sigma4 article is online

[Henry HPSD]

Hello,

Owh i didnt know that...he was aware of that.

Anyway..
Donald, again...
Im not saying the antenna cant outperform others.
Im saying actually...it most likely will. (see article)

The issue I am having is that:
I do not agree with your statement about the CST plot
nor the different gain figures, etc.

And i do not like the way you "move" with words.
Like now you are telling a collinear is two points on one line.
And although there is some truth in that.

It is not the issue.
The issue is you claim it to be a "true collinear" cause there are several antenna currents in phase....that is not the case.

The issue I am having is ....
You have just said you know the antenna if it actually was a 1/4 wave over 1/2 wave could have a maximum gain of an additional 2 dB...so that makes 4dBi
But still you have stated gain figures beyond those.
That is what I find "non consistent"

You keep referring to your field tests, but you fail to show any proof ?
It is not that difficult to plot a antenna pattern for any engineer who does gain measurements...where are they ?
You keep referring to those broadcast engineers who "found" those results to be accurate... Isn't there any proof of it besides your words ?

I would like to see some proof, confirming your 5,15 dBi and collinear theory etc.

You keep saying that my theory has flaws, oke....but at what point Donald ?
Can you proof my theory wrong ?
As i believe i at least gave the impression besides your theory mine is there ...and it is based on antenna theory including CST / FEKO etc.
Now some mind find "contradictions" if so, im willing to explain...but be sure...I have done my homework. And still I am open for "improvements".

I dont need some proof that the antenna can outperform others, i have all ready provided information about that in my... as you call it... ridiculous article.

But that is oke with me..., as i understand it is a hard pill to swallow.
And yet, im still open for information...new ideas...debates etc.
Please use something that we can debate on.

Now, instead of acknowledgement...and let is search in the direction for possible improvements...you keep on defending your collinear theory, fine with me...but if you think my theory has flaws, please buy antenna books and study yours...Im confident you will come across the same findings like i have done.

Im still willing to help...of course.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

H>

 

[Marconi]

No offense meant, of course there's all kinds of people in this world. I am not that narrow minded. My post was directly in response to the Shockwave's post regarding an expert. It read like he was trying to close the door on the discussion and I feel there is more to come from anyone who wishes to comment.

GG, I do 2

 

[Shockwave]

moving away from there causes the cone to radiate more and phase to shift in the cone area which causes low angle radiation to drop and high angle radiation to increase, So if you start with a stock vector or avanti you can cause more signal on the horizon through adjustment of relative cone and monopole lengths like i said from day 1,

I'm sorry Bob but your explanation only describes the effect when moving the cone and monopole lengths in one direction. The exact opposite effect occurs if the lengths are changed in the other. That's easily confirmed in free space models. While the effects do not look the same over real earth, the pattern can still be manipulated to direct more energy than a dipole on the horizon.

The same applies to a j-pole as seen in the link i posted, The j-poles i built and tested years ago were obviously not as good as Henry's j-poles, and now i see where i likely went wrong as do the majority of people that build them and install them,

That's what I meant about Henry confusing people into thinking every other reference antenna we compare against that shows these gains is not as good as Henry's J-pole or his 1/2 wave dipole. You really think the top 3 broadcast manufactures are all making inferior center fed dipoles too? At what point do you realize you have to make too many exceptions to keep this theory alive?

Henry did mentioned the cmc on the mast with different length masts while keeping the antenna at the same height can effect the signal, go read it again, He's not saying what you think he is, If you tuned yours on a 1 wavelength mast you can see 2db over a dipole as Henry's graph shows, no requirement for any collinear gain,

I've described one tuning location out of many used over the years and results users see in installations that vary widely from the tuning location. Yet we don't see any changes in performance from one installation to another that can be associated with the proposed theory. The moment I read Henry's suggestion that the 2dbd was possible but only with the right mast length. It triggered the skeptic in me. Now he was able to have the theory coexist with what we have been seeing for years but ONLY under ideal circumstance that would be random and infrequent if left only to chance. Again, not what we see.

I can't speak for homers tests but what Henry tells us agrees with what you claimed before you got the cst animation, quote Shockwave "Using a simple field strength meter will confirm almost nothing is being radiated in the area of the cone" "The more important question should be how does the cone section improve performance"

If it were just Homer's experience this theory couldn't speak for we wouldn't have much debate. The way I see it the theory doesn't seem to speak for just about anyone's experience and that's the main problem with it.

Now that you brought my quote up, you'll force me to share what you haven't mentioned about it. You brought my attention to this forum over this very topic in 2009. Long before I had given serious thought to where the performance characteristics where coming from. You were already sure the cone was radiating. I didn't think the cone could radiate much at that time but didn't know a lot about CMC then either. Using a field strength meter appeared to be a possible way to confirm that.

Now that I look back, the field strength meters tells us little. Sure it shows less deflection around the cone than it does at the tip. So does a 102 inch whip because it doesn't measure current and who knows what phase is being indicated anyhow? For the record, I haven't supported the idea you quote in many years.

 

[Marconi]

Just to clarify, I'm sticking to this issue of CMC because the inaccurate claim has been made that Sigma "could" generate 2dbd "if" the mast length were ideal. That suggests all of the performance we have seen could be hiding in this one area. It makes this point key since it is the difference between everything and just being a unity gain 1/2 wave. I say that theory is disposable once you consider the advantages remain even with the coax and mast isolated.

Donald, is this 2dbd gain in Free Space or over Real Earth?

Can you give me the link?

If not, can you tell me who made the claim?

 

[Henry HPSD]

That's what I meant about Henry confusing people into thinking every other reference antenna we compare against that shows these gains is not as good as Henry's J-pole or his 1/2 wave dipole. You really think the top 3 broadcast manufactures are all making inferior center fed dipoles too? At what point do you realize you have to make too many exceptions to keep this theory alive?


Why do you want to make my J pole look bad ?
Why would you insist that I am confusing people.
Im actually trying not to.

The top 3 broadcast manufacturers.
That is new to me Donald,

The only one you mentioned was a coaxial vertical from Sirio...if I recall correct ?
A vertical with loads of plastic, made with PL connectors etc and then measured on VHF.
Though im of course confident you would have used more.
Which if i may ask ?

If I may ask, how do you actually measure gain ?

Kind regards,

Henry

 

[Shockwave]

Donald, is this 2dbd gain in Free Space or over Real Earth?

Can you give me the link?

If not, can you tell me who made the claim?

Marconi, Bob just quoted it again in the last post here: If you tuned yours on a 1 wavelength mast you can see 2db over a dipole as Henry's graph shows.

I believe it was over real earth and since it's dependent on mast length being 1 wavelength it's fair to assume that's related to CMC.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Marconi, Bob just quoted it again in the last post here: If you tuned yours on a 1 wavelength mast you can see 2db over a dipole as Henry's graph shows.

I believe it was over real earth and since it's dependent on mast length being 1 wavelength it's fair to assume that's related to CMC.

No donald,
Not accurate...it is for most in that case due to height difference where the base was kept equal.

In other words..

halve wave at bottom 1 wl
Sigm 4 at bottom 1 wl

Means higher tip of the sigma 4 primairly due to that reason in that graph the difference of 2 dB can be seen.

You are mixing up various reasons.

Kind regards,

H>

 

[Shockwave]

Why do you want to make my J pole look bad ? Why would you insist that I am confusing people. Im actually trying not to.

On the contrary Henry, I think you must have one of the best J-Poles ever made if the Coaxial J-Pole can only beat it by 0.1db without CMC on the mast as you imply. I don't attempt to judge your intentions Henry. I've simply made an observation based on how your article fails to represent the observations made by the vast majority of users for decades.

The top 3 broadcast manufacturers. That is new to me Donald, The only one you mentioned was a coaxial vertical from Sirio...if I recall correct ? A vertical with loads of plastic, made with PL connectors etc and then measured on VHF. Though im of course confident you would have used more. Which if i may ask ?

It shouldn't be news to you. You're recollection is totally incorrect. I've mentioned the use of very efficient center fed dipoles several times including the Kathrein Scala models. I only mentioned the CX to point out it's differences with the Vector. I never even implied this antenna was used as a reference standard.

If I may ask, how do you actually measure gain ?

I was fortunate enough to acquire a genuine VHF field strength receiver from an associate several years ago. Almost identical to the FIM-71 several colleagues have used in the past. It's also fully calibrated and measures everything from microvots to decibels in multiple scales. It's a lot better than the Marantz receiver I spent days on aligning the front end to track at 50 ohms, wired a digital meter to its analog one and used attenuators with long ago.

The assuring thing is none of the measurements have varied more than fractions of a db regardless of which instrument I used. All reference signals were stable, on FM and taken from a distance of many miles. How do you measure gain Henry?

 

[Marconi]

Marconi, Bob just quoted it again in the last post here: If you tuned yours on a 1 wavelength mast you can see 2db over a dipole as Henry's graph shows.

I believe it was over real earth and since it's dependent on mast length being 1 wavelength it's fair to assume that's related to CMC.

Thanks Donald, I just read Bob's post talking about my question.

My Sigma4 model at 36' feet over real Earth does show some CMC with gain at 3.85dbi @ 8* degrees, but I can mitigate those currents if I isolate the antenna by 4" inches from the mast, and then the model shows 3.97 at 8* degrees. So yes, IMO this is the effect due to CMC, but again we are talking about differences that seem quite small to me, and I see nothing remarkable, even though I believe every little bit helps.

I have not done this comparison with my revised NV4K model that shows considerably more CMC at 36' feet rather than some random non-resonant height, but I will do that and report. If I get similar results as I got earlier with the Vector showing more CMC...then I should see more of a mitigating effect on isolating the mast from the antenna. NOTE: To be clear here, I am not saying these heights referred to here...are the "be-all" best or worst heights in a real world installation, but in these models the height does show effects that you may or may not see at your location.

Is this, in part, what we hear being discussed when the focus is on manipulating and/or steering the maximum TO angle?

Donald to be clear, the gain noted here for my real world Earthed models for these antennas is the only issue I have...regarding the way I understand your claim that Sirio's published gain for their NV4K is 4.15 dbi. I think the gain is not in Free Space.

Realizing this is not much difference in gain value howerer, I get feel that Sirio's results are for a real Earthed antenna and you're claiming that Sirio's 4.15 dbi gain is in Free Space.

I'm not suggesting we must agree, but I think we are just mincing words about how this happens maybe, but do you see my point on this issue standing out there alone from all other idea going on here?

 

[Shockwave]

No donald,
Not accurate...it is for most in that case due to height difference where the base was kept equal. In other words.. halve wave at bottom 1 wl Sigm 4 at bottom 1 wl Means higher tip of the sigma 4 primairly due to that reason in that graph the difference of 2 dB can be seen. You are mixing up various reasons. Kind regards, H>

It really doesn't matter what option you use to support your theory. CMC or a 1/4 wave in extra height have already been shown in the field to not have the effects you claim. Now that we are on the added 1/4 wave of height idea ,I'll refer you back to DB's models again showing what you say makes no difference when the antennas are already 10 wavelengths or more in height in the vast majority or my installations.

PS: Don't forget Homer's tests were done with isolation and at the same tip height.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Hello Donald,

Sadly not familiary with it...
Is it exactly the same as the one mentioned ?
Ill try to download a manual somewhere..

Well different ways network analyzer and a spectrum analyser with tracking generator (HP) Though i also do field strength measurments, not as often though
but in that case with a stand alone receiver calibrate using power measurments (calibrated of course)

Hm..I was thinking...perhaps...

Could you give me an example of the values measured and the gain figure calculated from it ?

Kind regards,

H>

 

[Marconi]

It really doesn't matter what option you use to support your theory. CMC or a 1/4 wave in extra height have already been shown in the field to not have the effects you claim. Now that we are on the added 1/4 wave of height idea ,I'll refer you back to DB's models again showing what you say makes no difference when the antennas are already 10 wavelengths or more in height in the vast majority or my installations.

PS: Don't forget Homer's tests were done with isolation and at the same tip height.

Donald I don't consider models at 10 WL appropriate in this discussion on the S4 design, but the results could be making some point we/I don't know about. Have these been published with an explanation for the purpose?

What tests of Homer's are you talking about?

You guys must be doing stuff off forum, and we are not seeing it. If that is not the case, then how about some links, so the context of discussion can be followed more easily?

You have also mentioned DB models on some topics he did work on, but I don't recall seeing any of it. I did see his fixed wire description for GHZ24, model I talked about early on in this thread, but nothing else that I recall.

I also have a model from DB that explores adding wires to a Vector to check CMC's on the cone as while back, but he stopped discussing that when I questioned the thinking about that application, and I asked several times in the course of other discussions...what where those results.

 

[Henry HPSD]

CMC or a 1/4 wave in extra height have already been shown in the field to not have the effects you claim

Or you sure about my claim ?

My claim is those can actually be responsible for causing more difference in signal strength. And i said...that the S4 seems to be doing oke in handling them where i have seen terrible issues with many others.

Is this wrong interpertated again ?

Im not aware of Homer his test.
I know he fabricates just about anything from anything.
With that said, i can also imagine there were some issues with his testing., i dont know .

Kind regards,

H.

 

[bob85]

Donald

There's no confusion, yes i did say i thought the cone was radiation years back, i never said how much radiation,

please do share EVERYTHING i have posted on the subject, i insist you do m8,
Its all here on the forum apart from the early posts lost in the sever swap,

Your argument that moving relative cone and monopole lengths only describes what happens when we adjust in one direction makes no sense in plain English,

Rather than reading what others say as you want it to read,

How about you post some proof from those Broadcast engineers you keep telling us have taken measurements,
Why should we have to contact them from a list on your website when its you making the claim and their your customers ?,
How difficult can it be to drop your customers that made measurements an email ? so we can see some confirmation of their claimed measurements ?

Your testimony is becoming increasingly unreliable, we want proof from a second party not your words,

People should realise that you are the one who argued with EVERYBODY that would lend an ear that you were 100% sure EZNEC was no good to model the collinear Dominator because of some hairbrained phase bucking theory you had,

Now that its been shown that it can and that the results match the field measurements you want us to believe EZNEC can't model the none collinear version and that CST tells a different story which has also been proven to be incorrect,

Please explain where the 5.15dbi on your current website comes from?
Please explain where the 6db gain that you claimed on your website in the past and in the Dominator instruction manuals comes from?

You don't need to get too technical and confuse the reader, a simple explanation that fits antenna theory will do,

While we are on the subject,
Please explain why you shared a picture of your 2 x 3/4wave 17.5ft collinear with 90 degree phasing coil and told us it was a working 2 x 1/2wave? to prove you were not crazy?
All that nonsense about Henry's looking too short, there's your answer,

Thanks

 

[Marconi]

Hello Donald,

Sadly not familiary with it...
Is it exactly the same as the one mentioned ?
Ill try to download a manual somewhere..

Well different ways network analyzer and a spectrum analyser with tracking generator (HP) Though i also do field strength measurments, not as often though
but in that case with a stand alone receiver calibrate using power measurments (calibrated of course)

Hm..I was thinking...perhaps...

Could you give me an example of the values measured and the gain figure calculated from it ?

Kind regards,

H>

Henry, you've spoken about a subsequent report on how to test, and some more on the real world testing on several antennas including a J-Pole. Do you have any idea when that might happen?

Also, I've requested you email me your Eznec file for the Free Space model noted at the top of page #30. I realize it is Eznec Nec4, but can it be modeled so I can open it with my Eznec version...I would like to check and see where I'm making the error in my modeling. If it can't be done without messing up the model...then just tell me that it can't be done.

I've asked you question, but you are not responding. I understand you are busy, so respectfully take this as another reminder for when you get some time.

Marconi