sigma4 article is online

[Shockwave]

Marconi, Please understand I have said many times before that I never removed any data from the CST image. It was provided to me exactly as you see and the gain has been quoted as 2dbd from the same source. The ONLY thing I did was add the company watermark to prevent misuse.

As I look at Henry's model you posted, I can easily see signs the antenna used in the model had very little effort applied at using any of the beamtilt ability I've clearly noticed in every application. Didn't you notice that free space model has a very obvious upward angle? More than any other free space models I've seen. Henry must know all he needs to do to correct that is raise the height of the cone and more gain will be on the horizon.

I noticed the cone was too short on Henry's very first test antenna too just from the picture and complained about it. Henry told me he would take that into consideration but yet it's very clear to anyone more familiar with this antenna that the models he is using to present his theory are also built to show the effects he wants to demonstrate. I know because I can do the exact opposite too.

I think these are the areas Homer was talking about when he implied a person can make evidence lean towards whatever position they are defending. I've also asked Henry to provide the CST video or an image from it to no avail. This would be very useful to compare against the original so we could see how close Henry's model was to it. I'm told it looks the same but where is it?

Once again, do you guys really think the 36 years or raving performance reviews on this antenna are due to a gain less than 2dbd? How could so many people hear things they couldn't before with less gain? If you think Henry is representing the antenna using the best models or test antennas, just experiment for 5 minuets with a model and notice how much you can improve it from the one offered by Henry. Add some cone length and the angle will tilt right down toward 0 degrees. Not up like he's shown it to be.

 

[Marconi]

@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.

Homer, the highlighted first sentence part in your post above is not what I said or suggested, and your insinuation is noted.

I don't know exactly what Henry did regarding the models he posted details for, but he did use a dipole that my Eznec model of a cfhw dipole...both report out the same angle and gain in free space at 2.14 dbi @ 0* degrees.

I see all of his models that are pictured as basically in free space, and I think he talks about that and tells us why. I was only referring to the model that GHZ24 produced several years ago, so don't confuse that situation with the other models Henry posted about in his report.

I doubt seriously Henry would use guess work for his dimensions in such an important project as this for him. If you were trying to do something so precise...I know you would do the same.

Homer, in all my references since the New Vector 4000 was first talked about...was noted by me as S4/NV4k. That suggest to me that these two are very similar, both being a 3/4 wavelength antennas. The difference being the Vector having longer radials and a bit little less overall radiator length is the difference. This difference is nowhere near the difference we see in GHZ24's model that I raised a question about.

To make this clear, I see 4 radials on these images and that tells me what it is, and I have no issue with the results, be it a Sigma4 or a New Vector 4000. Sirio has made the same claim, there is no difference in the results because of their shortening of the antenna. I can only guess they did that to maybe reduce complaints due to breakage.

Sorry for the bad pdf file not being clear to read, I gave you a direct link to go to the report itself and there you can check it out...at the bottom of page #29. If you have a magnifying glass, you can easily see it notes gain = 2.221 dbi with no notation for the angle, but you can look at the pattern and easily tell it is max gain in Free Space in the center of the image at the horizon, and the model is a CST model that shows gain in the area for the top 1/2 wave of the radiator, and there is no indication for farfield (the title on the image) energy from the antennas's cone area below.

This image, if you can see it, shows a similar absence of energy from the tip of the radiator too. I think this pretty well nails it down what we see here, and it is not like has been reported earlier.

The Mininec 3 software also reports a very similar pattern and results...and for me that is pretty convincing.

I just don't understand the Eznec Pro/4 models results, because my version of Eznec shows 2.49 dbi @ 3* degrees above the horizon, and that is not close to what Henry reports, so logically I question my model, because it is the odd one out.

Does that make any sense Homer?

 

[Marconi]

Marconi, Please understand I have said many times before that I never removed any data from the CST image. It was provided to me exactly as you see and the gain has been quoted as 2dbd from the same source. The ONLY thing I did was add the company watermark to prevent misuse.

Donald, I did not say who removed the data block. Maybe Sirio did it, because they did not want the gain published in the specs to be in any question,

As I look at Henry's model you posted, I can easily see signs the antenna used in the model had very little effort applied at using any of the beamtilt ability I've clearly noticed in every application. Didn't you notice that free space model has a very obvious upward angle? More than any other free space models I've seen. Henry must know all he needs to do to correct that is raise the height of the cone and more gain will be on the horizon.

Donald this is just a model of the NV4K I suspect, nothing more and nothing less.

This is a free space model and height among other effects of Earth and environment have been removed from the model...height has no significance here.

CST does a lot of pretty stuff with their performance and image reports I suspect, and maybe this is just a perspective thing. It sure looks pretty to me, better than my old plane Jane Eznec.

 

[HomerBB]

Okay, Marconi. I understand your post better now.
I will have to go back to the article later tonight.
My Valentine wants my attention today...

On your model with 4.34 dbi (a net gain of 2.2 over an isotropic), what were the dimensions for the antenna you built in the model?

Thanks,
Homer

BTW, the Beamer still has more gain than the Dodge even with all the similarities between them.

 

[Marconi]

Okay, Marconi. I understand your post better now.
I will have to go back to the article later tonight.
My Valentine wants my attention today...

On your model with 4.34 dbi (a net gain of 2.2 over an isotropic), what were the dimensions for the antenna you built in the model?

Thanks,
Homer

BTW, the Beamer still has more gain than the Dodge even with all the similarities between them.

That is my New Vector 4000 to specs according to Bob's dimensions here on the forum. It is also isolated at the bottom of the mount or the bottom of the hub one. I'll get that in a bit.

What is a Beamer?

 

[Marconi]

The dimensions are in the wires descriptions on the bottom of each page. It is at 36' feet over average Earth, and the pattern is above in this thread showing models isolated.

 

[The DB]

What is a Beamer?

BMW, advertised as the "Ultimate Driving Machine"... I would love to own a BMW M3, if only I could afford one...


The DB

 

[HomerBB]

As for unanswered questions. I have asked and gotten answers that didn't answer my questions. It has been suggested that I read some technical reports to find answers, but I desist.

I have plainly asked for a resolution to a nagging discrepancy between the forwarding of the J-pole idea as the type of reference to this antenna.

A jpole is a 1/2 wave antenna. It has a 1/4 wave matcher beneath it. it reports gains of a 1/2 wave antenna. The lop-sided radiation pattern is due to the reflection/directivity of the short leg of the matcher beneath/adjacent to the 1/2 radiator. Because it radiates against the horizon it can be adjudged that it is a 1/2 wave despite its mechanical length.
It can not be argued that it is a 3/4 wave because there is no 1/4 wave inverse phase to drive the radiation upward into the clouds.

The V4k, on the other hand, has an inverse phase in the bottom 1/4 wave length of its 3/4 mechanical length. It is a 3/4 wave antenna. The cone contains the 1/4 wave inverse phase radiation not just because it is a cage like we keep zoo animals in, but because of the inverse phase current inside the cone with cancels the inverse field on the main radiators bottom 1/4 wave of length. The outside of the cone would also cause the the radiation of this antenna to go toward the clouds but for one thing, it has an in phase current on the outside of the cone. If it didn't every modeling engine would report a 40+ degree radiation of the main lobe. They don't. Part of the argument centers on whether this is a collinear. I don't care if it is a 1/2 wave to half wave collinear or not, as in the accepted traditional sense of a collinear, with a compressed radiation pattern to the horizon, but is is one thing - a 1/2 wave over 1/4 wave sectioned 3/4 wave antenna with the radiation at the horizon. Call it a collinear or not, it has properties that can be referenced to collinear type behaviors, as in
1.) mutually coupled in phase currents adding to gain against the horizon, and
2.) the ability to direct gain [aim, tilt?] in a desired direction.

Arguing that this isn't what Cebik meant is not profitable toward understanding what he meant, nor understanding the antenna itself. Venturing that this may be what he meant, IMO, does help to keep us focused on the things we do know about this antenna and could help everyone direct their attention to the goal of gaining additional understanding.

This forum is a good one. I enjoy it. It, however, has the sickening propensity of ripping apart anyone who fails to support the consensus. Men with good reputations and acceptance within the radio community have drifted away from here, and others have reportedly decided not to come on board because of this. And so here we are again.

 

[Shockwave]

Henry, forgive me while I update the group to things they may not have been aware of which may help determine your motives. Henry, do you remember when you asked me for permission to write your 40 page article and I was somewhat dumbfounded that you thought I should have the ability to stop you? You tried many times to get me to participate with your article but I questioned how that would be possible with my having such different experiences than the theory you're presenting?

I denied your request 3 times to participate citing this reason as not being productive. You asked me to provide the original CST image without my logo so you could use it on your site and I declined. You claim you have your model that looks the same but still had to use mine. I've asked many times that you show your CST model of the fields like the first one so we could compare. WHERE IS IT???

When you were pretending to require my permission (before you knew I was not going to participate) I told you to write what you want but under no circumstances were you to mention me, my company or product with any of your work. Not only was there a previous issue with the first photo you posted, the very fist page of your article has numerous direct references to my product and has failed to match any of the results everyone using them has been telling you.

Those users reading have been noticing that you have worked harder to prove your theory than how the antenna works. You've done your best to place the gains we see as either impossible or the result of anything other than the antenna itself. That includes everything from mast length to tip height even though it's been pointed out by users right here that we can confirm none of that lines up with the results.

Now I question if these mistakes were simply your attempt to prove your theory or were intended to be the personal attacks you and Bob have turned them into? In no uncertain terms, GET MY PRODUCT NAME OFF YOUR SITE NOW! You have nothing other than your own work of questionable motive to support your theory or to refute the results seen over decades. That's why I've told you numerous times I will not participate or have my product name associated with this nonsense. It's ridiculous how many times you've already done the same thing here.

Don't forget, it's not my theory I'm supporting. It's the theory L.B. Cebik suggested in his "non apparent collinear" description. I didn't say it was difficult to model. That was L.B. Cebik too. He also suggested the topic would create these types of debates. Do you think you did more to help us understand the Sigma or simply reinforced everything someone with a much greater understanding of antennas than us said? It's no coincident his theory matches the results much better than yours either.

 

[Marconi]

Homer I just posted a thread on the J-Pole, could we go there and keep this thread clean of other ideas for the moment. We can bring it back here anytime, if you agree?

BTW, I could not find anything specific on inverse currents, but it lead me to a Wiki reference to phased arrays. Check it out...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array

Check out my new thread on a JPole I modeled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array

 

[Shockwave]

Marconi, you know we don't often agree on issues regarding this antenna but I also question the way GHZ's model has been used to support Henry's theory. This has felt more like a court case to me than someone's reasonable application of a theory to fit what we have seen for decades. If the theory had a foundation, why has it shifted from showing evidence of that theory to personal attacks and accusations of lying? Wouldn't it be able to stand on it's own if the motive was to provide sound theory to match existing results?

Back to court and how it relates to things Homer mentioned. We've seen were lawyers can get two experts on opposing sides to create variables, circumstances and models to represent their argument. If Henry's goal were to have GHZ's model be most effective at doing anything from representing how a Sigma (or my antenna works) or to be most useful in viewing how changes from the stock version effect performance, couldn't he have made any effort to make the information he posts look more like the real antenna?

An unbiased person would certainly do this. Someone trying to argue that any gains the antenna produces were at an upward angle would take full advantage of the very differences we see in the first version of GHZ's model and make no effort to alter it so that it would resemble the antennas we work with or point out how those changes effected the results.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Owh guys...

A lot of things going...on

Ehm...hold on its allready 22.32 just returned from diner had a lovely day.
Let me see if i can adress to one or two before were of to bed.

Shockwave:
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.

Donald my test equipement is actually HP as allready mentioned.
You confirm it isnt accurate within 1 dB ....however you are able to measure 5,15 dI ?
You also have forgotten that the field strength device you are using isnt calibrated for vertical antennas ....as the MANUAL explains...doesnt it.

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

Donald if you write on your site near reviews something in the order of perfomance and the client doesnt support that ...that is not wise to do so.
As they will respond:

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

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.

I have had deep interest Donald, but if the atlantic transmitter supervisor tells me:
The antenna on our portable FM station has never been used.
We have no documentation towards gain and efficiency at this time.
Then I ask you: please share....but still I have nothing to work with...now why is that ?

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.

No Donald I just asked him....i never pestered him
And yes Donald it is strange wouldnt you think so if the only proof you seem to is the only broadcast engineer that tells the exact gain difference as is advertised ?

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.

You would like to think that i dont think it is a great performer
I think you missed some of my statements....it is but not because of what you claim

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.

Oke Donald...I think there are those who have "raised" the mast and noticed difference wouldnt you ?

The difference between you and me is: I say: I think that is most likley what cebik meant but you say it is....that is fine with me....Im trying not to do that with someone who can not speak anymore.

Kind regards,

H>

 

[Marconi]

Yea Donald I hear your echoes in my mind.

I'm just a crazy old man that don't know nut'in, and my goose is cooked.

I am currently trying to understand inverse currents, so I can talk to Homer about his new Beamer whatever that is.

I think it must have something to do with a new antenna he plans to build out of some old curtain rods and spare stuff down at the back dock of the shipping department.

Sorry I can't help, but thanks for asking.

 

[Henry HPSD]

@ all...

As I previous mentioned:

A general answer concering the ghz 24 model.

The model is there for "modelling" purposes.
It was only attached so people can work "around" it to get a good model.
Its meant to be a working model.
DB allready has discovered the value of it that is why it was there.

You see guys...for antennas....it is of no interest if the antenna is out of 1 diameter or not etc.

ehm...

A dipole which is 1 inch will have the same gain than a dipole which is "tappered" from 0.1 to 1 inch
But if you analyse it with free software like 4nec2 accuracy can lack.
So, it is good to work with but you need to know the limitations of NEC2 as with all modeling software. (as explained in the article)

DB is having fun with it...thats the use of it.

And of course the CST model etc was done accurate.
Which actually makes me thinks...

Donald...If I may ask...
What did Sirio supply a CST plot of the Domintor antenna or one of the VECTOR ?

Kind regards,

H.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Homber said:
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.

No homer it actually is.
And while one might consider it a collection of theories...
It is antenna theory. and it is a collection of it....for sure..
But nothing in it that is inaccurate....if there is please do say so.

Ill look at your post again...as I was under the impression marconi and dB or Bob answered your question in reference to freespace gain and gain over earth.
perhaps there are more...I missed it... will look give me some time..

Kind regards,

H>