sigma4 article is online

[Henry HPSD]

I've seen more effort to "explain things away" than to explain anything at all. I tried to remain optimistic that we might learn something constructive in this report but against this constant barrage of suggesting what we see is not what we see, not accurate, not for the reasons we think, subject to large CMC variables, all noticed by incompetent people or are all compared to inferior antennas is about as ridiculous as it gets almost 200 posts later.

O well..Donald...
Why respond then...?
You are the one in debate making 200 posts...
Im answering YOUR questions each time
You are not answering mine...

 

[bob85]

Anytime the current is not a time varying current Henry= DC

 

[Shockwave]

Great ! So that 5,15 dBI figure and all statements with "equal to 2 stacked dipoles" etc will be removed from you site ....

I would be glad to immediately remove that claim from my site...The very instant we have the first case in 15 years where I've failed to equal the coverage of two side mounted dipoles with one antenna mounted in the clear. How long before you modify 40 pages of theory to start replicating real world results with insulators and chokes that debunk your gain from mast CMC ideas?

@ Donald...
Now...Donald you can continu your search for lower angle...(im not going to explain again)....,you can continu everyting else

Henry, unless you can come up with a theory that fits, there is no need to explain the same one over again. I don't need to "search for lower angle". I've found it in this design. You need to search for another theory that accounts for it. I suspect these are some of the contradictions Homer is referring to also.

O well..Donald... Why respond then...? You are the one in debate making 200 posts... Im answering YOUR questions each time

I think the answer to that would be you've attempted to describe a complex antenna in such a way where just about the only other person who has had a similar experience that I know of is Marconi. He also finds all non directional verticals antennas are equal.

I wish you would have answered the questions behind the results everyone else sees. You got Bob so confused it seems he forgot he saw his distant gain increases with a choke on the coax and an insulator on the mast. So answer this question, where did his gain come from???

 

[Henry HPSD]

Yes that is one...
A closed loop of dc current...

 

[bob85]

Is this something to do with cst using pulses to calculate the segment characteristics Henry?

 

[bob85]

I missed this question Henry,

(edit : ps...bonus points for those who can name a situation where a current is traveling through a conductor but we do not have a magnetic H field .....you will receive 1 like and a thumbs up !)

Inside a coaxial cable since currents are always equal and opposite phase so add to zero and no magnetic field ?

 

[curlyjo]

No, it was not grounded. There are threads in the CB Antenna section about how I built this antenna.
hope you do well with your rebuild.

Thanks. I will read through it again!

 

[HomerBB]

There are numerous statements made throughout this thread that are contradictory to each other but trying to narrow it down they seem to center on one thing - the very apparent unrealistic idea that this antenna is a J-pole:

The J-pole antenna is an end-fed omnidirectional dipole antenna that is matched to the feedline by a quarter wave transmission line stub. Matching to the feed-line is achieved by sliding the connection of the feedline back and forth along the stub until a VSWR as close as possible to 1:1 is obtained. Because this is a half-wave antenna, it provides a small gain over a quarter-wave ground-plane antenna.

and that this antenna which is the subject of the thread is also a 3/4 wavelength:

ps...and yes....but the sad thing is...
as soon as we have "radiation" from the cone....the antenna will become more a 3/4 wave radiator.
providing higher gain...but upwards...there where we do not want it.

Under perfect conditions maximum gain would be in the order of 3 dBi or so...and that is without the cone as the radiator can "fully" radiate" as there is no phase shift going on.

So...in order to have maximum effort from the vector you would need to make the antenna in such a way the cone "sees" a electrical halve wave on top...then max will be send in a 0 degree angle..most beneficial for "distance horizon communication.

.

Everything Henry said in this quoted post, (and inferred in other places in the thread) points directly to the the actions of this antenna. He says the requirement of a non-cloud burning 3/4 wave antenna is to have control over the negative out of phase lowest 1/4 wave on the antenna that will bring the radiation down to the horizon and provide gain on the order of 3dbi or so. Marconi, who sides with Henry on this J-pole idea, has himself produced a model of the isolated 36' above earth mast isolated Vector producing 4.34 dbi (therein lies yet another contradiction in position - Marconi thinks its a 1/2 non-colinear J-pole, yet his own model disproves it with too much gain for a 1/2 wave monopole. Marconi, I do agree with you that your models are being ignored, but don't feel like the Lone Ranger with a silver bullet, DB's are not getting much traction either by the some).

The contradiction is that when the criteria for the antenna being more than a 1/2 wave, ie the J-pole, is met (criteria put up by the J-pole theorists themselves, even from their camp, which they, themselves have demonstrated) they continue to deny that it is a 3/4 wavelength monopole. Furthermore, to be a 3/4 wavelength monopole it must have radiation of a magnitude resulting from gain only appreciable due to its ENTIRE length (which the modified V4k does).

So, if it is a 1/2 wave, it cannot generate the gain it does.
If it is a 3/4 wave, then it must radiate because of its entire length with gain in excess of that of a shorter antenna.

It can not be a J-pole, because a J-pole generates gain on the the order of a 1/2 wave which it is. A j-pole is physically 3/4 wavelength long because it takes that much material to build one, but it remains a 1/2 wave electrically.

That is why this antenna is not just a 1/2 wave sitting on top of a very bulky mounting contraption (matcher). And those who say it is keep proving it isn't.

Contradiction, or speaking from both sides of one's mouth.

For the record, i agree with Donald that this thread is not looking for a truly "alternative" answer to why the modified V4k is exponentially better at putting the highest gain for a monopole toward the horizon, but is still trying to support the old theories long ago forwarded in support of the wonders of the j-pole.

If the evidence forwarded in the thread distinct from that of the report - ie DB and Marconi's models, and years of proven performance - did not suggest there should be an alternative explanation, this thread would likely have fizzled out for me as there is nothing but arguments that do not support this antenna at all.

Henry has a very good well written article, but it is not about this antenna - clearly.

 

[Shockwave]

I'm thankful for people like DB and Homer who even in the face of extreme skepticism continue to point out aspects and theories that match the results we see in the field. Without these views it would be very easy for a few unsubstantiated opinions to take root. Unfortunately I've found this report to be unhelpful in resolving any of the questions that have been around for years. At least enough flaws have been clearly pointed out that most people will recognize the theory is weak and does not represent much of anything we see in the field. While it's no where near as good as finding the true answers, it's miles ahead of accepting the wrong answers or "explaining things away"

 

[Shockwave]

So far every last word L.B. Cebik said about this antenna has been 100% spot on.

1) It's a "non apparent collinear antenna". How else could it provide any gain over a 1/2 wave (efficient ones too) at the same tip height and isolated from the coax and mast? If changing the lengths of radiators (and transmission line to the upper element) does not cause some degree of electronic beamtilt that is possible with collinear antennas, what else accounts for the gains we see OVER a dipole when manipulating these lengths?

2) The topic would only generate "pages of meaningless arguments and debate." Years later and we still see every time the topic is brought up we have completely opposing views and no one is able to change anyone's mind about anything. You have either prematurely formed an opinion based on the J-Pole and fight to defend that theory or you have been using the design for years in favor of every other non directional vertical.

3) The design would be "very difficult to model". So far I've only seen two models that even begin to make sense of the Sigma. The first was the CST model showing radiation from the cone for the very first time. The other was DB's efforts at modeling what CMC might look like on the cone. I can't say much about most of the other models I've seen being able to give us an idea of how the antenna might work in the field.


That leads me to this advice to others, think long and hard before presenting any theories that contradicts what this expert said.

 

[gamegetter]

People consider experts superior beings while forgetting that they are normal human beings who have the same mind that any human being has.

Whenever a person learns more about a subject, his mind becomes more rigid and less creative. Brain connections are developed when we use our minds more in creative ways but when we develop a single minded way of thinking sooner or later we will fail to see anything except what we have already learned. (Avanti was able to think outside the box with their invention of the sigma4)

An expert won't listen to you then evaluate your words but he will just compare whatever you say to his already existing database. If anything you said matched something he tried earlier then he will quickly predict the end results you will get.

However what most experts fail to notice is that past experience is never an indication of future results. Just watch how experts give recommendations about stocks and you will laugh. When they recommend a stock that keeps falling they shortly change their minds and recommend selling it and when it starts going up again they quickly recommend buying it.

 

[Marconi]

@Marconi
This is a photo of my V4k at 36' mount point with a hickory shovel handle between it and the mast providing about 6" of isolation. You should be able to see the coax choke in the photo, too. The radials are right at the 1/4 wave length, so it should be operting as close to your model as a real earth install could be.
This is the antenna that allowed me to talk better than any other monopole antenna mounted at the same tip height.

Your model shows 8 degrees to horizon at 4.34 DBi.

Homer, you could be right. Do you think this antenna in a Free Space model will show us the same gain? If my models you refer to above in post #171, over Eznec's idea for Real Earth, are anywhere near correct...this is what Eznec predicts for this design.

This 4.34 dbi @ 8* degree result my Vector model shows, that you find is proving Henry and I are talking out of both sides of our mouths, is a misunderstanding on this point at least. This value is what I get over Real Earth using Eznec. Donald has contended that Sirio's published gain for their NV4K of 4.15 dbi without any angle reported...is in Free Space and that the CST image is what Sirio used to determine how it worked.

Does this clear the issue up for you?

Regarding my other models I posted about the same time, I think I made two posts of models yesterday to be clear.

They were both models over Eznec's idea for Real Earth, but I also added a Free Space result for my Vector 4000 as an overlay to try and explain a point regarding Henry's models in his report. The Real Earth models were to help me explain what I saw with the models concerning CMC's and the gain difference using 3 or 4 radials. Maybe I did not explain well why I did that.

Again, two things were on my mind during the time frame. It all seemed logical to me, but I can understand others not getting the ideas presented.

1. my purpose was to compare what I was getting with my Eznec Free Space models, compared to the results that Henry posted in his report using Eznec Pro/4, Mininec3, and CST.

2. to compare Donald's and Bob's claim about gain differences with 3 or 4 radials for the Sigma 4 vs. New Vector4K designs.

My FS model for a CFHW dipole using Eznec and Henry's same model using Eznec Pro/4 both produce 2.14 dbi @ 0* degrees. That said, we were right on the money with our dipoles compared, but with the Sigma4 we were not close enough...and I just wondered why.

Henry's Eznec Pro/4 model showed 2.27 dbi @ 23* degrees for a Sigma 4, and I was showing 2.23 dbi @ 16* degrees for my S4. Again I wondered why the difference, and I asked Henry to explain. He may have answered me, but I missed it.

I was also concerned that the other two program results showed no angle for comparison at all. So, I guess we are to assume their free space gain results were at 0* degrees too.

It is pretty hard for two modeler's to get a very simple dipole model different enough to make a difference in results, but I guess you might agree...the Sigma 4 and Vector are much more complicated models to build.

I was just curious about the difference, like always...but you guys take my intentions wrong...and IMO that is just because I don't agree with your idea in this case.

If you look back at that post and the models and try and discern these differences...I think you will see the models are either entitled with FS at the end or they are not. There is a distinction intended in this use. I realize that is easy to miss however, I even do it my self. The Eznec data-field for the titles of models is limited to about 30 characters including spaces, so we have to be brief. Sometimes I forget what I meant in my efforts to truncate these titles.

Either I didn't explain well enough, which makes for more words, or I just took it for granted you guys might tell the difference by now, between a free space model result and a Real Earth model result.

My next posted models, were an effort to demonstrate about CMC and Isolation effects on the same two models I posted earlier...the subject of this report. I wanted to show the difference that Eznec predicted for 3 and 4 radials also, and how adding 1 more radial on the Vector might or might not be making to this design better.

Homer, I do not know if we can demonstrate or see CMC in a Free Cell model, and for you to make a judgment about my intent or talking out of two sides of my mouth...this distinction has to be understood.

Homer, I hope this clears this up.

I do not consider the S4 a J-Pole...that is ridiculous. As I recall, I have never said that either. IMO however, they do operate much the same way the S4 design is just much better at solving all the issues and rendering an otherwise worthless 3/4 wavelength radiator to work very well.

IMO, the principals go way back to the old Zepp antenna design, and in some ways much for the same reasons, to mitigate problem areas on an antenna with problematic and errant currents flowing.

 

[bob85]

Homer,
You are confusing freespace gain with gain over earth,
Henry is not making contradictions, Hes claiming similar freespace gain to a 1/2wave, and more over real earth,

Even a 1/4wave can produce more than 2.15dbi ( freepace gain of 1/2wave ) when its mounted over real earth,
http://www.sage-american.com/SK/cebik/gp/58-3.html

look at 10mtr monopoles from Cebiks tales and technicals 5/8wave mystique.

 

[Marconi]

Donald
Im glad you understand the need for balanced conditions at the top of the cone in order to minimise radiation from the cone,

i agree with that idea, it fits antenna / transmission-line theory,

Eddie

All older versions of this antenna, avanti, cte, commtel, tagra, lw150 etc,
have conditions at the top of the cone that are not optimal,
some out of phase radiation from the radiator, and more radiation from the cone than when using a 1/4wave cone that sees an electrical 1/2wave above it,

looking at Cebik's j-pole models shows us what happens with current phase in the cone area when you extend the radiator and cause the cone to radiate more than the small unbalance in an optimised design,

It makes sense that if we start with any of the old style antennas we can make adjustments that will cause more signal at low angles,
just like me and Donald have been telling you guys for years,

like i said earlier, we are not gaining something by utilising collinear gain,
we are minimising what the other designs throw away through poor design,

sirio's upgraded vector looks to be much closer to optimal,

Henry's excellent article explains why the optimised design can do so well in a way i have never seen in any article on cb antennas before.

Bob, if you will consider this idea, I think I will try and make some detailed notes for how Eznec deals with the ideas you present concerning how the S4 vs NV4K over Eznec's idea for Real Earth.

Bob, my two Real Earth models that I just compared and posted, with insulation added to both antennas, shows mixed reviews on the differences between these two and how the S4 vs the NV4K with longer radials, is effected (CMC) IMO.

If you are suggesting like Donald, that my models in Free Space should be showing more gain than models currently show over real Earth I think that is a stretch. I also understand that DB has a model in Free Space of one of these antennas close to specs or close that also shows 4.15 dbi gain or more and maybe even over 5.00 dbi over real Earth which I have asked for, but not received.

Before I post these results, and I have no idea right now what those results will report out, but I will describe in words to you via PM what the plan is. Then maybe with your help I will try and present this idea about the difference between using 3 or 4 elements, and the difference between the longer/shorter radials benefits Donald and maybe you are suggesting. Or, if not me, then maybe if you think the idea worthy you could pass it by DB. It might not answer if there is collinear activity going on, but it might reveal something...like my model of these two after I isolated them does.

This will not consider solving the CMC issue at first, because in my opinion CMC on the feed line may be the only problem with models. I will, more of less, follow with these same two models like I did earlier where Homer miss read my intentions.

Frankly I would rather do this in Free Space, but I can't figure out to show CMC's in a free space model, and since such currents can be either a loss or possible gain...I don't think Free Space is the way to test the ideas about CMC's.

 

[Shockwave]

Homer,
You are confusing freespace gain with gain over earth,
Henry is not making contradictions, Hes claiming similar freespace gain to a 1/2wave, and more over real earth,

Even a 1/4wave can produce more than 2.15dbi ( freepace gain of 1/2wave ) when its mounted over real earth,
http://www.sage-american.com/SK/cebik/gp/58-3.html

look at 10mtr monopoles from Cebiks tales and technicals 5/8wave mystique.

Homer may have been confused due to the added ground gain in the model he was referring to but let's not jump the gun and suggest that removes the serious contradictions in Henry's theory. His theory still treats the Sigma exactly like a 3/4 wave antenna that has allowed the lower 1/4 wave on the monopole to radiate into the far field and completely ignores the confinement action of the cone.

Henry's had you in private conversation for so long you forgot the gains you saw that allowed you to "hear stations other antennas could not" occurred while a choke was on your coax and an insulator was on your mast as seen in your photo. It should be very obvious to you that the gains you saw could not be related to CMC in those areas and are the complete result of the Sigma design itself.

It's beyond me why you have chosen to accept this weak theory that contradicts what you've seen for years and I know you're smart enough recognize the results Homer and yourself have talked about could not be mast or coax CMC due to the isolation used in both cases.