sigma4 article is online

[Shockwave]

Donald below is a Antenna View of the current in the cone area for my Eznec Sigma 4 model.

Do you see such a current formation on the red line near the radial that represents current that looks like the pattern for a 1/2 wave radiator in this Eznec model? NO!

In the case of the pattern you posted it may be nothing more than a perspective at a bad angle for the still shot we are looking at. I've taken pictures of my antennas down the street a bit, so I could get the perspective for their height relationships, and the image turned out showing the antennas looking bowed or bent over and not vertical. We have to consider the optics that may be a play here.

It is not possible for a 1/4 wavelength element to produce a 1/2 wave current pattern and you should know that, and it does not take all these high tech words to describe.

Thanks for the effort Marconi however, you've already made it perfectly clear you don't have an explanation for what we see and consider it nothing more than an anomaly. I'm sorry but an attempt is being made to describe the theory behind how the Sigma works and when there are gaps in that theory I'll be pointing them out until someone does something like Bob did with the 4 wire test and actually makes sense of it.

As I said before, so far DB is the only one to dig into this aspect and he has already shown that a similar shaped pattern can be formed on a 1/4 wave radiator if there is more than one current and the sources are at opposite ends. It really is time to recognize there are two currents on the outside of the cone. One is CMC flowing back down the outside and they are confined from the field within.

 

[Henry HPSD]

1) Just look at the field around the cone in CST. The currents generating this field are have more magnitude towards the center than either the top or bottom portions of the field.

2) Indeed there is the field around the conductor but you see the cone as individual . If your theory were right, the individual radial fields would be greatly effected by the monopoles field spinning in the opposite direction inside the cone.
.

1- No....Remember ....think....
You have current going up in the main radiator.
You have current going down in the radials.

Apply the right hand rule.
You will see that the DIRECTION OF THOSE CURRENTS near the main radiator are equal en hence the enforced density.

(As explained in my article)

2-Each conductor has a magnetic field around it...they are individual.
together they form the far field eventually....
But we are looking at close range to the antenna in the Near field.
And yes, they are greatly effected by the monopole field !
But not spinning in opposite direction....spinning in the SAME direction hence the dark density.

(As explained in the article.)

3 The wire mesh...
Well...let us take a sleeve dipole...thats a mesh isnt it ?
Currents can run on the outside cause the density is so "dense" ...
But that isnt the case with the sigma 3....
Heck evan normal coax has some loss "leakage"
Do you honestly think 4 radials upwards are good enough to keep the signal indoors ?

Do yourself a favour...
Go sit inside a nice "carbrio", Ill sit next to you...were going for a drive in a couple minutes...but first:
Open the roof...turn the windows open...and sit with the porto in your hand.
Now gently move to the chair which we have convineat sitting next to the car..
So...how much difference did you notice in signal strength ?
In your vision...you heard nothing...inside as currents are "convined"
In my vision....the different wont be that much...

Here is another option :
Take that cone of the vector...remove the main radiator..
And let that porto sit "inside"
Now remove that porto and let it sit next to the cone.

Donald...Im afraid i dont see an option to see the cone capable of keeping the currents "convined"

Now, please search for the answer at which point the wire mesh becomes so dens there isnt any "leak" ?

 

[Henry HPSD]

Donald..


We dont disagree there are more than one currents active...
There is a whole bunch of them !

I disagree with :
1- collinear
2- explination on your website
3-Gain figure provided.
4- etc.

But not the different currents...
And eznec is perfectly capable of providing the sum of them.

 

[Shockwave]

Donald..


We dont disagree there are more than one currents active...
There is a whole bunch of them !

I disagree with :
1- collinear
2- explination on your website
3-Gain figure provided.
4- etc.

But not the different currents...
And eznec is perfectly capable of providing the sum of them.

Frankly, I'm just about at the point where I don't even care what others think anymore. If you can publish 40 pages of theory in confidence knowing that you can't relate any of it to a single customers experience in the broadcast market, it looks like denial to me. Remember I'm not asking you to find "some" that agree with your theory, just ONE would lend a little real world credibility to what you say.

If you have to discredit me along with every client and the many that have shared their results publicly on my site as being incompetent to the point where they consistently can't tell the difference over a dipole, it looks like denial to me. Again I say the proof is in the pudding not the paper work and I put my money where my mouth is by standing behind my claims with a money back guarantee. Do you do that with any of your antennas Henry?

 

[Shockwave]

Donald...Im afraid i dont see an option to see the cone capable of keeping the currents "convined" Now, please search for the answer at which point the wire mesh becomes so dens there isnt any "leak" ?

I don't know Henry but I do know you'd like to ignore the fact the 3 radial design does not function as well as the 4 radial versions. As you add more than 4, the benefits of each one diminishes. You like to think you're the first one to build a version that is DC isolated and direct fed at the base but that design with the tight wire mesh cone was first tried in the 1930's. The Avanti patent refers to these technical drawings as "prior artwork".

From what I've seen wrapping the cone in brass screen material on VHF, you could wrap the entire cone in aluminum foil to form your 100% shielding without seeing noticeable effects in performance over the 4 radial design. Surly that would provide the degree of confinement necessary to debunk your individual field theory?

Don't get me wrong Henry, I have learned many things from you about how these fields are displayed. The trouble is you refuse to see the cone as a single broadband radiator. There are many pieces of evidence that support the fact it is. Going back to the Avanti patent where they talk about adding the ring to the top of the flared elements increases bandwidth. Not likely if RF was not able to see the entire structure as a single element ending in a broad flare.

 

[Marconi]

Thanks for the effort Marconi however, you've already made it perfectly clear you don't have an explanation for what we see and consider it nothing more than an anomaly. I'm sorry but an attempt is being made to describe the theory behind how the Sigma works and when there are gaps in that theory I'll be pointing them out until someone does something like Bob did with the 4 wire test and actually makes sense of it.

Donald, if you had sent me your Eznec model of your 4 wire test long ago, and saved me the trouble of building mine "wrong" (your word), I might have saved you all the trouble of claiming, in error, that your model proved Ezenc could not model the Sigma4 design. You have claimed Eznec did not recognize the cone producing collinear gain, and that is all that supported your ill conclusions about Eznec...and my application of its results. I wasn't always sure, because I did not always know for sure, but you got it wrong, as it turns out, and you always claimed that you knew and were correct.

I've been telling you for a long time that your 4 wire test was in error somehow, long before Bob woke up and started thinking about the idea. Also, you never suggested to me or anybody else that you challenged with the idea...that you did that test using your Dominator.

We were always talking about the S4/NV4K when we talked about this test of yours. In you pitiful little recanting of your 4 wire test, you still did not relate the error you made. You lead me on with the idea for several years...just like you did to everybody else you challenged in that case with misinformation.You discounted my 4 wire model almost as soon as I posted it, and you also told us Eznec was, more or less, worthless. Now it turns out all of that was, because of your error in judgment or understanding...when you not only did your real World field test, but also when you tried to model the idea.

My Eznec model of two collinear stacked Sigma 4's, one above the other, suggested the S4 is nothing more than a simple raised up 1/2 wave. You just blew it off, as usual, simply because my results did not prove your point.

You guys are just trying to keep this discussion in a high tech word game (not simple words with simple concepts) in order to continue your "pie in the sky" and mistique ideas...that the antenna is way more special than it really is.

Other than a few who could not tune these antennas, I don't know any S4 or Vector users that ever claimed it is/was not one of the very best working antennas around. I just don't see it working with 2 db better gain over a dipole like you and others would have us believe...with some dubious idea at best about it having true collinear features. For years the HyGain and other companies have referred to their 5/8 wave antennas as collinear antennas...simply due to the fact that they have two current maximums. They did the same thing IMO as you are trying to do...did not reveal all of the facts in that assertion.

Henry's reports tells us the the CST model he referenced only shows 2.221 dbi gain in Free Space, if I see that right, not the 4.15 dbi gain that you always have claim was what Sirio published as Free Space gain. IMO, this gain published by them is simply puffing, but not referencing what the gain claimed was compared too.

You can keep on making your claims, but I don't think you will ever prove the gain you claim either. Your claim that somehow the 1/4 radials are producing a 1/2 wave current profile is not even logical. I don't accept your Straw Man arguments either.

As I said before, so far DB is the only one to dig into this aspect and he has already shown that a similar shaped pattern can be formed on a 1/4 wave radiator if there is more than one current and the sources are at opposite ends. It really is time to recognize there are two currents on the outside of the cone. One is CMC flowing back down the outside and they are confined from the field within.

You guys got the Eznec idea for how to see currents flowing on the Feed Line all wrong in your thinking a while back, and you thought you had the answers. That was all a partly imagination and some hope as it turned out...not science and you got that wrong too.

I have no ill feelings about a good imagination and hope, but don't try and tell me it is science...even if you guys can make it look and sound like science.

 

[Marconi]

Frankly, I'm just about at the point where I don't even care what others think anymore. If you can publish 40 pages of theory in confidence knowing that you can't relate any of it to a single customers experience in the broadcast market, it looks like denial to me. Remember I'm not asking you to find "some" that agree with your theory, just ONE would lend a little real world credibility to what you say.

If you have to discredit me along with every client and the many that have shared their results publicly on my site as being incompetent to the point where they consistently can't tell the difference over a dipole, it looks like denial to me. Again I say the proof is in the pudding not the paper work and I put my money where my mouth is by standing behind my claims with a money back guarantee. Do you do that with any of your antennas Henry?

Why can't we argue these points on the merits of the S4/Vector rather than always falling back on your Dominator. IMO, nobody is referring to it and your testimonials should be good enough for your success, and I think we would and have given you high fives.

IMO, it is quite possible that the Dominator design can do exactly what you say and what your customers experience without all the issues about your antenna design. Nobody is asking you about the details on your business, even though you bring it up frequently.

Nobody here wants to discredit you or your products either. If you had never told us about your Dominator...we probably would never know. We are trying to talk about the S4/NV4K two antennas that are quite similar in design and performance...and you keep trying to compare all this to your Dominator, which if I can believe you is .82 wavelength...is quite different that the .75 wave. I think this difference is basically the crux of the difference between these antennas...and if we can believe you about your field tests, which I tend to do, then this also supports the idea these antenna are not the same, and that fact seems to be in no dispute after your recanted your error which undoubtedly tells us the antennas are different.

Antennas that are different, often but not always, tend to make for different results. So, if you are right in your reasons then it makes sense to me it will also support your ideas for the Dominator, and that should be between you and your customers...there should be no issues with our discussing the S4/NV4K and how it works. You are the one commingling these issues...not Henry.

Why don't we give Henry the chance to address his report, before you guys bombard him with a lot of speculation and innuendo.

 

[The DB]

You guys got the Eznec idea for how to see currents flowing on the Feed Line all wrong in your thinking a while back, and you thought you had the answers. That was all a partly imagination and some hope as it turned out...not science and you got that wrong too.

I have no ill feelings about a good imagination and hope, but don't try and tell me it is science...even if you guys can make it look and sound like science.

With all due respect, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to that model. Yes, the model came about from someone imaging a possibility. It was then taken to the next level and modeled, which was a way of testing the idea. The last I checked, that is how science works. It was neither proven correct nor incorrect by anyone, including and especially you. You are free to have your opinion on the model, but saying it was unscientific? That is simply not true. More science went into the development and testing of that model than all of your posts on the Sigma 4/Vector 4000 combined since bob85's "Another Point of View" thread, and I have read all of them.

Since the existence of that model was made public (by someone other than myself mind you), you did everything you could along the way to discredit it while claiming you were seeking the truth. You refused to actually look at and play with the model provided and find out how it actually works, even though I provided the data needed to do just that, and pointed out some interesting anomalies as well. You not properly examining the GHZ24 model that Henry provided in the way that Henry clearly meant for it to be examined is simply another example of the same thing happening. Then you used what was given, changed it in ways that would be detrimental to the model without compensating for any of the changes, in essence breaking the model, then publishing the bad data from your broken version of the model as further evidence that your untested and biased opinion was correct.

"Many of the truths we cling to depend on out point of view", Obi Wan Kenobi. You fashioned a point of view many years ago, and any time since someone came out with anything that disagrees with that point of view you vehemently argue against it. The stronger the argument against your point of view the stronger you argue against whatever it was. Go ahead and challenge me on this, I can point to several things that happened while my cmc test model was being discussed to throw right back at you. You continue to treat your point of view as absolute fact, and refuse to even acknowledge any other possibility, all while claiming you seek the truth.

If you truly seek the truth as you claim, then act like it for once.


The DB

 

[Shockwave]

Marconi, there are so many errors in your last two posts I won't even bother to fix them all for you. I'll just point out a few that are most severe.

1) While I don't recall the thread I posted it in, the last time you mentioned the 4 wire test I responded to you directly informing you Bob discovered the test is not capable of confirming or denying a collinear effect. I disclosed this fact within 24 hours of Bob's discovery and Bob also mentioned to you in another post that he figured out what was going on with the test. I'm a big boy Marconi and being wrong isn't going to kill me.

By the way, you didn't invest a moment of your time constructively investigating this topic so you have no reason to get all riled up now. On the other hand, Bob took the time to figure out what was going on so don't be so hard on someone who "woke up and started thinking about the idea". We could use more just like him. No one led you on for years. You're only 2 weeks behind on this revelation and if you paid attention earlier you would have known within days of the info coming to light. Since you missed it, you should be happy I've pointed it out again very clearly with nothing to hide.

2) The conversation is dealing with a specific design of antenna, not a particular brand using the design. Therefore information regarding the use of any antenna of this design is pertinent. I've spend a lot of time testing ideas in the field. Maybe more than anyone in the past with this design. The 4 wire test was done on my antenna and confirmed a 90 degree delay works well. It's the reasons why that were not fully understood before Bob investigated. I blew your idea of the two Sigmas off because it wasn't even close to what I was describing.

3) Please do yourself a favor so that your comments might be useful and find out just how easy it is to get that 1/2 wave shape over a 1/4 wave radiator because I'm soooooo tired of you being wrong on this one like you understand what's going on. Model a damn 1/4 wave whip and put one source at each end of the radiator and tell me what the shape of the currents look like along the length. Pay Particular attention to the fact neither end has a current maximum point in EZNEC. Then ask yourself if that second source just might be CMC flowing back down the outside of the cone.

 

[Marconi]

I don't have to jump thru your hoops Donald trying to prove an S4 antenna that is butchered and not even close to the design specifications is going to prove you guys right about how this antenna works.

None of you can prove anything by using a butchered model either...I don't care how much you guy's try and pitch stuff out there...to see if something sticks, it don't work for me any more.

To do it right, you make the model to where the model can be as close to specs as possible and it works, and can be duplicated in a real world application...producing some predictable and good results. Then you can start to monkey around with ideas to improve on the design. You can then attempt to prove how it works the same way, not by producing a bad computer model, or using a bad real antenna.

I would be impressed with DB's work if he could take GHZ24's model and optimize it to work as good or better than a real Vector 4000 or make it show results like he promised before...as good or better than Sirio publishes as per free space like you claim.

Optimization was the only thing that Henry claimed for his reason in publishing that model in his report introduction. He said he did not use it, but I don't think the idea proved productive. As far as I know DB is the only one I recall that models with 4Nec2 left around here, and he claimed he did not have much faith in the 4Nec2 optimizing feature. I've heard similar claims from others. It is said it will tweak a model that is pretty close, but it won't fix a really bad model and it might end up in the weeds too.

As I understand it, this was in no way GHZ24's intentions for making the model. I posted this info earlier in this thread. He stated when he published it with a disclaimer...that it was not intended to try and duplicate a Vector 4000, but he did not explain further as best I recall. I will apologize to him if he later claims different.

Donald, what kink of reason could you give as to why a 1/4 wave element should have a source at both ends? IMO it is just an attempt by you or DB to try and find something that fits your ill conceived idea that the 1/4 radial elements on the Vector could produce a 1/2 wave pattern on a 1/4 wave element.

I don't know if Henry's claim as to why that animated image is what he claims, but your minds eye on the bottom area of the cone and mine may look and sound similar in what we see, but I consider it an unexplainable anomaly. You and I just differ on this, but common sense tells me a 1/4 wave long radiator will not radiate a 1/2 wave radiator pattern, unless you sprinkle Fairy dust on it.

Talk about abusing the limitations of modeling. I said I don't know why 24 did his model that way, but I figure he was trying to verify your idea of a wider angled cone making more gain. I will accept his comments the facts of the subject however, and I could stand corrected. I've asked you before how that wide angle experiment turned out...but nothing so far as I recall.

I posted what the GHZ24's model looked like and some Eznec results, and it was no where close to specs in any dimensions. I just wondered how that was useful to the report and the discussion that has followed.

I also asked Henry why, and I heard a story about it being used for optimization purposes. I think DB could have given us some information by setting the optimize feature on and giving us a report for what he saw happen if he noticed the model was skewed. I would expect him to first fix the antenna and then see if it could improve the model. I can only guess he would be looking for the kind of high gain he reported to us a while back, but I suspect that will not happen, even though he modified the model to do more optimizing.I will be going back and for sure see what he posted for those results...just in case.

I asked Henry as soon as I read his report, and before anybody got all heated up in this discussion except maybe for Henry on my asking.

The main problem with the pattern for the model that GHZ24 made was it does not indicate the FS low angle results that I find with the model of a NV4K antenna built to specs. It is also strange that Henry's modeled of the same thing, using Eznec Pro/4 in his report, shows an almost identical Free Space pattern to 24's model.

You will find this model and other comparison details to other models in his report on pages 28,29,30. You can compare it to 24's model I posted early on in this thread...Henry's Eznec Pro/4 and 24's models are almost identical in high angled FS gain. That makes me a bit curious, and that is why I asked Henry early on in this thread the question.

I question such stuff, because I know what I see when I see unexplained differences. So, it begs a question and I simply ask for an explanation. I knew that GHZ24's model was not intended to be a NV4K, for whatever reason, but I did not understand why Henry reference model in Eznec Pro/4 looked so similar...and I asked him for the model to see what I did wrong on my model. As usual thus far, and as in most cases few shares their models. To me not sharing models does not add to our better understanding one bit, and it seems more like there is something to hide. Henry, I ask for the model again.

I share what I do, and when someone calls my attention to an error I might make...I feel blessed if I can explain or if I stand corrected either way. IMO, I've learned and benefited in some way, and for me that is good.

 

[Shockwave]

Donald, what kink of reason could you give as to why a 1/4 wave element should have a source at both ends? IMO it is just an attempt by you or DB to try and find something that fits your ill conceived idea that the 1/4 radial elements on the Vector could produce a 1/2 wave pattern on a 1/4 wave element.

Now close your mouth and open your mind this time as you read the last line...

3) Please do yourself a favor so that your comments might be useful and find out just how easy it is to get that 1/2 wave shape over a 1/4 wave radiator because I'm soooooo tired of you being wrong on this one like you understand what's going on. Model a damn 1/4 wave whip and put one source at each end of the radiator and tell me what the shape of the currents look like along the length. Pay Particular attention to the fact neither end has a current maximum point in EZNEC. Then ask yourself if that second source just might be CMC flowing back down the outside of the cone.

Remember it's not us trying to find something that fits an ill conceived idea. That would be what you're doing by casting things off that you can't explain as anomalies. In fact you don't even make an ill conceived effort. You just say it's nothing and move on with blind eyes. If you don't have a reasonable explanation then please don't discourage others from trying to find a theory that fits both the CST model and field results. I find this change very refreshing.

 

[Marconi]

By the way, you didn't invest a moment of your time constructively investigating this topic so you have no reason to get all riled up now. On the other hand, Bob took the time to figure out what was going on so don't be so hard on someone who "woke up and started thinking about the idea". We could use more just like him. No one led you on for years. You're only 2 weeks behind on this revelation and if you paid attention earlier you would have known within days of the info coming to light. Since you missed it, you should be happy I've pointed it out again very clearly with nothing to hide.

I've already suggested to you that I could have found out your problem a long time ago, but you would not cooperate with me and send me the Ezenc file for your 4 wire model. Of course all that time you also did not tell anyone, and for sure me, that your model was using your Dominator...while all the time we were talking about a S4/NV4K.

So, don't cry sour grapes to me about your word, like your doing to Henry

2) The conversation is dealing with a specific design of antenna, not a particular brand using the design. Therefore information regarding the use of any antenna of this design is pertinent. I've spend a lot of time testing ideas in the field. Maybe more than anyone in the past with this design. The 4 wire test was done on my antenna and confirmed a 90 degree delay works well. It's the reasons why that were not fully understood before Bob investigated. I blew your idea of the two Sigmas off because it wasn't even close to what I was describing.

I beg your pardon partner, you are the only one that has ever brought up anything about your Dominator. So, again don't cry sour grapes to me.

3) Please do yourself a favor so that your comments might be useful and find out just how easy it is to get that 1/2 wave shape over a 1/4 wave radiator because I'm soooooo tired of you being wrong on this one like you understand what's going on. Model a damn 1/4 wave whip and put one source at each end of the radiator and tell me what the shape of the currents look like along the length. Pay Particular attention to the fact neither end has a current maximum point in EZNEC. Then ask yourself if that second source just might be CMC flowing back down the outside of the cone.

It is probably the Fairy Dust you sprinkled on the whip, because it is nothing but your imagination at work here. The real challenge will be trying to get an almost infinite loss in the match for such a setup...trying to get some CM currents to working.

BTW does this model show you a 1/2 wave looking bow type pattern along the radiator like you see on the CST image you posted?

How about telling us something new and constructive about how the S4/NV4K really works for a change, and ask DB to show us his models with the high gain in free space you both tell us is possible with the true collinear working due to the cone producing lots of RF into the far field.

 

[The DB]

None of you can prove anything by using a butchered model either...I don't care how much you guy's try and pitch stuff out there...to see if something sticks, it don't work for me any more.

If it is a butchered model as you claim Prove it. You have yet to even look at the model seriously, much less try to understand it. You continue to badmouth a model you never once tried to understand, and have, as of yet, not once put forth a shred of evidence that discredits a model that you obviously hate.

I would be impressed with DB's work if he could take GHZ24's model and optimize it to work as good or better than a real Vector 4000 or make it show results like he promised before...as good or better than Sirio publishes as per free space like you claim.

Optimization was the only thing that Henry claimed for his reason in publishing that model in his report introduction. He said he did not use it, but I don't think the idea proved productive. As far as I know DB is the only one I recall that models with 4Nec2 left around here, and he claimed he did not have much faith in the 4Nec2 optimizing feature. I've heard similar claims from others. It is said it will tweak a model that is pretty close, but it won't fix a really bad model and it might end up in the weeds too.

Lets start with, I never once claimed that I have no faith in the 4NEC2 optimization tool. A few posts ago in this thread you said to correct you if this was wrong, and I did, yet you are still saying otherwise. I have stated that I prefer to do optimizations by hand, and mentioned a reason or two why. Perhaps you should take a look and see for yourself.

I also published everything in that thread I said I was going to publish. I never once promised anything, but if I said I was going to do something I did it, despite you saying you were still waiting on me to publish something in some cases 5 or more pages after it was already published!

You also put bad information up about a model that was provided to us and you seem to understand why, yet refuse to actually use it as we were told it was supposed to be used, instead posting information that clearly shows you are unwilling to even try. You know, that sounds familiar, that happened with another model that you continue to badmouth... Go figure. Why don't you put even a small amount of effort into actually using with this model as intended? Or are you incapable?

Seriously, if your not even willing to try, why do you even bother frequenting this thread?


The DB

 

[Shockwave]

DB, it's waste of time with this guy. Unlike the others involved he can't make sense of the basics or follow the conversation enough to remain relevant. I see no possibility of learning from him or teaching him. You're efforts would be better focused on others. I will be going back to my usual process of skipping over all comments posted by him on this subject.

 

[Marconi]

I'm not even interested in your field results Donald. You have already shown us that even though you deny your antenna is a raised up 1/2 wave, you thought your 4 wire test antenna was going to be testing a 1/2 wave at the base with another 1/2 wave up above it...when in fact it turns out years latter that it was a 5/8 wave with 1/2 wave above it...or so the story goes. And I'm supposed to believe that?

I would have been just as surprised as you if I just made a mistake like that. I would have wonder how is it that my 1/2 wave antenna does not match our with the 1/2 wave above using a 180* phasing harness. I know I made the phasing harness 180 degree closed end device. Haaaa, maybe I have to adjust the phasing harness, but I would have logically wondered why?

I saw just such a deal with my recent collinear model with a SD'r, a 180*degree phasing stub, and a 1/2 wave dipole above it. The match was terrible, but you know what, I immediately had the thought that the SD'r did not look like or act like a 1/2 wave antenna...like I always thought. So I, figured it out in about 30 seconds...and I don't know anything according to you.

I simply place a A/P plan in its place and that was the difference, allbeit the model with an A/P does not look to make a nice collinear model, so don't get your hopes up...there is just too much lack of balance in the A/P design IMO for that. This was logical for me, not some contorted foolhardy desire just to make a mistake work at all cost, and end up failing in the long run. Stuff happens, and that is why I changed my mind about how this antenna design works.

Sorry Donald, I would rather be giving you praise for your ideas. You are a smart man, but............