• You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

Avanti Sigma4: An alternative view point

Bob been reading both your post and shockwaves,can't help wondering what would occur if the radial angle was dropped to 25/30 degrees and the radials extended to a halfwave,this would surely overcome the patter distortion caused by the gamma sticking above the hoop that shockwave describes,would also reduce the radiator too radial ratio too.just not sure what effect halfwave radials would have if any.

I would imagine it would be possible to add extra support to the enlarged loop/longer,higher angle radials by forming upside down radials supported on the monopole higher up,from non conductive material,possibly delrin,giving a sort of diamond design.Although I invisage it wouldn't be too easy on the eyes at 27 mhz,might be more practical at 98 mhz though.

Thanks for your answer and clarification shockwave,when you said slightly I wasn't sure if you were referring to an antenna at 27 mhz or 98mhz where indeed it would be as you put it,slightly shorter.

I'm curious,are sirio manufacturing the antennas for you under licence? as they bear many hallmarks of their build quality.

The biggest trouble with peaking any antenna for far field gain without having remote calibrated receivers at distance and the ability to view them in realtime via the net is having to depend on other peoples honesty in signal reporting,which in all honesty is dubious at best.Unfortuneately when people realise that your testing antennas they tend to lie to flatter either their ego or your ego to get better signal reports returned,such is human nature.:headbang:headbang
 
Bob is going to send me to the library this week to get this book. I really don't know of any other articles on the design. For years the best info I could find was the Avanti Patent. As far as it working like a non apparent collinear, a half wave over a half wave with the correct phasing section produces 3 dbd. The Sigma or Vector design properly constructed reaches the same 3 dbd. I enjoyed the other threads you mention as well.

Jazz, I've done exactly what you suggested with using 1/4 wave 30 degree upward elements. It does work and it's much easier to get the ideal angle once you remove the loop. Full 1/4 wave elements only work without the loop since the loop adds to the electrical wavelength. I did see gain go up by doing this however, it was not uniform in all directions. The radials without the loop provide less bandwidth and some pattern distortion favoring directions with the 4 radials and producing small nulls in between.

Sirio and my company have entered an agreement where they custom manufacture a few different antenna models to my specifications exclusively for Norwalk Electronics. As such the FM versions of these antennas all get Teflon gamma matches and RF connectors up to 7/16" DIN. Since my antenna is less then 9 feet tall, the tubing is exceptionally rigid. Prior to this I had been constructing them by hand in copper and brass for many years.

Far field testing is easier then you think, you just have to start thinking backwards..... Do it in receive. Don't ask for a signal check on the other end. Antenna gain in RX is the same as gain in TX so long as the matching network can handle the power. With no special equipment you can do this. The hardest thing is finding an appropriate place to tune your antenna. You need to be at least a half wave above ground on this antenna otherwise your VSWR will change when it's installed higher.

Next, get a friend in the distance to use a junk radio to transmit a continuous unmodulated carrier on an unused frequency close to where you talk. Connect the antenna under testing to another radio that has an analog signal meter on it. You can use speaker wire soldered to the back of the radios meter and extend the wire out to feed a digital volt meter set on the 200 mv DC scale. Now you have a stable signal to reference against and an accurate way to measure any change. Just keep the RF gain down so that your readings are taking place some where close to half scale on the analog meter or receiver AGC may start to throw you off.
 
shockwave,
its great to see somebody else out here singing the praises of what the antenna is capable of when tuned correctly,
you use the same test methods, same adjustments to antenna, claim the same results, come to the same conclusion of what length works best,


unreal(y)

did you get a pic of the 15 degree radail prototype?.
 
since these antennas are no longer made and finding one for a reasonable price can take a bit of time .... how do the sirio versions compare ? i know they arnt as sturdly made but im not in a terrible weather area . we rarely get winds in excess of 50 MPH and big hurricanes have several days notice to take the antenna down . IF....if im willing to do the extra work to protect it from those weather extremes are the sirio versions likely to last for me ?

the lw150 is 31 feet and the new 4000 with the cage/ball on top is almost 28 feet . im thinking the 31 foot lw-150 is the better version . ill probally have about a maxium 25-27 foot feedpoint . im also thinking about getting a 10 or 12 foot pressure treated 6x6 and planting it about 4 feet in the ground in concrete and making a pivot at the bottom to attach 20 feet of mast to for quick and easy up/down . it could be neat for playing with different wire/homebrew antennas also .

anyhow , what do yall think ?
 
Bob: I did find the FM prototype however I've robbed many parts off it since I last tested the antenna. No gamma and the top sections are missing. I found the loop still mounted on the base. If you're interested in seeing what this looks like, drop me an email on my business website and I will forward it to you. I'm not sure how to post a picture here. The good news is if you wait a while, I am constructing another one for 11 meters. All this talk here has got me wanting to make the best one I can for 11. As an amateur operator for the last 15 years, believe it or not I still have more fun on 11. In fact I have a Vector 4000 on the roof now that I use on 10 and 11. Other then swapping out the gamma and UHF connector this antenna is stock.

I've already started the build on it's replacement and made the loop. The loop I decided on uses six of the stock loop pieces rather then four. They are overlapped by 3 inches on each end and double bolted together so they can't pivot. This makes the loop about a third larger then stock (minus the overlap). With the fixed loop size I will be able to slide the four support rods for the loop into the bottom sections and find the point of highest gain. It will definitely required four shorter support rods because of the larger loop. Thus, no extending of the rods will be needed.

I can't promise when I will have this completed since it competes for time with my business however, as soon as I can I would be glad to forward you the correct measurements. From my FM tests I can tell you that the best case scenario for this modification will add about 1 db to the stock antenna. That's a total of 3 db. Isn't it funny how many other CB antennas you can find on the market that advertise much more gain but still can't out perform the Sigma style? Other then the Sirio, I know of no other CB antenna manufacturer that uses real gain figures as compared to a dipole. Even Avanti lied claiming over 6 db although their patent told the truth.

Booty Monster: Just buy the Sirio from H&Y Electronics and follow the steps in my previous post that outline the slitting of the top sections and use of hose clamps. This nearly eliminates the top sections from breaking off. The original method of screwing the sections together sucks because there is too much clearance between the diameters of tubing. This play always causes wear in the tubing at the point where sections meet until they eventually break or strip out the screws.

The LW-150 was too long for maximum gain and used a fixed tap point on the main radiator for the gamma. This caused problems with tuning it up for a perfect VSWR. You could only adjust the capacitive reactance of the system with the gamma. In order to adjust the inductive component you were forced to take the antenna down and adjust the top whip length. The variable tap point on the Sirio and original Sigma makes them superior with respect to VSWR adjustment.

Sirio's new length around 28 feet is close to what I expect to use however, the ball at the top has to go. Silly idea that looks better then it works. The antenna is DC grounded so static buildup is not an issue the ball can help with. It may improve bandwidth the slightest bit but it's not worth installing. Mostly because it is a bird catcher. Sirio used this ball on top of their S-2000 5/8 wave first. I had one and the first time any bird larger then a Robbin or Barn Swallow landed on it, the top folder over as the bird jumped off. I saw this happen in front of my eyes and was quite disapointed. Removal of the ball will require adding a couple inches to the radiator to compensate.
 
Removal of the ball will require adding a couple inches to the radiator to compensate.

That may account for the reason I calculated the new vector 4000's physical length to .81λ instead of .82λ

It will be interesting to see how you get on.

By the way its only in recent years Sirio have been quoting real world gain figures,less than 10 years ago they wee quoting around 7.0 dBd for the vector 4000 and around 5dBd for a high power 4000 mobile antenna with 3 kw power handling,(no doubt a few molten coils later reality began to bite or they stopped getting Solarcon to print their catalogues) among many other ridiculous claims.The Sirio 827 was quoted at 7.5dBd back then,I've taken these figures straight off the Sirio Catalogue (copyright dated 1995,although I believe the actual catalogue was used later than that,its the only date in it).Ironically at the same time they were quoting both the Starduster 27 and SD27 dipole at 0dBd.
 
Preliminary measurements of the new loop are now complete. The stock loop assembly without the main radiator attached has a resonant frequency of 22 MHz. when placed directly over a 1/4 wave ground plane. I suspect this frequency is lower then expected because I had to place it over the 1/4 wave ground plane in order to take stable readings with a counterpoise. In either event, the new loop dimensions work out to be 129 inches in diameter with four 80 inch support rods. This design exactly duplicates the resonant frequency of the stock loop. The four stock black PVC braces will have to be extended to support the new loop.

I'm sure you're probably questioning why the loop is actually over a 1/4 wavelength. The answer is simple. The entire diameter of the loop does not add to the electrical wavelength. RF looks at this arrangement as the loop adding to the electrical wavelength by only half the distance between each of the four support rods. So basically the diameter of the loop adds to the support rod length by approximately 1/8 of it total diameter. I must say the design of this loop has exceptionally wide bandwidth in comparison to a simple 1/4 wave straight element. The loop makes a big difference here.

Soon I will install the main radiator and tune the entire assembly for maximum gain. Today I was just concerned with getting the loop in the ballpark. I'll have to set up the field strength receiver and a remote TX with 100% duty cycle in order to complete the antenna. With the main radiator about 28 feet I should be able to extract that last db of performance out of this antenna in due time.
 
lol@shockwave, im happy i stired something up in somebody to make them want to see what the design is capable of on 11mtrs,
as you know theres far more to setting one up than sticking it on the analyser and adjusting for low vswr,

28ft. are you taking into account the wavelength/diameter ratio of all conductors on hf vs vhf means the vector needs to be relatively longer@ 27mhz for the same electrical length?,
i ended up with more than 28ft with 90-3/4" radials for best signals at distance,
129" diameter hoop:eek:, do you mean 129" circumference or are you testing the large radial angle with the hoop and ignoring trying to keep the radials about 1/4wave long?
129 circumference using 80" rods sounds about right to me,

i suspect going longer with the radials will also improve performance, going shorter on the radials definately lost performance @60+miles for me,
the only way i will find out is swap the radial upper sections for longer tubes and test the idea, i have the sigma and several vector hoops to experiment with,

good luck on extracting more gain on the horizon, im confident it can be done,
imho what you see on fm broadcast band is no fluke ,
it will be interesting to see how the modified vector looks and how our dimentions compare when we are done(y)
 
129 inches in diameter is a hair over 405 inches in circumfrence . thats almost a full wavelength on 11 meters . did you mean 129 in circumfrence 41 inch diameter ?

so the new 4000 but eliminating the cage/ball top and adding the missing length is better than getting one of the LW-150s' ? slitting the tubing as you say either way . the gamma match system is better on the new version as well ..... correct ?

i had the longer lw-150 in mind , but if the 4000 is better with the mods thats what ill shoot for . gotta sell this 500V first though . im not missing any contacts using my 225 with 1/3 the power , so im selling the 500 to get a better antenna .
 
Bob: You are correct in the 129 inches being the circumference of the loop. Sorry about my mistake. I'm only using the analyzer on the loop to get me in the ballpark since I know the loop simulates an electrical 1/4 wave. Although it certainly does resonate lower in frequency when removed from the main radiator and placed over a ground plane.

My method of testing automatically takes into consideration conductor sizes on this frequency since I peak gain with a field strength receiver. In the past I only took the time to do this for the FM band and estimated the scaling to CB on the few 11 meter models I modified. As you see I am going for the same accuracy on 11 now.

If you didn't expand the circumference of the loop before you experimented with the radial length, this explains your results. The cone section on the Vector is probably a little on the short side in terms of wavelength to begin with. The key here is to provide more of the length in the loop so that we can increase the angle simultaneously. That has a bigger effect but requires you make a bigger loop first. Then you will see the extra gain when you shorten the radials.

As a last note, I don't think the gamma has been changed on the new Vector.
 
heres a post by jack/freecell from his forum at 292 Radio Shop / FireCommunications Network.......The Export Radio Specialists! .
its pretty cool . he worded it so even someone with limited antenna knowledge (like me) can understand it . i find its also easy to visualize the 1/4 wave ground plane growing into a sigma 4 .

i asked if i could post it around and he said yes as long as i give him credit for his info , which i would have done anyway .
thanks again jack ;)

.........................................................

"i have posted this some time ago in The Members Portal, i've decided to
release it here first in the Antenna Group. let me know what you think........

Where the story begins........

when the ground wave field strength of vertical antennas is examined, it is found that if a 1/4
wave antenna has 100 mV. field strength at 1 mile, a 1/2 wave vertical will have about 125 mV.,
a 5/8 wave will have about 140 mV., but a 3/4 wave will have only about 80 mV..

the conditions under which these tests were conducted assume a fixed amount of transmitter power
with all antennas tested matched to the feedline so that Z=50 or R=50, X=0 at the target test
frequency and that all antennas are tested at the same exact feedpoint height.

as the antenna design with regard to wavelength^ is extended from 5/8 wave to 3/4 something not
unexpected occurs. additional lobes appear in the upper elevation plane reducing the amount of
field strength in the major lobe at the lower takeoff angle and the measured ground wave signal
strength is reduced.

(^ electrical, not physical)

and so, conventional antenna theory is confirmed and vindicated not only by the test results
above but given further credibility and affirmation by the many college level engineering texts
that have been written on the subject.

whether or not this was the starting place for the engineers at Avanti when they contemplated
the design of the controversial Avanti Sigma IV is not known but it makes sense that this would
be as good a point as any. herein was the challenge presented to not only defy conventional
theory and design but also in the process to come up with a design that eliminated the formation
of these additional and wasteful high angle lobes while increasing the ground wave gain and at
the same time reducing the sensitivity of the design to objects in the near field which tend to
wreak havoc with feedpoint matching and distort the radiation pattern.

first let's re-establish a few facts so that it's easier to follow along with what lies ahead.

beginning with a basic 1/4 wave ground plane with radials at a 90 degree right angle to the
active radiating element, typical input impedance is roughly 36 ohms at a predetermined height
above earth ground. as the radial elements are lowered towards earth ground the input impedance
rises. conversely, as the radial elements are raised the input impedance is lowered.

as the radials are raised towards the radiating element something else interesting occurs. the
radiating element becomes less sensitive to the influence of surrounding objects and terrain
in the near field, allowing the antenna to be mounted in locations and at heights above ground
that would be extremely deleterious not only to the feedpoint match but also to the radiated
pattern emanating from the radiating element.

as the radials are swept upwards towards the radiating element capacitance between the radials
and the radiating element increases, effectively raising the resonant frequency of the system
or causing the electrical length of both the radials and the radiating element to be shortened.

so, the closer the radials come to the radiating element the more the coupling capacitance
increases, the higher the resonant frequency climbs and the lower the feedpoint impedance drops,
approaching single digits and 0 ohms.

also remember that the gamma match is used to match 50 ohm feedline to loads representing less
than 50 ohms. let's assume at this point that we have raised the radials to the point that the
angle represented at the apex (bottom of the antenna) is such that it approximates a value of
15 degrees. at this point we have gross mismatch, (single digit impedance) a 3/4 wave vertical
element that started out resonant in the middle of the cb band (or whatever) and is now resonant
much further up the band (1/4 radials included) but we have eliminated the sensitivity of the
vertical element to surrounding objects and terrain which provides a distinct operational
advantage, mentioned previously. now we have to match the feedpoint to the feedline and provide
some compensating influence to counter the rise in the resonant frequency of the radiating
element.

as we can see from the above the gamma match is the logical choice for impedance matching and we
can re-resonate both the vertical element and the radials by increasing the physical lengths
until resonance is re-established at the intended operating frequency. we can lengthen the
radials and simultaneously improve the frequency vs. bandwidth attributes AND provide additional
physical support for the radials by simply connecting an aluminum loop that will intersect the
radial ends while extending the physical lengths of each from 89.5" to 107".

with that done we can now direct out attention to re-resonating the vertical element for the
intended operating frequency by providing additional tubing length (inductance) beyond what is
dictated by the standard 3/4 wavelength formula. with that accomplished all that is left is to
implement the gamma match and then adjust these last two variables to match the feedline while
maintaining resonance at the target frequency. this can be the tricky part as the gamma strap,
referred to by SigmaIV enthusiasts as the "Dogbone" also comes into play with these other two
adjustments.

after all of the hard work what you end up with is a full-size modified 3/4 wave vertical that
easily produces twice as much signal as a conventional 3/4 wave @ 80 mV..

as to all of the questions posed by the pundits from the J-Pole camp i have only this to say.
you have no clue what you're talking about. even the most uneducated person can look at these
two designs based on nothing but geometry and determine that they can't be the same antenna
design based on the dissimiliar symmetry alone. what seemingly escapes most of you is the way
that the feedline smoothly transitions into the SigmaIV while closely maintaining the same
basic concentricity (inner conductor to outer conductor diameters) as that of the feedline with
no exceptions as to the size and type of feedline used. this efficiency factor coupled with the
full-size 3/4 wave radiator and revolutionary upswept radial design is why the SigmaIV was ahead
of its time when it was first introduced to the market and lends itself to the design of even
longer antennas (in terms of wavelengths) to produce even higher gain figures without the
restrictions presented by the development of multiple lobes as was the case in the conventional
designs that we were previously limited to."

........................................

now , any thought on if this antenna performs better directly connected to metal mast and earth ground vs. insulating/isolating if from conductive mast and earth ground ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was an impressive post that Jack wrote. The man is obviously well versed in this antenna. I'd like to speak with him at some point and exchange ideas. About the only thing I disagree with is probably a simple typo or misunderstanding. In the following paragraph "As we can see from the above the gamma match is the logical choice for impedance matching and we can re-resonate both the vertical element and the radials by increasing the physical lengths until resonance is re-established at the intended operating frequency. we can lengthen the radials and simultaneously improve the frequency vs. bandwidth attributes AND provide additional physical support for the radials by simply connecting an aluminum loop that will intersect the radial ends while extending the physical lengths of each from 89.5" to 107".

Shouldn't the last line read "We can lengthen the radials and simultaneously improve the frequency vs. bandwidth attributes AND provide additional physical support for the radials by simply connecting an aluminum loop that will intersect the radial ends while extending the electrical lengths of each from 89.5" to 107". It is the electrical length that is increased by adding the loop. That's probably like my "diameter vs. circumference" typo.

This helps explain why increasing the loop diameter increases gain. Increasing the angle between radials and radiator improves the match the gamma will have to compensate for as well as having a nice effect on lowering the angle of radiation. It also explains why you would shorten the radiator as the loop circumference is expanded due to the capacitance effect the angles create.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ Wildcat27:
    Hello I have a old school 2950 receives great on all modes and transmits great on AM but no transmit on SSB. Does anyone have any idea?
  • @ ButtFuzz:
    Good evening from Sunny Salem! What’s shaking?
  • dxBot:
    63Sprint has left the room.