sigma4 article is online

[Marconi]

@Marconi and Henry
I have never tested this antenna by looking at the S units on a meter. I did compare several homebrew mobiles that way once to a single test station, but never the V4k nor any of the antennas I compared to it. I have never said anything except I was able to work stations with this antenna i never heard on any of the others. I also said the AP was better at doing this than all of them except the V4k when I raised it to the same tip height as all the others. My proofs were not based on S-units. I know that is too unreliable. I inserted no other variable other than comparing the antennas ability to read stations at a given distance compared to each other. I didn't even offer the standard approximation of read quality such as 5/9, 5/8, 3/8, etc.

Homer, I have talked into the San Antonio area many times, on my SD'r, A99, just about whatever I've ever had up. I did not know how that was possible, but I sure didn't consider it was specifically due to the antenna altogether. My antennas work good and when they don't, I might try and figure out why. To tell the truth I have never figured out why one works or why one works farther than I've talked before. That has happened to me a lot, and I consider them all exceptions that I cannot explain. Many of such contacts were repeated many times and sometimes they were the only contact ever, and they were gone. IMO it is not typical that CB guys just come on and stop radioing shortly thereafter, and it doesn't make sense. A lot of my contacts over the years were just anomalies and others I know were not, and I can tell the difference if they are not repeat contacts over some period of time beyond a few days. I figure when I can chew the rag and DX is not prevailing...that is a good solid local contacts, but
a contact that is as one timer or very infrequent...I consider those an anomaly. I know you know the difference, I'm just saying stuff happens on the radio. I usually have at least 2 antennas up and working, and I switch to check responses. I have see differences, but I have never seen a contact on one that I could not see on the other. I have had times when I might hear but not fully copy, and if that happens...then I might consider that the antenna in part. Aside from that, I figure there is a difference in the installs and the location...so how then do we tell?

This is why I average my signal reports with folks I know, I know where they are if on a base. and I don't report just one contact here and there and for sure if the contact might just be an anomaly. I might make a note on the signal report, but I don't include it for several reasons and I never did that either at least when figuring the results. If I did, I made a note and that makes the contact for me unusual. Henry's reports were done to avoid all that. Check out on the Internet about Antenna Ranges. If Henry's real world testing concerns you...then a real range will give you all kinks of doubts and questions, they often are way less than 18 miles in range. Sirio comes to mind as showing their test facilities. Check it out. Henry did not do long range testing.

I use to talk almost every day talk to a buddy in Franklin Texas. Check that on your map. Did I think it was because I had a certain CB antenna up, NO! I've been to his home several times and I've even talked to buddies in mobiles back in Houston, one using a radio shack magnet antenna on his trunk.

IMO, I don't think Henry's real testing consider making the longest distance contact possible as a result. That is what Donald's customers do if necessary.

How did you determine your longest contact? Did you know for sure where the guy you talked to really was? I've made contacts to Bernie Texas before. It was to Lee Whiting, and he is on this forum. I've talked to several on this forum up close to Dallas and Shreveport too. I did not think any of that was specifically due to antenna and DX was not routine at those times or I would have consider DX was possible. Strange things happen when working our radios, and that little weak voice out there makes a call that we can copy is not easily explained.

Read the report again and I think you might see the roadblocks from Donald are always like Rabbit Holes, his ideas are all over the place, trying to preserve the mystery in design that is hiding the high gains reported. He and others have done that very same thing to me for some years now...since I stopped agreeing with there every word. Even my long time friend on this forum Mr. Bob85.

Consider also that it comes to light now that everything Donald is referring to might just be the results from his Dominator...somewhere on a 360' foot tower. How does that compare to our CB stuff?

Where is you practical-self, common sense thinking right now...that we all know and have come to appreciate Homer.

 

[Shockwave]

@ Homer:
If I offende you in anyway...i am sorry...it was never intended that way for you.

That sounds like the same thing you told me before I consistently pointed out how little of your results match anyone else's. How long will you allow Homer to object before you intend to offend him like anyone who vehemently disagrees with your ideas over their findings?

1.) "is this a 1/2 wave, or is it a 3/4 wave?

Hmm...always difficult to give a yes or no answer...
well its a 3/4 wave.

2.) If it is a 1/2 wave why does no other 1/2 wave perform as well at the same current maximum height? [the models say they do, but you, Bob, me, Donald, and others say other 1/2 waves do not]

Lets look at it from another perspective:
You probarbly have witnessed several S units different from time to time ?

But how would that be possible if the advertised gain is 4,15 dBI ?
That would mean it is only 2dB "better" compared to a dipole.
Well 6dB is one S unit ....so we are speaking about a fraction of an S unit.....
Though often we "see" more improvement ?

The much better question would be to address the actual results you've heard for years and ask yourself how it's possible to hear stations other 1/2 waves can't and then tell us how much more efficient using a 1/4 wave J-Pole matching stub combined with a gamma much be to make your theory work.

How is that possible if evan we know some manufacturers are "optimistic" with gain figures ?

And yes, we oten see more diference between antennas.
That can only indicate there are "causes"...
But not the "freespace gain figure" of the antenna it self.

What those diferences are ?
.....oef so many....and they can not be desribed for each situation
Antenna height, diffent coax, ground circumstances CMC, obejct...near by other antennas etc etc.
Homer, i realise you would like a staigth up answer...but i can not provide.

I think the real reason you cannot provide an answer is you already know Homer has taken the time to eliminate every last variable you mention and yet still finds it impossible to fit his results in with anything you've said.

But I can promisse....there always is a reason.
As it is not possible that a dipole suddenly has "more gain" than a dipole
And that is true for all antennas.

So it can only indicate for some reason the 'other" peforms "worse".

Ehm...you could try to make a J pole ? and compare that with a Vector ?
(same materials etc and of course switch between the masts etc)...
But it would be interesting to "see" any difference ...
As i was unable to do so. (besides the "not complete round pattern of J pole)
And that is allready "very accurate".

If you've found no difference between this and a J-Pole, that a point where you're just about by yourself on that one. Few who worked with that antenna will agree. The results are more like the one strong side on the J-pole is closer to all sides on the Sigma. The two behave so much differently in the one area of CMC alone I'm surprised you would even suggest such things.

3.) if it is a 3/4 wave why does the main radiation lobe not go out/up at a 40+ degree angle?

Because its a mechanical 3/4 wave.
Look at it as an halve wave antenna with a 1/4 wave mast underneath.
And that 1/4 mast is also capable of chaninging the high impedance to low impedance.

Rephrasing the same thing as though you can make Homer forget his mast isolated and his antennas were at the same tip height.

4.) if it is radiating against the horizon and is 3/4 wavelength long then why is the lower 1/4 wave of radiation so typically out of phase to the upper 1/2 wave of the antenna not pushing the radiation steeply upward?

That is cause the bottom part of the antenna isnt really radiating the "radiation wave" yet.
That is "made" around the antenna from the combination of fields. and at say ....10 wavelengths from the antenna we really have our "wave" as we know it.
Near the antenna its "forming".
And if you watch that "surface wave" film you can notice the currents are opposite.
(one go up...and other radial go down)
The net result of that is zero.....yes there are "fields", but those fields "cancel" each other

Now if only the gains we see went away at 10 wavelengths rather than showing the opposite effect of being most noticeable at 50 miles, your theory might fit this antenna.

The 30 Km thing:
Well, antenna radiation always becomes weaker as soon as we have more distance.
(not talking about skip conditions of course)

That can be found from the "friss formula".
(google.....friss transmission equation or so)

What it comes down to...
A signal will get weaker with distance "equal" for all antennas.
(of course things like gain is a primairy aspect)

Seems like you're ignoring the pattern compression that even this "non apparent collinear" antenna has been demonstrating in the field since 1979. How did you get Bob to ignore "hearing stations others couldn't"?

There are things to "influence".
As antenna "tilt".
But that only is used if you are for example in a valley and want "up"
(or visa versa) like :cell phone communication
(thats why those antennas are often "tilted"). and there are "other" situations.
But all those situations are "direct line of sight where the issue often is because of "height" ...too deep vally....too high building ....etc.
Tilting the antenna is elevating....its "rotating" the beam...but then vertical.

Oke...so if we want maximum signal at distance...we need to "beam" to the horizon.I think it is fair to say...for most that would roughly be without tilt.

So now you ignore the fact that ground reflections will always be pushing the signal above the horizon and assume using electronic beam tilt has no possibility of effectively placing more energy on the distant horizon? If this was just theory and no one could see the results over the last 36 years, this might have legs.

The argument that "tests" need to be done at a distance beyond 30 Km.
Is not really of interest.
As if i would enlarge my power...that distance would go futher away.
If I would lower my power....it will become smaller....

Nice try. As though power levels are going to have any effect on the basic shape of the antennas pattern or the angle where most energy will be directed.

It however very true that S meters often indicate "more" at low reading...
And it is true the "wave" behaves different over various grounds.
(sea water = perfect !
And it is true that things like the frequency and the polarisation have influence on that "wave".
It is not for nothing that MW broadcast use long verticals and can be heard over large regions.

But for us on 27 MHz?
If needed I could just turn my power down so low..that it is "just readible"
Its oke... gain difference between antennas should not "change" over distance.
Ehm...well not entirly true...but that goes to deep....
Overall you can say :
If I measure S1 difference with low power at 5 Km i should measure S 1 difference at 50 km with high power...

People with first hand experience are never going to buy this other than Bob. You are now conflicting with just about every report ever given on Sigma results to defend this theory. Increasing the power level, increases every area of the patterns signal equally. Compressing the pattern takes energy that is spread above and below the target area and pushes it out further. The local effect are much less then the distant effect in these cases. Just like has been reported in the field for decades.

Hope it was of use.

With descriptions like "this thread is in shatters" it fairly safe to assume it's not been helpful to anyone other than Bob who reversed not only his ideas but all of his years of field testing too. Other than that, you've made Marconi very happy and shocked the heck out of just about everyone else that can't fit your ideas into anything we see.

 

[Shockwave]

Your own words Henry.

1) The plan is to obtain proof and write a detailed `vector 4000 exposed` .

Sounds innocent enough, now where is any proof other than some models and your own personal work to support this? Why is the standard of proof so much higher for everyone else and all you have to do is tell us about your theory and some models?


2) This I will not be doing open on the forum as im not interested in what `others` have to say
Your actions are in alignment with the second part of that statement. Towards anyone that wasn't willing to let you replace their experiences with your opinion like Bob did.

3) I will not put it on the forum as i again im not interested in debates with those who are unable to `think`.

That one really gives us an idea how you think of others that don't have an experience that agrees with your ideas.

4) i certainly do not want to be the guy who proofs him wrong

And you haven't.

5) It was I who found it "fair" to inform him wasn't it ?

6) It was I who told him .....

7) It was I who had an INDEPENDENT CST source confirming.

8) It was I who did every test he wanted ....

9) It was I who revealed the truth in the end.

Can any of you see yourself hiring someone with views like this to form an unbiased theory for anything?

Self proclaiming you've revealed the truth here should be subject to a much more unbiased opinion to say the least. Why did you decide to do us all this favor of explaining the Sigma now Henry and not wait until you had a much stronger theory to fit the experience of countless users including Bob? If you revealed the truth it would be resembling the results and we would have much less conflict between your theory and actual users. You can say I've taken your quotes out of context but the fact is you have actually shown you don't care about anything that disagrees with your theory, just like you told me when I wouldn't participate.

When you look at all things considered it appears more like you took a definite position and put all effort into displaying that position. To defend it this way, as you told us you would do in this thread allows others to question if it's even possible for you to present an unbiased theory now. I for one would have little faith at this point in your ability to confirm anything other than what you've already decided on by the way you're able to ignore all results in favor of your theory.

I suspect you'll say the same about me in this respect but the difference is I've decided to believe my eyes. While I am willing to change the reasons I think are responsible for what I've seen, you can never expect others to change what they have seen to fit your reasoning. I still wonder how you influenced Bob to be so unsure of his years of field tests that he was confident enough to attack mine that have been in agreement for so long. Use what ever magic you used on him and maybe you'll get the same results.

 

[Shockwave]

Henry, I'm also fed up with the nice front you put up whenever you can and the total nuisance you make yourself into towards people who disagree too much for your likings. The term liar fits one who says they are going to removed my product name from their website after "accidentally" placing it there, telling us it's gone and keeps the connection of my name to your theory on your site here: http://cb-antennas.com/?page_id=965 At the bottom of your page you have intentionally replaced your previous description of Sigma IV / Vector 4000 with my product name. I hit refresh and used another computer too so that excuse is covered.

You have been told to remove it, made excuses to deny the connection, agreed to fix your mistake, and proved to be a liar again. Why not let everyone know why you won't keep your word. Because one of your priorities was to defame me and my business in your unexplainable efforts with Bob! YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR CB ANTENNA BUSINESS AT RISK HENRY. BE A RESPECTABLE MAN AND GET ANY REFERENCE TO ME OFF YOUR SITE TODAY OR RISK PAYING THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR UNFOUNDED ACTIONS!!! THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING.

I'm not the only one who sees you obviously have some other motives you refuse to acknowledge. Your efforts with Bob to destroy anyone else's credibility are clearly backfiring on both of you. If you keep attacking my business with zero evidence I'm going to start requesting the moderators delete this entire useless tread based on the actions the two of you have displayed with nothing to back it. You are also teaching people who know better to not even bother.

Some people less familiar with the internet may not be aware of the devious things you're trying to do Henry so I'll explain how just having my product name on your site as long as possible is what you want. Could it be your goal was to have the internet search engines make the connection between my site and your unfounded theory in people's searches? Your premature request on your site that everyone link to that page as though you've solved the mystery rather than started a new one is also questionable.

Could these be some reasons you've convinced Bob to claim only the theory has changed but he can still somehow vigorously attack my results that agree with all of his previous ones? Be very careful how loudly any of you profess the true findings because some can't be trusted to act responsibly if their lives depended on it.

 

[HomerBB]

The time stamp on this post is not when I wrote it. I actually thought I had hit post two hours ago.

Marconi, I have thought all of that through. More than once. I understand exactly what you're saying. We all have had that weird other dimensional-like RF thing happen to us.

I asked folks where they were after I listened to them for a while. I listened to them so I might ascertain their locations without giving anyone a chance to fool me. Listening to groups of rag chewers that never showed up in my receive with other antennas on more than one occasion with only this antenna is a bit different than the occasional odd radio thing.
I have had a 1/2 wave vertical center fed dipole in the air for several months now and I have yet to hear anyone on it at thee distances I have with the V4k.

I understand what the difference between a 3/4 wave mechanical length and a 3/4 electrical length is. I also have a 1.25 wave extended dipole mounted horizontally now. I was supposed to experience more gain from it, but it is a poorer performer than the full wave loop inside my attic, or the 1/2 wave dipole. It may have more gain, but it don't matter. it is less good for either local or DX work. Its gain isn't working for me. I have decided it must be mounted in the wrong place. It is just above 1/2 wavelength above the earth, but only 5' above my roof. The practical ability to think things through has not deserted me. Here is the irony of that. I have worked a 1/2 wave dipole, and a full wave loop from the exact location with better results.

Two points here: more gain is only as good as the overall setup. One puts together an antenna system, not just an antenna. The longer dipole is obviously not in an optimum environment.
And, I am less interested in the antenna being an e3/4 or an e1/2 antenna than I am in exploring the reason why it is such a good performer. As Donald has said has said, the several variables set forth as possible explanations are not present at my QTH.

I want to stay on track here, but I see another potential area of inconsistency arising.
It has been said that a few feet at low elevation can make a lot of difference, but at high elevations it would not, yet, the fact that Donald's antennas are very high up is cited as a possible disqualification for entering his experiences into this discussion.
This deserves clarification.

As for Donald only just now revealing how high he mounts his customers antennas in some cases, that just isn't true. I have always known he uses this type antenna for commercial application where high mounted antennas are common. We all should have known this. Even if we didn't make an issue of it in the past discussions, it is a bit awkward that we have waited until the article came out to make an issue of it.
It may be the high up mounted commercial versions have an advantage over my lower mounted CB version, but the playing field is very even when he sees better results between his antennas and the previous antennas he replaced in the same way I have continued to insist I experienced between my CB antennas.

Homer

 

[Shockwave]

I want to stay on track here, but I see another potential area of inconsistency arising. It has been said that a few feet at low elevation can make a lot of difference, but at high elevations it would not, yet, the fact that Donald's antennas are very high up is cited as a possible disqualification for entering his experiences into this discussion.
This deserves clarification.

As for Donald only just now revealing how high he mounts his customers antennas in some cases, that just isn't true. I have always known he uses this type antenna for commercial application where high mounted antennas is common. We all should have known this. Even if we didn't make an issue of it, it is a bit awkward that we have waited until the article came out to make an issue of it.
It may be the high up mounted commercial versions have an advantage over my lower mounted CB version, but the playing field is very even when he sees better results between his antennas and the previous antennas he replaced in the same way I have continued to insist I experienced between my CB antennas.

Homer

The clarification or reasons can be found in their actions.

1) The way Bob hasn't begun to discount his own field tests (yet) but can now call my results that are in near perfect agreement with his, lies.

2) The way Henry quietly attacks my credibility by posting my product name with his unfounded theory. The only reason to change the original title on his website from Sigma IV / Vector 4000, to using my name was to be as destructive as he could on a personal level. Something he could be held liable for.

3) They are no longer capable of being accurate or admitting any fault in their theory. They now want us to think some efficient 1/2 wave like the Astroplane could produce the same results on the right mast and at the same height. Valuable antennas that Henry just happens to have acquired many of for sale on his site, at the time he published his 40 page report.........

"The Truth Is Out There If you open your eyes and go look rather than sit arguing on here."

 

[HomerBB]

Thanks to all for doing what you have.

I think the discussion regarding Henry's article has lost its way. It looks like some long time friendships could be broken now. Who wants this?

I appear to be Donald's cheering section, which isn't my intention. It should be clear I want real answers instead of snarling at each other. if this sets me up to appear to have taken sides it is likely because he and I are sill sharing a particular point of view.
I have only tried to force some clarity into the disjointed dialog and make forward progress. I think most of those who might be trying to follow the thread likely have no idea what Henry's article is saying so it is necessary that someone try to get the thread back into a plain language discussion. It is human nature to believe the person who shouts the loudest, and shouting someone down is much easier than explaining technical details in plain language.

I am not sure I really have very much ongoing personal interest in engaging much antenna talk in the future. I want to enjoy the antennas I make, and fighting over them takes that away. It will be difficult to remove the levels of suspicion the ranker expressed in the discussion has fostered. Who can you believe when decent speech is set aside in preference for insults?

I know far less than some folks. I hoped to learn. But I seem to get the impression that much of what is being said reveals so much insecurity I am beginning to question whether those who would enlighten folks like me actually are as firmly knowledgeable as they would have me believe. A source I trust says that real wisdom is first of all peaceable, and easily expressed.

Please do not misunderstand me. I like everyone, but I can't be a part of what may be a game of charades where all the motions make us think of a thing, but the illustrator is not the real thing at all.


I'm a little disillusioned. I wanted to have fun and learn. I am not having fun right now.

Thanks for putting up with my thoughts.

Homer

 

[Shockwave]

If you thought the antenna comparison tests Henry did at only 16 miles away was an inaccurate indication of this antennas "fringe coverage" capabilities, you probably missed the wonderful test conditions he used to show equal gain to the infamous J-Pole. The test he conducted to measure the improvements in distant gain we have been claiming for years was taken at a mere 30 wavelengths in distance as shown on page 40 of his report! Henry measured gain across the street. Exactly where it's already been confirmed not to be noticed and just what one would do if their goal were to make it look more like a 1/2 wave.

 

[bob85]

Who you believe is your choice Homer,
Nobody can tell you what to believe, its down to your own perception of truth,

All i ask is go back and read what has been said,
My opinion of the antenna at the heights we use them has not changed,
They do out perform any 5/8 i ever owned up to heights above ground greater than i ever used one,

Look again at who is willing to give answers backed up with proof,
If you don't understand whats been claimed ask,

Look back at who is ignoring what is said, Not answering any technical questions,
Not having any technical explanation other than parroting my incorrect ideas from way back,

Making impossible claims of only providing the gain on the horizon,
Antennas don't work like that please go ask somebody you trust,

Ask how antenna gain is measured in the real world,
Think about anechoic chambers,
Think about antenna test ranges,

If you are not confident who is speaking the truth go ask elsewhere, ask people you do trust,

Henry's article is the most informative article ever seen on cb antennas IMHO,

He is more that willing to explain it if asked and more than willing to accept critique if you have something to bring to his attention that You feel needs addressing,

More than willing to have his article posted on broadcast or amateur websites for more knowledgeable people than us to look at,

You are right Homer antennas should be fun,
All this shouting is getting us nowhere other than burying a great article in a pile of crap,
Its the only way to make this go away when you have nothing to back up your claims,

Go back and look at the evidence, ask questions,

Check out the avanti bulk buy on TM1 and discover the truth about that and Henry's none commercial part in it,

Understand it was me that posted the link to the article on here,
would i do that knowing it proves my long time ideas where wrong if i did not want the truth to be understood,

Let your heart tell you who is been truthful and who is not.

 

[Shockwave]

I changed my mind with this post. It's not worth pointing out all the times Bob told us how this antenna "shines in the distance" himself and the complete contradiction we see now see based on theory that has always been present and nothing new. Manipulating the pattern with electronic beamtilt so more is focused on the distant horizon is simply not a gain you can measure across the street and you know it. Otherwise you would not have made the effort to adjust the lengths of the two elements to peak your gain at the long distances you've stated here for years.

I also did not just "parrot" your old theory that you changed your mind about. We both adopted Cebik's "Non apparent collinear" theory because it was the only one fitting the results we've seen for many years, which still stand. Be honest and accurate please.

 

[HomerBB]

I am just trying to calm this thread down. What I said about trusting folks was meant to say this is the way others seeking ideas will react. Nothing said about theory and testing and individuals field results has escaped me. This thread has the potential for a lot of valuable learning, but has been ruined at times by the noise.

Let me illustrate. Someone gave my wife and I a gift card to a restaurant. We went there and ate. The food was not particularly to our taste, but it was free. The card value was sizable, so we went back again to eat for free. We found something on the menu we liked, however the music was so loud both times people were literally shouting over it to be heard. The cacophony for us was intolerable. We asked the server if they could do something about it. He ignored us and said he liked it like that.
Just this weekend my wife and I discussed where we'd like to eat. There is still a balance on that gift card, but we agreed that the food is not worth the noise. We payed for our meal elsewhere instead.
I can still taste that delicious sauce they make, but I can't get past the noise to eat it . . .

Who I believe is not always my choice. It is actually up to those who offer insights to package their comments in a way that the message is palatable.

Bob, I was not trying to deprecate anyone, just making a reasonable plea for restraint so the good things being served here are not out shouted by the loud music.

I was in public speaking for many years as a minster of the gospel. The biggest challenge I faced was to deliver my message in a way that folks would hear me. I still believe the message I shared is true, necessary, and deserving of attention as I did then. And I know now as I learned then that the most important part of the sermon was the speaker, not the content. The content would speak for itself if the speaker did not let his personality, anger, frustration, or opinion cloud the content to the extent the message was buried beneath it all.

Thanks for listening.
I'll not speak of it again.
Homer,
(aka The Country Preacher)

 

[HomerBB]

It seems to me everyone is in agreement about one thing on two levels:
The antenna outperforms other antennas of its own electrical class,
or it has the potential to do so in an optimum setup.

Where some depart in agreement it seems is by what Cebik meant by "non-apparent collinear".

I can not say, but trying to look at the structure of the term itself it looks like a case could be made for it being either a description of the antenna, or a description of the activity of the antenna in terms of its similarity of producing either beam tilt or compressing the radiation toward the horizon.

I think it is the later that Donald has been trying to explore in this thread. Am I right?

It also occurs to me that Donald and Bob see this action as wholly the result of the a 1/2 wave antenna with a superior matcher. Am I seeing this right?

As an interested bystander who know but one thing - this antenna has consistently performed better than any other vertical I've flown at all comparisons, mount the same, tips the same, current maximums in the same zone - I am still waiting for the answer to why the AP, a lossless matched antenna as much as one can be, or a Starduster (some swear it is a 1/2 wave) did not perform as well in the field for me.

Eddie, says his experiences with these different type antennas had them all so closely performing that there is virtually no perceivable difference. Correct, Marconi?

The only stick in the mud for me is Bob reported superior performance over other antennas, as I do, and Donald has years of this experience in the commercial field, so much so that he has put his reputation and livelihood into this finding.

I think the article has explored the various components of the antenna well. I just haven't seen the final nail in the coffin which is resolving the reason for performance advantage for this antenna when the parts come together.

Bob and I are CB guys. We work at a pretty low elevation. Many things can be speculated on about why we see what we see. Okay.

Take us out for a moment and try to tell some of us why Donald's antennas at the distances above earth they are often (if not always) mounted have for decades proven themselves over dipoles that many consider to be the most low loss 1/2 wave antennas out there.
Is this okay with you, Donald?

 

[Shockwave]

Homer, your words are "soothing" and make sense. I was having no problem dealing with anyone's views even when they didn't agree with mine, I resisted going to blows over it until two people intentionally decided to switch from antenna theory to making it a personal attack against the one professing their opposing results the loudest.

I don't think any of us in good conscious would consider the way my product name and business name have been posted with Henry's theory to be a fair tactic in the least. It should be obvious to anyone reading, that this was an underhanded move by Henry to deliberately try and stifle or punish me for continuing to disagree with his theory in favor of my experiences.

This is actually a serious matter where both Henry and Bob have abused their privileges here on the forum by taking it from a theory on antennas to attempting to use it as fact in their personal attacks that should be recognized for what it is. I think we should expect Henry to defend his theory without the need to attach me or my business.

He should remove my CST image branded with my company name and any reference to my product name from his website without further excuse. Then the tone of this conversation might be able to return to what it should be.

Let's not forget, Henry oddly enough asked me for permission to post his theory and all I asked in return was to leave me and my product out of his theory based on the fact it was not fitting the results or the "non apparent collinear" theory Mr. Cebik presented.

 

[HomerBB]

Donald, I can not answer for any of the above. I think Henry's position can exist without referencing your product or business name, too, but have no way of influencing his decision to remove them. Perhaps with a calmer tone returning to the thread he'll consider doing so in the spirit of friendship.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Hello Guys,

I am rather bussy...so i do miss a lot, constructing a house hihi.
I didn't read all as I for most saw.:..hmm..."things".

If there is a technical question...?
No problem, but excuse me for not reading all the previous posts

Kind regards,

H>


PS Donald,
If it truly was my intention to make you look bad :

I would have included a special chapter about you're company in my article
I would have included the points I all ready made about you and what the clients have told me. (do you want me to repeat those ?)
I would have posted the article on the forums where your clients are active and on HAM forums etc. I would have "tagged" your company name Donald etc..
I would have send the article including the points mentioned here on forum to all your clients etc...

For sure that would "echo" and have influence on your company.
And no,...I havnt showed all ...still being nice to you.

I could have done things like that Donald...
But still....I didnt.....didnt I ?

I am afraid if you think my mission is to make you look "bad" it is not.
Now I realise you are doing your up most to put me in a bad spotlight.
And I also realise... that is the only thing left for you...perhaps it is your "way" ...
Perhaps you are trying to get this topic banned / removed heck I dont know...

so be it....I was hoping for a different approach from you though.