sigma4 article is online

[bob85]

Henry,

It is a very poor situation when one man can ruin a thread and take others along with him through compulsive lies and a complete lack of evidence he claimed to have,

It seems that doing exactly what he has begged people to do > build a collinear test antenna that proves his phase bucking claim and the claim that eznec is useless was wrong,
Test a real vector 4000, contact the stations he asked us to contact for proof, is not good enough,

Point out his taller antenna on top of the tower will give better coverage, still no good,
Expose just a few of his blatant lies, also not good enough to remove the blindfold,

If people cannot see how he twists whatever we say into meaning what he wants it to mean,
It is they who are blind and not helping at all in the debate, 4 of us on here know the truth from the private conversation,

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

I thank you for your efforts, the article is not wasted on me.

73

 

[Shockwave]

Henry, I was taught from a child that the truth will set you free and we are going to have some truth here today! I am so tired of Bob and Henry trying to make his theory present me as a liar that we are going to review the exact tactics that have been used to deceive people and get Henry's theory to the dilemma it's reached here.

Henry and Bob forget there are 23 pages of a 4 way conversation that document the progress of lies Henry has used to present his theory that Bob blindly supports. Starting on page 4 Henry pretends to assure me that he can be trusted with any information and he would respect my right to not be directly associated with his theory. Note the quotes below have been taken directly from the conversation. Here is what Henry told me prior to posting his theory:

This I will not be doing open on the forum as im not interested in what `others` have to say and end up with an endless debate of misinterpertating and explaining things beyond the subject.
The plan is to obtain proof and write a detailed `vector 4000 exposed` .
The outcome can be either way.
Me beeing right, or it will confirm the collinear story.
If the first happens, i will ask permission of Donald to put the information gathered on my website. I will not put it on the forum as i again im not interested in debates with those who are unable to `think`.
If he does not want it...its oke with me as i certainly do not want to be the guy who proofs him wrong and therefor might put him in a bad spotlight. The information will remain amongst the 3 of us. But at least we know what is going on. But again... I do understand if you would not like to have it published certainly not if it is your main income...please think twice before you provide an answer.

As you read Henry's own words and then the unfounded theory he presents, can you see where he made any effort to keep his word to me or stick to the motives he originally described? Can you see where he switched from the nice person we have come to know and stabbed me in the back in order to defend his theory? Notice after mentioning this several times to him right here he ignores all his devious actions and continues to ramble on with insinuations about the creditability of others? What Henry really did was to completely lie about his intentions so he could get his personal project going only to do the exact opposite of everything he said. Can we call that an outright lie yet???

What is your motivation for trashing years of work on the Sigma in favor of your flimsy theory with no supporting evidence other that your own personal work Henry? What did you tell Bob that we all missed to convince him that Cebik and himself were completely wrong so quickly? What could make a man ignore what he's seen for years in favor of your paperwork?

Since you spent so much time on my website looking for things you could use against me, I decided to look at yours a little Henry. I see you are selling what looks like hundreds of old NOS Avanti antennas on your site from leftover stock that never sold in the last 36 years. Notice you don't have a single Sigma IV since all that stock sold within months of the final productions run.

Would anything in your report read different if you were lucky enough to have 100 Sigma's brand new in the box for sale Henry rather than all the other models that never sold or worked as good? Would it help you to sell all that old stock if you could somehow downplay the results so many had with their best omni antenna? I'm just wondering what could motivate a man who had earned such respect here to turn into a complete lying back stabber?

I find your actions and timing highly suspicious. Explain why you won't follow through with the lie you told me in the quote above Henry??? Is your "pet theory" important enough to you that you'll let it destroy your credibility as you attempt to use it to do the same to others???

I don't think you have ever acted like this before Henry and others on the forum have a right to know exactly who they are dealing with now that we know. The only request I made to you Henry was to keep my names and products out of any Sigma theory you decided to create. You clearly failed to keep your word, now own it like a man and fix your mistakes.

 

[AudioShockwav]

With due respect to all involved.
Antenna discussions often get out of hand, everyone please step back for a minute and take a deep breath and see if we can get on with the thread without several more pages of punch and jab.
It is clear that there are differing viewpoints on how this specific antenna works.
I think we all understand this.
I have progressed in my thinking about this design as it has evolved as more and more info is presented.
Lets all try to have a open mind, allow each involved to have their independent thoughts and ideas with some restraint.
Everyone has questions, they have been posted, lets take some time and think a bit before replying in the heat if debate.
Thank You.

73
Jeff

 

[Shockwave]

Jeff, Please understand Henry has created some serious issues using this forum and should be required to explain his actions the same way. If there is any doubt regarding the lies he told me in the quoted conversation that took place here, I'm happy to forward all 23 pages to you for mediation so that you can determine that he deceptively took this topic from a theory about the antenna design to an outright attack on my antenna, in stark contrast to anything he said previously.

 

[Marconi]

Donald, how does it feel to be a lone voice crying-out it the wilderness.

Thank you Henry.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Yes Jeff,

I am asking the same as Donald...
Please do...

As it could help explain:

1- Yes his quote of mine ...is one I wrote...
But you have to see it in the correct context.
It was because i did not want to put him in a bad spotlight, this has never been my intention. He has done that all by him self by providing lies.
And using lines in the wrong context to make others look bad.
It was where we started.
Why wouldnt he have "used" such a thing when we started ?
He only does so ...like it looks im doing somethng wrong...,but Donald...if you are always honest... You dont have to worry about things like that.

It was I who found it "fair" to inform him wasn't it ?
It was I who told him .....
It was I who had an INDEPENDENT CST source confirming.
It was I who did every test he wanted ....
It was I who revealed the truth in the end.

I have given him so many "options" in this thread alone but for most in those PM's...I have been so kind any other would find it "remarkable".
And I have done in the PM so many times...yes...

You see Donald,
People DO KNOW ME !
They know Im a straigth up guy,
They know I wont tell lies,
They know Im not interested in the commercial aspect etc....
They know..IM ABOUT CB ANTENNAS.

As I am as honest as I can be. I am after antenna theory.
And yes, I CAN BE A PAIN IN THE ASS...
AS I AM DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH CAUSE: I AM ACCURATE AND I DO KNOW AND I WILL NOT TAKE THINGS FROM MANUFACTURERS FOR GRANTED. (As you have witnessed.)

Though my main thing is "helping people"
I have difficulties with a manufacturer who is not telling the truth.
And I always give them the benefit of the doubt.
perhaps they do not know they are wrong...but If they do...if they have been told I am expecting they should work on it, if they dont ....it is proof it is not the clients they are interested in...but the commercial aspect.

Most clients dont know (as we have witnessed in this thread)
Thats why I believe I HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH...THEY NEED TO KNOW.
Donald, been there...done that...got the T-shirt...

Obvious when the truth was clear ..for Donald there only was one thing that remains...and that is trying to put me and others in a bad spotlight.
That is what people do when they have no ground to stand on.

Have you seen he has done anything else ?

Let me state this clear:
I did not besides Sirio, named any manufacturer in my article that is still producing then antenna today. And evan Sirio was not mentioned in a bad way, if you read my posts...you will find out I actually like them in certain aspects.
Heck, i there are so money sirio beams sold beacuse of me...
People turned to me willing to pay ...etc...but I said no..I wont make an antenna for you.\
If you have 500 euro's ...buy a mast of 400 and a 100 euro Sirio that will work better !
I did that many times....and still you are trying to question how I operate with my clients etc ?

And Donald,
I could...I could have exposed you up front...no problem.
You keep shouting remove my name from your article...
If you actually would read it, you will find out I specificity not mentioned many.

It is only cause your last thing was standing to proof your 5,15 dBI gain was each time "my professional engineers" ...without any proof...
So I did investigate that....please read post 247 again.

Im not telling you are not telling the truth...
(I am now.... As im passed my stage of thinking we can put you in line with the clients up front...if you help people it will come back to you)

I am telling you :
YOUR CLIENTS DO SAY THE SAME STORY TO ME AS THEY DO TO YOU
They do not backup your story....

What is left Donald ? Nothing....is it ?

The only thing remaining is copy past things and apply them in wrong use.
Again that is something YOU DO...NOT ME.

with my post from yesterday you should have seen i was oke...and backing down...no problem...I was oke with it as I didnt want to lower myself any futher then i did.

But then you still had to provide something to make me look bad isnt it ?...why Donald...why ?
It is only cause you do your up most to make it "go away".

IF YOU WANT PROOF FROM THE CBC ATLANTIC REGION TRANSMITTER COORDINATOR NO PROBLEM !
IF YOU WANT PROOF FROM YOUR WEZG YOUR MAIN PICTURE ON YOUR PAGE...NO PROBLEM !

ETC....NO PROBLEM.

I have problems if you violate my honesty...
Cause I have been honest Donald...proof me wrong...

CAN I SAY THE SAME FOR YOU ????

Ehm..back to why I would like it online:

2- Everyone is all ready aware that we had a long conversation including Bob and the DB. His quote is one of the first lines I mentioned.

3- That he realises it will be publish is clear cause he only brings it up now after I provided proof that he is not telling the truth. (pse see post 247)

4- I have asked him a so many times if I could call him or he could call me etc to explain;
In fact using his words about MY THEORY: Henry, i could agree with your theory but..my measurements tell me otherwise..
Now, we dont have to ask again how accurate your measurements are do we ?
We all ready found out.

5- In fact his words were with my initial question:
Donald....is it the magnetic H field we are looking at ?
He said : Henry ...im not 100 percent sure....
Indeed Donald, you were not. But you are now...

6- After my initial question where I warned him about what I was going to do ...
What the subject will be....I warned him cause I realised it might hurt him.
I helped him with it. I gave him so much options ....

We had a long conversation...where in the end of that conversation he provided several warnings....with concerns like: "I would do the 4 wire test" I would make sure you test without gamma-match etc"before publishing...
So I did.....I DID EVERYTHING HE ASKED ME TO ...
AND EACH TIME IT WAS CLEAR HE MADE MISTAKES.

7- Just the FACT that DB and BOB were in that conversation on none of them is backing up the claim its a "confined current in cone collinear producing 5,15 dBi antenna says enough.

8- They are all aware.
I have been honesty in every possible way.

So Jeff, I have no issues with you putting it online.

AS I AM NOT HAPPY THAT SOMEONE WHO IS NOW KNOWN TO BE ...(im not using the word Donald) IS QUESTIONING MY INTEGRITY WITH OUT ANY PROOF

THANK YOU !

H>

AND NOW I AM SICK AND TIRED OF IT.
cause I have lowered myself to "that" world.


Good bye Donald.

 

[Shockwave]

Nothing but a weak attempt to justify your lies Henry. Right down to the denial of directly attaching my product name directly to your unfounded theory as show at the bottom of your following webpage: http://cb-antennas.com/?page_id=965 You are proving yourself to be even more despicable with each obvious lie you tell. I'll tell you something else Henry, you're putting yourself in a vulnerable legal situation regarding liable.

To carry your personal attack as far as you can, you reposted the collinear picture today rather than address your fibs or the way you harassed my clients, especially the Engineer who confirmed exactly what you didn't want to hear. If this theory was important enough to you that you would mislead me in an attempt to gain my cooperation in the beginning, it's important enough to consider you may continue to mislead others in your presentation.

You pretend to have given me options in your report when in fact the only option you gave was to listen to you, shut up or get the knife in the back. Should I post how many times you tried to use theory to tell me decades of results can't be true. How many times you tried to get me to call you on the phone as your captive audience to force feed me BS as I politely tried to tell you I declined before telling you I would have to ignore you? My company name on my CST model used to support your unfounded theory is another risk you've needlessly taken.

If you won't address you're blatant contradictions regarding the use of my names on your site we can go back to the first topic just a little. Please tell us in your next post what experience you have working with this antenna design in the "fringe coverage zone"??? The only area anyone ever claimed to see improvements in while you picked one arbitrary distance as seen in your report to base all of your opinions on.

PS: Henry, if you think I'm the only one who sees you've pushed this theory ahead prematurely and without any regard for others, you're sadly mistaken. Recognize not everyone who fully disagrees with your theory based on real world experience is willing to stand up to you or Bob and take the deceptive tactics you use in defense of your questionable work. You've simply ignored or "railroaded" right over every opposing experience. When that didn't work you disregarded everything you said originally and conspired with Bob to attack credibility.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Ah Donald...ah you have a point ! you are right..(how does that feel ;-))
The Name Dominator is indeed there...

I did indeed mention it.
That was uploaded during this thread (REMEMBER?)
To show surface currents.

NOW MY CLAIM WAS: I didnt mention it in my article.
Please link to it again... as it shows the currents of it in the cone in opposite phase....
opposite to what you are telling.
While you are watching ...please explain ?

 

[bob85]

Donald,
Please explain how a vertical antenna that produces 2-3dbd will only show that gain out on the fringes of coverage?

Unless of course the increased signal and better coverage of the taller antenna is not due to significantly more gain but due to "other factors"

like reflections and its extra height above ground when installed on top of the tower out in the clear as opposed to all the other antennas you say require tower side mounting,

The claim, that style antenna is able to put a stronger signal on the horizon is not in question. The gain claim is.

 

[Marconi]

Henry, I didn't see what you describe here, in the additional image you provided, until I was able to get the video to run, and then I could see the idea clearly showing currents just like my Eznec Tabular Currents Log predicts...manifesting major cancellation occurring.

Plus if you you folks could compare on my Eznec currents log report, for only the first segment in each contributing element in the base of this antenna, and consider the current directions as noted...and consider that each segment is approximately the same segment length, then you will see the current cancellation is nearly complete. This means that the net remaining currents of all currents subject to cancellation in the base of these antennas are virtually ZERO, and whatever little difference remains...will contribute into the far field, whether the difference is constructive or destructive.

This is not presented as fact, but my opinion base on fact as I see it.

This is also what my models show...and I've been telling this story over and over without an ear to hear.

Thank you for making this clear to all Henry, with eyes to see.

 

[AudioShockwav]

I did not post to any specific member with my lets cool off thread.
Lets try to remember that the subject is a antenna, I think the members are fine with debate and sharing info without dragging each others reputation through the mud.
We all should be able to talk about differing theory and view points without insulting each other.
Donald I understand you are defending your work......... but does it need to get ugly in the public forum?


73
Jeff

 

[Shockwave]

If your site hadn't said Sigma IV / Vector 4000 previously, I might believe my name in that spot recently was just an accident Henry. Now will you answer even one reasonable question? Please tell us in your next post what experience you have working with this antenna design in the "fringe coverage zone"??? You never answer any of the pertinent questions because you don't have the experience to back your theory. Why does Homer see his results with coax isolation, mast isolation and at the same tip height?

Bob, please explain why L.B. Cebik confirmed the "non apparent collinear theory" and didn't just tell you to push a 1/2 wave up another 1/4 wave?? Why didn't he tell you gains were just CMC on a 1 wavelength mast? Why did he specifically mention it would be difficult to model instead of just put a hub at the base? Why did you accept his theory as fitting your results for the last how many years? What credentials does Henry have to suggest he knows so much more and erase everything you learned previously? Won't even touch this will you?

Just to keep things clear, it was not me who started getting ugly and I resisted for some time. It was Bob who felt the need to defend by attack first and call me a liar for revising specs. Then Henry followed up more politely by ignoring opposing results and undermining the competence of other people tests as though he was the deciding factor in years of debate that finally reached a point where it boiled over.

 

[bob85]

I misunderstood what he told me Donald,

If you read the thread i say that i went away searching and found the ARRL open sleeve article, that seemed to fit what i was seeing but sadly never got the chance to get back to him to see if that was what he was what he meant,

I asked several times if the ground plane in the article had any effect and nobody answered,

Henry explained it as i have said before,
Just like we misunderstood your CST animation and Henry explained that too along with a CST plot that proves CST does not show a different result to EZNEC,

I made more noise than anybody in the whole world that it must be some kind of collinear due to my results when making adjustments,

Im man enough to admit i was wrong about the collinear aspect,

All it took was finding somebody that knew what they were talking about to show me the light,
I said unless somebody can show me an alternative in my first post,

Henry did that and explained why i probably had the results i did,

You dropped your cone effect theory and took my incorrect 2 currents theory when you obtained the CST plot and posted the idea on your website, I hope that clears it up any confusion Donald,

Thank you Henry for showing me the light.


page 11, post #154 Donald.

 

[Shockwave]

Bob, I could see you misunderstanding Cebik's statement except for the fact you misunderstood it in such a way that you believed it was responsible for the notable performance characteristics you've seen in the field since a kid. Now am I to understand Henry's theory is so powerful it has altered every last thing you've seen in your field tests too? Some of us would like you to make a little more sense. Please don't use the mast, coax or tip height excuse again unless your willing to address Homer's questions about his results this time too.

 

[Marconi]

Bob, please explain why L.B. Cebik confirmed the "non apparent collinear theory" and didn't just tell you to push a 1/2 wave up another 1/4 wave?? Why didn't he tell you gains were just CMC on a 1 wavelength mast? Why did he specifically mention it would be difficult to model? Why did you accept his theory as fitting your results for the last how many years? What credentials does Henry have to suggest he knows so much more and erase everything your learned previously? Won't even touch this will you?

Donald did you misspeak above when using the phrase; "confirmed the.......?"

Cebik either told Bob about the "collinear theory", Cebik's idea, or it was Bob's idea and Cebik confirmed it as possiblying being a problem. To be clear, which is it?

FWIU, Bob never told us about just pushing a 1/2 wave up another 1/4 wave as he related his conversation with Cebik to us, even though I think he did use this idea to help cook my Goose, on this matter, a time or two.

Anybody that cares about this issue should know that what you guys were suggesting about my little simple analogy...did not apply to my suggestions for antennas 100's of feet high. An inch in few feet can be a big deal in an antenna, but an inch in 100'+
is insignificant by my ruler.

You are twisting the words like you always do, and have done with me.

It is also a pretty simple fact: if you had not mentioned your Dominator and your business...you likely would not find yourself in the pickle you realize now.