sigma4 article is online

[Shockwave]

Homer, to keep this theory alive the defenders will be forced to discount each and every users actual experience in the field since none consistently fit within the description offered. The pattern has already been clearly established by the use of every tactic imaginable to discredit each user in favor of theory.

1) The reference antenna was substandard or inefficient.

2) The mast length added 2dbd.

3) People at a Catholic radio station may lack the competence to determine signal increases.

4) The antennas were not compared at the same tip height while ignoring the advantages remain at more than 10 wavelengths in height.

5) Your field strength receiver may not measure the correct field.

6) Nobody else has been competent enough to measure gain accurately or dispute Henry's measurements.

7) CST does not show a field from the cone that could combine in the far field.

8) I'm a liar

9) The advantage is better matching.

10) Suggesting any of us could see these noticeable improvements with less than a 2 to 3 db increase over a 1/2 wave.

I almost forgot one more good one.

11) That it's possible to see these results and only have one 1/2 wave current on the antenna effectively contributing to this gain. Thereby eliminating any chance whatsoever that Cebik's "non apparent collinear" description could be responsible for what we see.

I could come up with another 10 excuses if my priority were to explain it all away but I'm just summarizing some of the things that supporting this unfounded theory has forced them to say.

 

[HomerBB]

@ Shockwave.
I know the myriad of suggestions as to why the antenna gets the results it gets are mostly derogatory. It isn't helpful. It is beneath the dignity I hope to maintain for myself to reply in kind. I just wish there was more exploration of why the antenna is as good as it is, or "likely" better than others. Blaming all other comparative antennas for being essentially junk is unfair. It is like an anecdote I'll share:

The preacher hoped to impress upon his congregation that it was necessary as believers to not impugn their positive witness in the community by disregarding simple rules. He asked how many of them did not exceed the speed limit when driving. Old Red lifted his hand. He was the only one in the building to do so. Another member noticing Red's lifted hand shouted out, "Red's old jalopy won't drive the speed limit!"

@Henry HPSD
Thank you for the reply. I do not disagree with any of the published materials as they stand. Some of them I am not qualified to remark upon. What I find is that we can form the picture we wish by pulling together things either in support of our ideas or in dispute of. This is the nature of humanity. We see it in our choices of sport, foods, faith, politics, etc.
You have conceded that this antenna will likely outperform others. My issue is that you have not supported what you concede, and offer no explanation other than it sticks up higher in the sky than shorter antennas. I know you don't intend to insult anyone, but this does. I will choose not to be offended, but you have completely disregarded anything I have contributed to the discussion about my antenna comparisons. In such a case it seems an unrealistic expectation that I should credit the lengthy materials you've written when you tell me I am just putting the antenna up on the same pole and saying, "Wow!"
You have worked hard on the article. Thank you. Yet, I still hope for an exploration of the real nature of the antenna starting with the one premise of its superior performance.

@Everyone
I highly respect and have admiration for all the participants in this discussion. No one has worked on that point enough to make me feel otherwise. We disagree, and by now I think that is the only thing absolutely clear.

 

[bob85]

Donald,

You lied when you posted,
"Bob, I find it somewhat funny that it was you that convinced me to come into the forum 6 years ago to defend against the "J-Pole camp". That you were sure the base of the Sigma had to be radiating in order to see the effects and gains you've noticed over other antennas"

From your first post on the forum,
"Checking the statistics of my FMBroadcastAntenna.com | HIGH GAIN FM BROADCAST ANTENNA web site allowed me to see traffic resulting from links in this forum. That prompted me to explore the link and I've enjoyed reading the posts here. In a way I felt obligated to share what I've learned in the past three decades working with this "Sigma IV" style antenna"
"Using a simple field strength meter will confirm almost nothing is being radiated in the area of the cone. The more important question should be "how does the cone section improve performance"?
"The cone makes this antenna superior in two ways that only this design has been able to accomplish".
The cone "forces" RF up the main radiator with very little lost in the first 1/4 wave. The longer wavelength main radiator causes much more RF voltage to build across it's length then could ever be possible by simply end feeding a half wave. Higher RF voltage on a resonant radiator creates a stronger electromagnetic field. The "cone effect" as I call it also provides much needed focusing of the radiation pattern in the .82 wave design"


You lied when you gave us the 2 x 3/4wave phazor pic to argue that Henry's working 2 x 1/2wave collinear looked too short,

You told us,
"Just so you don't think I'm crazy asking you to do things I haven't thoroughly tested, here are some pictures of a working collinear with a 90 degree phase delay. The only problem with the antenna pictured here was the phasing loop was not symmetrical because I had to mangle it a bit to get it to the right length. Because of this the pattern was not even on all sides."
^proof is in the 4 way private conversation^

You lied when you cried to Henry for posting his collinear pic,
claiming,
"Had I wanted this work made public I would have posted collinear photos on my website a decade ago"
You had the same picture advertised on your website as a 2 x 3/4wave phazor with 90 degree stub,
The pic was also posted on this forum and you had no problem with that for a long time,
Its still there Donald, even though you deleted it thinking nobody would remember,

Where is your proof of gain measurements Donald, point them out in your email list.

Thanks.

 

[Shockwave]

Bob, you're only pointing out what 6 more years of learning has thought me. Can we say the same for you? It really is shame you must distort the learning process by labeling it as lies. Since you can't do anything more than make personal attacks, I'll also take the high ground and not be offended by the position you've now taken to avoid the relevant topics.

 

[bob85]

Just for you Donald,
http://www.uncommonhelp.me/articles/how-to-tell-lying/
http://www.tartaglia.com/pages/admitting.html

 

[Shockwave]

 

[Henry HPSD]

Donald,

Again…as I have often mentioned I really would like this to be true.
But I need something to work with instead of dealing with “issues”

As im forced each time to “deal” with your antenna theory

You said that only downward tilt was possible with more than one active element
You said that only a collinear was able to produce downward tilting.
You said the antenna can only perform to its max with a g-match to it….
You said the hub at the base in a model case may help but not in real situation…..
You said something in the line of “the effects are reduced with ground reflections….
You said “Eznec can’t get to show the downward tilt effect with dipoles either” ….
You said “my theory can’t be right because it would make no sense if we used a complete meshed cone
You said radials :“that it would rob “constructive currents”.

Please allow me to stop as Im only at page 4 or so..of this topic.

All these are wrong Donald. And you have not provided any proof.

I on the other hand have provided an answer each time.

What Im trying to say: you’re antenna theory has shown some room for improvement.

And then we have other issues:
Like you mention:

You wrote about sending me Clear channel Communications in private..
Well could be….but I don’t know.

You claim the Sirio engineers have told you about the “current confined collinear theory” in any way….isn’t that strange ? as they claim it’s a coaxial J pole? Why wouldn’t they use the word “collinear” it sure sounds better?

- I Find it strange that you call it each time my CST plot, where it is the work of CST they are independent so why would you question them?

- I find it strange behaviour of someone who lacks modelling knowledge to be so active involved whether or not a model is accurate. You keep using relative strong words for it for someone who doesn’t use it, and I do understand it is easy to be misinformed Just like my J pole with closed box possible interpretation….just like you have interoperated your CST plot.

I don’t think you are knowledgeable enough to make accusations of something being wrong in aspect to modeling.

- And yes I contacted Sirio (also ?) because Donald…of course I have done my homework and I found out a lot of things seem to be “strange”.

Why wouldn’t they advertise on their own site with “collinear’? That is why I asked. Of course I realise the answer is taking long now and they seem to be in discussion with you( ?) I still hope they will be honest in their response to me, but I do understand the commercial aspect along with it.

And Donald, I did my homework.
I have asked for proof several times, so far you havnt provided any.
It is your words that I need to relay on

Your broadcast engineers…with real verification of the antenna providing so much more gain etc etc.

So, I did ask …I did search, at least i tried as you wouldnt give info.
Most of the times I “landed” on forums.

Those forums were not overwhelming with enthusiasm about your collinear theory. (being kind)

So I asked my self,:

If I was in the line of business I would most certainly be on those forums debating with those broadcast engineers, but you are not there….though you are able to copy past text of it why Donald ?

Why don’t you go in debate with “those broadcast engineers” as your are eager to do so here ?

Anyway,
Im sure you have some proof ….but please come forward….you must have one card in the hand that we can work with ?

As I was unable to find one and I tried so many….
Examples: ? …….

You know the large mast on the front of your website…it’s the top mast in your “review” section as well. WEZG or so.

The text next to it :One Dominator is producing virtually identical gain and ERP as four CP bays or two dipoles The executive director told me :

We did not participate in that statement. All we did was send in the picture. We relied on the manufacturer.


Take for example CBC Canada;
Yes perhaps you have a box full of measurements from them…
But I cant find them…I have to base my findings on the words of the Atlantic region transmitter supervisor of CBC Canada who told me:

The antenna on our portable FM station has never been used.
We have no documentation towards gain and efficiency at this time.

And a whole bunch of those smaller stations
Im afraid none of them did any measurements.
(ps its not 93,8 FM but MIX FM...they would appreciate it)

And I searched everywhere.
Your site, the FCC database..was actually difficult to find cause the FCC database only has a couple of your antenna in it ? (perhaps im not searching correct ?)

Now, im not being honest…
I found one…That Robert guy from KLOG the catholic station on Guam you also mention !
(and just so you know Im telling the truth …he had a copper version then a alu not to happy and send it back for a new one or something similar)

Well, yes he claims to have measured the gain advertised, but he also claims the antenna is 1,75 dB better compared to the comet 5/8 wave ….which is exactly the figure given by the advertisement.

When I asked how he measured and if this was a coincident he didn’t respond anymore.

You have asked if you can trust me Donald...
Well I am asking you the same thing. As in what way can I Donald ?
When the texst on your website claimed to be reviews ....inst what the clients are telling me..

And you know what Donald, you question if I am honest...
When you are out there bullets flying it is of no interest what colour you are, where your from, how much money you have. The only thing that is important is: can you depend on someone....that is all that is left....and believe me...I have nothing to proof ...but helping that guy next to me. I will do my upmost to be so honest as I can.

When asked what you used for field-testing…

You mentioned it is like a the FIM 71 or so
Do you realise the manual says the gain you have measured should be considered to have a possible error of <33 percent. (1dB accuracy).
But far more important they mention it specifically
its not accurate to be used to test VERTICAL antennas.
So Donald, I know you left the door open…what is what you use this time ?


You see Donald,

Im not against you, but
Im having difficulties with your knowledge about antenna theory.
Im having difficulties with your “references”
In fact Im having difficulties with a lot of things .

And each time you come with “something” and each time its for the “observer” to “back it up”.

Donald you are the manufacturer.

Please proof the 5,15 dBI and current in cone theory.

And stop using words to look like it’s a debate, as thus far it is not
….i have nothing to “work with”…..

And while I always open to give you the benefit of the doubt,
I have asked so many times to answer one of my questions.
I have asked so many times to provide some proof.
I have asked so many times to proof me wrong.

Im at a stage that it becomes clear to me: it isnt a battle of the J pole camp versus the collinear theory camp...It’s the J pole camp versus the antron 99....the... 9,9 dBI camp.
And that battle Donald…that one is yours, so please help me from not going there.

I have given you room, and I find it not appropriate that you need to drag good willing guys along with it to proof something, don't take advantage of them.
Or use words wrongly from those who are not amongst us anymore. (especially that is what is I find difficult)

Please stop drawing others into your game, but stand up for yourself your points.
And If I were you …I would not write text near pictures indicating something… that doesn’t belong to the owner.

Now, I know you must have something….
So please do come forward so I can work with something.
And please don’t make a lot of posts to make “qrm” …
Just some proof to work with.

Donald, your game….not mine….use facts and proof….dont use “words” as I need to investigate each time, and im kind of having difficulties depending on your word alone.

But still…..willing to learn…help…teach where I can…
But I need something to work with ...and not your words as your clients are telling me different versions.


Kind regards

H>

 

[Shockwave]

Your paper proves nothing I've seen in your first 8 remarks to be inaccurate so there is nothing to address there.

You think you answered my questions but you didn't even describe your test equipment after questioning mine and getting answers. The overall tolerance of my field strength receiver may be +1 or - 1 db but you never asked to confirm I calibrated it spot on at 98 megahertz where I use it using HP lab equipment.

The comment about WEZG was not credited to them but merely describing the typical results such an installation regularly provides.

If you had any interest in seeking the truth from CBC you might contact the actual branch involved using the name of the person the quote was taken from.

When you find someone who's done exactly what you said was never done like the engineer at KOLG you pester the snot out of them clearly attacking their qualifications no matter how nicely you may word it. You think people don't sense this? Then you wonder why they stop responding like Marconi did with Sirio. You'll use that to suggest they know they were lying because they didn't want to participate further in your meaningless debate.

You notice every last one of the hecklers in those forums you mention clearly have never even seen the antenna much less tried one. I don't waste my time there because 99% of the people give opinions based on nothing when people have specifically asked for others experience with the product. After 15 posts of people saying it's junk, someone who actually uses them speaks out only to be ridiculed again.

Many of us are still waiting for you to provide a theory that matches what we see and are increasingly discouraged that you can't find any users anywhere that have experiences to match your theory. No one has seen tip height go up by a few feet and gain 2dbd. No one has shown a particular length mast (full wave) can add 2db. No one has provided an workable explanation that describes Cebik's "non apparent collinear effect" but novices are trying to rewrite what he said to fit new theory.

 

[Henry HPSD]

In case you fail to notice, I asked something to work with....

not your defensive position...i know your oke with words....facts.

Kind regards,

H.

 

[Shockwave]

I'm defending many years of results while you're trying to use your paperwork and own tests to refute anyone else. Let keep things in context Henry. You'll have many more years to catch up on support of your theory once it relates to the antenna and it's typical performance. Not dependent on a mast or extra 1/4 wave of height either.

Henry, since you didn't like the test equipment I used, could you describe the test setup you used to measure gain and how it would be more accurate than something like the FIM-71? You questioned Engineer Bob and myself about these details so is it not fair we ask what type of equipment you used and what its specifications are?

I think that's only fair since you're asking us to ignore any other testing or peoples experiences based on paperwork and a few tests you've done yourself to support the paperwork. In many cases that would be good enough when "tangible" evidence cannot be presented. You approached this entire report as though there was not 36 years of tangible experiences that your theory would have to match.

 

[Marconi]

Homer, I don't read the report like you, but I do find areas I could argue. In fact I have argued one issues with Henry, to no avail already and that was regarding his purpose for posting the model done by GHZ24 in the introduction to his report.

The model is fine, for the purpose it was intended, but it is not a S4/NV4K, and thus it is not the antenna being discussed in his report. It is not even close unless we just consider dimensions as an arbitrary option to its construction and accuracy of dimensions does not matter.

I think Henry claims it was so others could run the optimize feature in 4Nec2 and make it right. At this point I only see DB doing that, but he has not produced any results thus far, and as I understand this report it was done in collaboration with Henry, Bob, Donald, and Steve (DB) so all these smart guys must have know it was not intended to ever be a Ne Vector 4000 model, the subject of this report.

DB has re-posted the model and it did appear to have added more optimizer features to the model. I still would like to see somebody give us some results of such an effort to fix it using the optimizer feature in 4Nec2.

I think Henry could have done the optimize feature too. So, again I ask what is the purpose for the group...unless somebody shows us some results are we learning anything from this model?

There is an issue about the gain values that have been reported for this design for a long time, and Henry touches on that. However, I think these high gains Donald and others report went along with the mistaken idea that the design did something that no other antenna has ever done...a single monopole antenna producing collinear gain without phasing two 1/2 wave elements together constructively.

You probably know what I claimed in this regard, so I will not repeat, but I will say I do believe the loosely held idea that a 5/8 wave and longer radiator will produce two maximum current waves...and thus it might be described as a collinear. However, we should also understand this is not the same as a true collinear array...that produces collinear type gain numbers and the identifiable squashed down pattern the tend to produce..

If you will, look at Henry's CST image I've post below, or on the bottom of his report on page #29, of a CST model at 27.205, for what looks like a Vector, and if you look close at the data field for the image, which was omitted from Donald's similar image he posted some time back, you may notice the gain is 2.22 dbi, which is also noted at the top of the following page as the CST gain for the New Vector. I figure this image is a free space result. Then assuming these two CST models were done accurately, how do we account for a gain of 2.22 dbi in free space with Henry's model, and Donald's claim of 2 dbd gain over a dipole for the NV4K by Sirio, which Donald swears is also in Free Space. Maybe this bit if detail was not a good thing to reveal under those conditions for Donald, so it was possibly just omitted.

Note too, we are not talking about Donald's Dominator on a 300' foot tower.

Homer this is just an apples and oranges evaluation that we are expected to believe supports all these claims of collinear type high gains that Henry has referenced.

Donald is the one who has suggested to this forum to consider the omitted data in his image as favoring his idea for gain in this saga and believe what Sirio has reported in their specs, and he also says it is a free space result...instead of what might be argued in light of this new data from Henry's CST model showing evidence to the contrary, which should also be considered.

The reader just has to use some common sense and figure out what makes sense to themselves. If a CF dipole in Free Space shows 2.14 dbi at 0* degrees to the horizon, and the S4/NV4K shows 4.15 dbi, like Donald suggest Siro publishes without any angle noted...then nobody would be using anything else but this collinear high gain monster.

I can't see the detail in Henry's report below, but if you go to Bob's first post for this thread you will find the link to the report and just scan down.

Just think about it Homer...that is all I ask. And then ask, did I expect to see the much less gain for this Vector model report as 2.22 dbi gain on the horizon in Henry's CST model? And then ask, why the difference, or is there a difference. Henry can answer that I'm sure.

Then maybe we should ask Henry if he could produce the same image as Donald did in his example for the New Vector 4000, as published by Sirio, showing the gain for his pattern instead of just a claim.

Homer, I've also asked Henry for a copy of his Eznec Pro/4 model presented in his report that I think looks much different that my NV4K model, so this is my 3rd question of Henry in this process.

Is that too much to ask Homer?

 

[The DB]

I think Henry claims it was so others could run the optimize feature in 4Nec2 and make it right. At this point I only see DB doing that, but he has not produced any results thus far, and as I understand this report it was done in collaboration with Henry, Bob, Donald, and Steve (DB) so all these smart guys must have know it was not intended to ever be a Ne Vector 4000 model, the subject of this report.

I was in the group, I was more of an observer than anything, although I did ask a few questions along the way. I didn't know anything about the GHZ24 model until Henry's final report.

I also don't think I would go so far as saying the model isn't based on the Vector. It is a starting point of playing with the design, and can easily enough be made to the dimensions of the Vector. For example, I dug up Homer's most recent Vector reproduction thread and was able to put in length data from that easily enough.

DB has re-posted the model and it did appear to have added more optimizer features to the model. I still would like to see somebody give us some results of such an effort to fix it using the optimizer feature in 4Nec2.

What I added was the ability to change the height. It was added in like it was an optimizer feature, but it wasn't intended to be used that way as for the most part more height means more gain. It was more or less an easier way to change the height, you can change the height of the antenna by simply changing one number instead of two numbers for every wire in the model. I also removed a potential acute angle issue, and changed how the ring diameter works for the optimizer, making it a bit more intuitive as I prefer to make said changes by hand.


The DB

 

[Marconi]

That all sounds reasonable to me DB, thanks for the update.

Did you run the optimizer yet, and did it work to make the antenna into a Vector that came out close to the specs? I recall that is what Henry said we could do with it, and that was the purpose for it being included in his intro to the report on his Website?

I'm still just curious is all. This report has made me curious. I'm just trying to follow what the words say, and to try and enter into the conversation where I can.

I've asked several questions, and wrote a note to Homer.

 

[HomerBB]

@Marconi
If the report is not using the NV4k for the models presented, then it may be rightly said that the article is a collection of theories and does not reference the subject of discussion. My wife just traded her Dodge Avenger for a "new to her" C model BMW. They are very similar from the paint color to they both have rings in nearly the same places - wheels, steering wheel pulleys for belts, engine cylinders. and many more similarities. It takes but one ride around the block to understand the two automobiles are definitely not the same car! The Beamer has a lot more gain! I think all your questions deserve answers if you think it can help clear up things.
l may have to go back to the article to see what is on page 29. I could not read the small print when I pulled up your attachment.

@DB
I'd be interested in what you came up with using my posted dimensions. A PM is fine if you don't want to post it here.

 

[The DB]

That all sounds reasonable to me DB, thanks for the update.

Did you run the optimizer yet, and did it work to make the antenna into a Vector that came out close to the specs? I recall that is what Henry said we could do with it, and that was the purpose for it being included in his intro to the report on his Website?

I'm still just curious is all. This report has made me curious. I'm just trying to follow what the words say, and to try and enter into the conversation where I can.

I've asked several questions, and wrote a note to Homer.

I've played with the optimizer, although, as I mentioned several times above, I prefer to do said optimizations by hand. I can tell you that shortening the vertical element will increase gain and lower the angel of radiation in freespace, and raising the ring will do the same. Widening the ring increases gain as well but I haven't tracked its effect on steering in freespace as of yet.

Unfortunately I have other more important things now and in my immediate future that is eating up the time I would like to spend on modeling, so it may be a while before I get the chance.


The DB