sigma4 article is online

[Henry HPSD]

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.

No, you havnt removed any date Donald, i can back that up.
As it is the magnetic H field (near field) gain has not esthablished yet (as any theory book will tell) . Please provide that 2dBd quote !!! ...source text etc...


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

1- DONALD PLEASE LOOK AT YOUR OWN CST PLOT >WHERE IS THE ANTENNA TILT ?
2- Do you really think changing angle changes the gain of the dipoles ?
Do you really think that two phase dipoles have suddenly more gain than it is without ? as that is what you are trying to tell us ...

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.

Oke....show me.....as i so often say...

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?

Donald, again,
You are looking at the near H magnetic Field ...FAR FIELD Gain has not esthalbished yet. Although it migth be possible to insert it ...i dont know, but I did ask CST today, for any real antenna engineer it would make sence though.
However...you are asking me...that same question could be applied to you...
WHY ARE YOU SHOWING A PLOT WITH A/M instead of GAIN ?
I have allready shown you a video of the surface currents of the Dominator:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/9hxlrxlxbhh4hls/example surface currents.gif?dl=0


PLEASE SEE HOW THE ARROWS INDICAT THE CURRENT USING CST !
THEY ARE NOT IN PHASE .

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.

Indeed Donald, I dont have 36 years of experience...only 20

No Donald, it is not.
Im against your theory your 5,15 dBI that is my point that i dont agree with.

Now, each time you drag me into a converstation not talking about that..
Fine with me i can answer...
But it isnt really getting to the point is it ?

 

[Henry HPSD]

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.

Ah marconi...
I think you missed my conclusion...in what gain can we expect.;..
I said the antenna is capable of gain in the region of 2.2 to 2.5 dBi
(see article)

Kind regards,

H>

 

[Marconi]

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.

Ah marconi...
I think you missed my conclusion...in what gain can we expect.;..
I said the antenna is capable of gain in the region of 2.2 to 2.5 dBi
(see article)

Kind regards,

H>

I did miss that Henry. Thank you.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Oke...

If you would allow me....

Thats it for today...23.45 wife calls...off to bed.
And was allready doing other things...(sorry have more mail)

If there are tomorrow again 2 or 3 pages..
with all due respect it does cost some time, any urgent questions pse via pm.

I will start with Homber BB his post where i stopped now.

In the mean time Donald.....
Please Donald read post Nr 247 and if possible give something to work with instead of "debates"....

I need something to work with Donald..
A CST plot with gain (like I allready have provided for example)
proof from FCC or any other broadcast engineer.
As CBC Canda or the giant mast on your website and all those other reviews
Are NOT telling YOUR COLLINEAR 5,15 dBI story (as you can read in post 247.)
And yes, I do find i t misleading to indicate they do.

1500 users ....for sure you must have 1 percent who can provide some measurements ? Is that to much to ask ?

You can put this to rest rather easy....
Provide 1 percent of proof.

AH I have another option !

Why dont you post my article on QRZ.com or EHAM or any other (national) BROADCAST forum you want....and ask if it is accurate....

Im sure it will be your privilege to do that...

Kind regards,

H>

(owh and dont forget to confirm that downward angle in your CST plot at your website..)

 

[Shockwave]

You know what Henry, for years you've been the respectful, unbiased and polite person we have all come to know as you. I strongly suggest you consider how you've allowed this one project of yours to change or undermine the respect you've previously earned. I've asked so many questions just like others here have complained about that go unanswered. I don't even give a damn what you think about this antenna anymore since you've taken things much further now.

You've clearly deviated from any reasonable attempts at presenting a theory for that and gone way over the edge by showing just how untrustworthy you can be by having no respect whatsoever for anything dealing with privacy, not wanting to be associated with your unfounded theory or the use of my materials and product name on your site.

Now why not address anything in post 234 below? You know, the hard questions that would reveal your motives, and sneaky way you appeared to be giving an honest theory for an antenna design while still feeling the need to use my CST plot instead of the one you said "looked the same" or ignoring the only important things asked of you requiring trust? Like post what you want but leave me, my company name and product names out of your proposed theory?

Did you feel you needed to post that to display your theory like the collinear pictures too? How about you REMOVE MY PRODUCT NAME IMMEDIATELY and adhere to just a few of the things we discussed in the 4 way conversation prior to going public with this nonsense??? You only put these things into your "report" to bolster your personal attacks and severs no purpose to support your theory. Act like the respectable man you can be when you want.

You are also formally requested to remove my CST model from your commercial website Henry. That model was provided to me for my use. I shared it here in order to do the very thing you claim to be doing now, help others understand how the Sigma really works. You've abused any privilege to use my copy write protected material with my company name on it in your personal attacks. All while providing nothing but your personal work as supporting evidence.

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.

 

[HomerBB]

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.

Marconi, why are you picking on me?
I simply used a reference to my wife's car, a BMW or Beamer, to illustrate that things can be very similar yet be very different in performance, like the performance difference between a mid-sized Dodge and a sporty coupe.
I hope you are not attacking my use of common materials I use to build antennas.
I really hope not. I think it would not work to anyone's advantage to point that out considering my homebrewed antenna has outperformed anything else I have used. Even the end fed half waves I've made for a few friends are getting reviews from them to fellow operators of their better results over the manufactured antennas they were using.
You and I have populated more than one thread meticulously working together on some of the antennas I've made from "curtain rods and spare stuff"

I have disagreed on some things, but I have not mocked anyone.

I hope I've misunderstood.

 

[HomerBB]

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>

Marconi explained that in much the same words.

 

[Shockwave]

Homer, wouldn't it have been better if this theory could explain how you see the same typical improvements over other antennas even with yours isolated from the mast and coax? With antennas tested at the same tip height too? I fail to understand how he went from simply ignoring everyone who disagreed with his theory to attacking them in order to defend the theory.

 

[Shockwave]

Henry, here is another collinear theory I just thought of in 15 minuets. You know lengthening an element in your models causes the angles to increase above 0 degrees. You have mentioned the effect many times trying to connect it to your 1/2 wave theory suggesting it can't produce a useful result here. You also know shortening an element has the reverse effect of "pulling" the angle down. Now accept the fact you could be wrong for just a moment and think of the Sigma as a 1/2 wave over a 1/4 wave collinear.

What happens if the half wave has been tuned to compress or electronically tilt the angle down. Now what happens if the smaller 1/4 wave below is tuned a little longer and "pushes" its pattern into the 1/2 wave above it? Is it so hard for you to see the possibility where some collinear effect is possible for the small 2 or 3 dbd increase in distant gains responsible for things like "hearing stations that other antennas fail to pick up at all"? How much experience if any do you have working with an accurate representation of the antenna in the "fringe (weak) coverage zone"?

 

[Marconi]

Marconi, why are you picking on me?
I simply used a reference to my wife's car, a BMW or Beamer, to illustrate that things can be very similar yet be very different in performance, like the performance difference between a mid-sized Dodge and a sporty coupe.
I hope you are not attacking my use of common materials I use to build antennas.
I really hope not. I think it would not work to anyone's advantage to point that out considering my homebrewed antenna has outperformed anything else I have used. Even the end fed half waves I've made for a few friends are getting reviews from them to fellow operators of their better results over the manufactured antennas they were using.
You and I have populated more than one thread meticulously working together on some of the antennas I've made from "curtain rods and spare stuff"

I have disagreed on some things, but I have not mocked anyone.

I hope I've misunderstood.

I was just feeling silly Homer, I was doing the same kind of silliness over in the new thread I made to show how a nice J-Pole is not even close to being as bad as some try to make it. IMO, if the J-Pole was so bad, why did Cebik devote so much time and words talking about the J-Pole...instead of talking about the S4/NV4K...which looks to solve all of the apparent little problems with a 1/2 wave radiator on top of a 1/4 wave below, call it what you will. I figure the reason we don't find anything about the S4 design in the writings for Cebik...is due to it being consider a simple 1/2 wave antenna and nothing specials, but what a couple of feet higher with another 1/2 wave will fix about as well.

I also have an idea that this idea of inverse currents in just another way of saying currents are out/in phase, and A/C is always switching back and forth in this regard a gillion times a minute.

I think you asked me a question about something profound to our understanding and you used the term inverse currents. So, I asked you to define or describe what inverse currents means to you and maybe if you will how it applies to antennas.

I looked it up on the Internet and it looks to simply suggest the word opposite. I tried to find some understandable applications where the word is used in the hobby, and the I think what I found may just be referring to the simple actions of A/C current, but somehow that just sounds too simple.

I also looked up the term in a search here on the forum, and it looks like CDX 007 and Donald coined the term, some time in the past, while discussing the 1/8 wave portion of a 5/8 wave base...that is out of phase with the top radiator.

IMO this use of the idea is OK, but it is mostly about appearing to talk savy high tech speak, and making stuff sound more important in the process. It is common sort of activity in the world today, and I feel sorta' left behind sometimes in my own language, and I'm just a simple kink of guy.

I was trying to be silly, and at the same time being rather sagacious, an adjective some might use to sound sophisticated and smart.

Maybe you can forgive me.

Now could you tell us what we need to know about inverse currents in the base of the S4 or the I-10K for example, so I might understand and get a minds eye on the idea?

 

[HomerBB]

@ Donald I hear ya.

@All
I think I'm done with this.
It is not sorting anything out; at least not for me.
I will not reverse my position on the experience I've had with the antenna.
The article does nothing at all toward finding out why Homer has experienced what he has. I have history with it, and despite what Henry's article is about, it does not seek to understand why the antenna behaves as it does. Henry has not resolved that question.

Because I have had the experience i have this is Henry's decision for me"

What could be the reason the antenna has gained such a good reputation?
6
-
THE AVERAGE USERS:
Before we start comparing as we should do, there are some situations that could happen to the “average user”
Situations that could possibly influence the “average user” or their judgment.
Although it’s not all scientific, they need to be mentioned as they could have an impact.

Just imagine a person:

Who just bought the antenna new and is going home with it.
Of course excited to find out how the antenna will perform.
That user (as often indicated on the forum) could have the impression:
A half wave vertical will produce the same gain as a dipole and the 5/8 wave antenna has more gain,
Some provide an indication that there is a “magical” .64λ that provides maximum gain.
And perhaps we are in a situation; where the new antenna will replace the old antenna on the same mast.
The above doesn’t sound so strange, we need to realise however that just by “being” that person we already
have mentioned several “pitfalls” that could influence judgement.

Including some “social” aspects:

1- We were “happy” in the car driving home with the antenna..
We have obtained a “new” antenna; we spent “money” in order to expect improvement.
The mind is “set” for “better”.

2-The antenna is long...probably bigger than any antenna they have had in the past.
That mechanical aspect “it is bigger” enforces the “mind” to think it is...it must be.
And we are told very often “bigger is better”.

And we have some “mechanical” aspects:

1-It is most likely to be replacing an old antenna.
Perhaps the old one was not performing to its abilities anymore.
For example: On the “VERON ANTENNE MEETDAG” an old large UHF Yagi was tested for gain.
They noticed gain went up as soon as they start “polishing” the antenna.

2-And who knows: besides changing the antenna..
We also may have changed the coax ?

The only other possibility Henry proposes for my results is that I put it on the same mast as the previous shorter antenna so that it sticks up higher in the sky because it is longer (I have made it clear that has not been the case, but that I had reduced the over all height of the V4k when necessary to test against shorter antennas, and raised shorter antennas up when I physically could).

Under these circumstances I do not think the matter of personal interest to me is addressed at all. Instead, I am answered in a way that says I am just a rather uninformed neophyte.

So, I have no time for this. I am just Homer, who builds antennas out of curtain rods.
Just in case anyone wonders, I do wash behind my ears, every Saturday whether I need to or not.

@Eddie
I accept that about silliness.
I simply meant what you thought - out of phase currents. I didn't mean to confuse you.

 

[Marconi]

Homer, I thought I was being pretty funny, but I guess nobody is laughing. Did you check out my j-Pole thread?

How about telling us more about your idea on inverse currents and the S4, I-10K, or whatever antenna you choose? I want to know and understand what you are trying to tell us before I try and respond to your question, dilemma.

 

[HomerBB]

I did look at the thread on the J-pole. I downloaded the models and opened them up to look at them. This Ubuntu Linux computer won't open them until i download them.

 

[Shockwave]

For one of the most polite, respectful and unbiased members of the forum to so quickly show a completely different nature of ignoring all opposing results, disrespecting peoples requests to not be directly associated with their unfounded theory or attacking anyone's credibility that provides stronger evidence to contradict them, I have to strongly question these new motives.

When another member has felt strong enough in their own field tests for decades that they contact L.B.Cebik directly and confirm the "non apparent collinear" theory only to immediately reverse all prior findings based on such a flimsy new theory and then calls his strongest ally in years of supporting his findings and what Cebik said to him a liar, you're damn right I'm starting to question what the hell is truly motivating this?

Then we wonder why there aren't more knowledgeable people willing to stand up and share what they know in light of how despicable some participants can become when they have nothing left to stand on to support their opposing view?

 

[Henry HPSD]

Having had another look at the entire thread.
Im not happy it has turned into this direction.

My only goal was to provide an insight to the claims made.
I think I have done that.
Although i asked to provide some facts instead of personal attacks
I realise there wont be any.

I also realise some will try to drag you into those "personal attacks".
And although I tried to remain with facts instead of accusations.
Im not happy with it...at all.....really I am not.

I thank those for participating with useful questions.
I hope most will have gained some knowledge of antennas along with it.

I wish those who will insist ongoing to put me or others in a bad spotlight good luck
And hope they can look at them self in the mirror, it is indeed not my cup of tea....
And I certainly have no interest to continue in that direction.

I have learned a lot....not about antenna theory...but for most about people.

As often mentioned....im still...I'm always willing to debate ...discuss .....but not in this way, not if it isnt about the antenna anymore

Kind regards,

H>