it operates, its not so hard,

As i look back i know you lied multiple times,
"The Truth Is Out There"

Your Move.

Wow Bob, Get the popcorn out now. Thanks to me you've discovered we can see a maximum variable of 1db going from side mounting to unobstructed mounting and now I'm a liar? Surly not the finest colors that you've shined. You fell for this theory hook line and sinker without ever acknowledging there are no reports of a gain that can vary from 0.1db to 2db. Thankfully more alert people have called BS here based on the fact it doesn't fit anything they have seen in first hand experience.

You act like people have claimed to see less than 2dbd when unplugging the coax from one dipole and plugging this one in at the same exact mounting location rather than anything I said about removing the tower as a parasitic element from the pattern and picking up close to 1db of average gain as a result. Surly you don't view the tower as a resonant or efficient element even though it causes reflections. You might want to investigate the serious issues this can cause with many patterns before calling me a liar. Shame on you for not having a better crutch to fall on.

Why not deal with the fact you've been given what you asked for? Unbiased results from reputable engineers working at well established broadcast networks. Just find one that agrees with not being able to measure 2 to 3 dbd in the field and you could put some legs on this theory to get it up and running. So far we have heard nothing but bullshit that the gain is from the mast or extra tip height. You guys have used a lot of words to describe some other antenna. If you want it to have any credibility, it needs a lot more work because it was prematurely published without regard for the fact no one reports the possible variable Henry suggests. We see consistency in nearly every installation.

You want us to take the word of one CB antenna maker who has 40 pages of theory to "defend" (which he admits to as the goal now) over the professional and unbiased broadcasters you requested to hear from? Now that you have seen their words, you won't even touch a single one of their comments but rather you act like an ass and call me a liar. Shows just how weak this theory is. Nice job guys. Think you'll ever help anyone understand how the design functions or just more of the same?

 

[Henry HPSD]

@ Homer,

Thank you for your respons.
The aim of the article was indeed to provide insight in the antenna but for most the claims made and to tell what is and is not true.
Perhaps it is not for all to understand, but it is true.

It is antenna theory backed up by CST and Feko etc., and the others named in the article. The CST plot of Donald is showing the magnetic H field (near field) and not a collinear effect (as he describes) and I have tried to provide insight that the antenna can be modelled.

As a "hands on guy" as yourself...I realise those things are of less interest.

If I look at your findings I can agree....they are very possible.
But i do understand for some it perhaps could not be so clear to find that conclusion. as my primairy focus was on telling what "claim" is true and which not.

Though if you ask for my personal opinion .
For the average CB user with a mast of say one wavelength
It is a great antenna.
There are several reason why the antenna is so great is its heigth and the abillity to handle "issues". Those "issues" are often a reason why other antennas like a halve wave or 5/8 perform less.

I understand you would like a yes or no answer, sadly i can not always provided that as there are many different circumstances.

But overall...again...yes it is one I would advice.
If i had 100 dollar (or whatever the price is) and a "average" situation it would definitly be the one I would put up.

But again...not because of the "in cone currents confined theory" etc.

Your input is very valued, and i will try to be more "hands on" for CB users in future articles.

Kind regards,

Henry