New antenna from Sirio Gain-Master

[gamegetter]

Quote from September 1964 S9 Magazine
"The only problem is which antenna is the right antenna for you. There are so many types and styles in both base and mobile antennas that a newcomer is apt to presume that only one or two are really good. Of course, as the old timers know, antennas are designed for specific applications, and one antenna which works great for Joe CB might be the worst possible choice for Jack CB. It's really a question of what antenna is best for you, and what do you do with it after you've got it."

 

[HomerBB]

I appreciate the explanation, Marconi. I was afraid it was about to become another mulch fest. I now have a decades worth of antenna builders/reviewers mulch to spread over my shack from other threads. It should help my antennas grow from little dipoles into monstrously big arrays in no time at all. Maybe a little mix of Marconi bits and pieces would have helped my garden grow . . . ?
"Look here, Little Antenna, I've got you some fresh antenna reviewer meat freshly supplied by the online butchers. It's Marconi. Oh goody."

 

[Marconi]

I'm surprised to see such a change in view about the performance on this antenna. I understand the disappointment with power handling and perhaps the increase in price. None of these issues effected the performance of my antenna. After 3 months of use I am more then convinced the GM performs every bit as good as my Sigma did and there is little to no chance any 5/8 wave GP is going to match it under proper testing conditions.

Well SW, yesterday I put my Sigma 4 together and was planning to raise it up, but night fell early. This morning we had a cold front blow in from the Midwest where their having all that bad weather, so I'm in a holding position for now. The cold is not a problem, but the wind is.

The fact that my averaging over time is revealing that the GM might not be as productive as I first reported...is no surprise to me. For 20-30 years I've seen and reported differences far less significant than just about everybody that reports on any comparative scenarios. Even my initial report on the GM only showed a net difference of about an average 0.3 - 0.5 Sunit difference, while I was trying to figure out a good height to really compare my GM vs. the little 4' tall radiator on my AstroPlane. This was when most were showing maybe 1 - 2 Sunits of difference in favor of the GM. In my recap where I recently posted all antennas compared, the A/P, A99, I-10K, Imax...my differences are still rather low in comparison to others. I show all antennas net from and overall average of:

7.4 GM
7.1 A/P
7.3 A99
7.3 I-10K
7.1 Imax

and for me that is pretty close and I don't just have one or two preset test stations 8 - 10 miles away like most I seen so far. My reports shows all the details of name, town, miles, antenna, and signals and most reports were reporting at least 7 - 8 stations per report. I also think some of those pitiful videos I made might even catch a glimpse of evidence to support my claims, but I've really not tried to rehash all of the video work yet, I haven't even evaluated my paper reports to see how my testing two antennas at a time compared to testing the antennas free standing, without a switch box, and then checking the antennas mounted on both mounts individually. I may be surprised at that result when I get to do that.

For years I've made the excuse that the soil in my area is measured to be "very good" and maybe that help balance all designs and size antennas to perform at their max, but now I'm not too sure that others showing much more difference wouldn't also report less difference if they tested more reporting stations per comparison. Heck, I sometimes see the 1-2 Sunit difference too, just look on my reports. It is the averaging that may be showing the real difference you guys are missing when comparing antennas.

Just something to consider.

Donald, did you get a chance to check out the models I sent you a recap for, with some of my results from modeling the Sigma4 configured as .75, .82, and .875?

This pretty much shows me there maybe real differences among the real world models, but I can't be sure my models are accurate, so I remain open and still believing you and Bob are correct. I'm just learning about the Average Gain and losses feature. I sent these results to both you and Henry.

Henry says the work is silly and has no meaning or importance at all. I expected him to be candied in answering my question, and asked him if the modeling idea presented was silly, so I was not offended.

How say you?

 

[CDX-007]

I'm surprised to see such a change in view about the performance on this antenna. I understand the disappointment with power handling and perhaps the increase in price. None of these issues effected the performance of my antenna. After 3 months of use I am more then convinced the GM performs every bit as good as my Sigma did and there is little to no chance any 5/8 wave GP is going to match it under proper testing conditions.

I'm only disheartened by the reports that the SGM is dieing from power levels well below it's advertised power handling capability. I plan to put 500w continuous and up to 1Kw pep into mine.
If it dies I'll be asking for a full refund, but if it continues to perform as well as it has since I erected it on Dec. 1 then I'm a happy camper, albeit writhing with anticipation of a 2Kw version!

 

[Shockwave]

Marconi, I have seen the work you sent me and I thank you. I have not had a chance to give them the time they deserve yet. I hope to look them over in more detail tonight.

 

[Marconi]

I'm only disheartened by the reports that the SGM is dieing from power levels well below it's advertised power handling capability. I plan to put 500w continuous and up to 1Kw pep into mine.
If it dies I'll be asking for a full refund, but if it continues to perform as well as it has since I erected it on Dec. 1 then I'm a happy camper, albeit writhing with anticipation of a 2Kw version!

Steve, I'm already in trouble with one guy, so I would hesitate to make any specific claims about power into my GM, but I do a lot more than he did with two 500Z's and 50 watts in most of the time. On occasion, I discovered I was working the amp with 100 watts in. I don't use an inline meter so, I don't really know the watts out at that time, but 150-250 watts in...will easily do me about 1700 max.

So, I don't know and I hesitate a little to say more after another member here got cross with me illegally showing the picture of his fried GM. I've also read, over there, that there were more failures and that too may be an illegal offense. Maybe it's them little green people up north, hey?

I hate to disagree with you Steve, but I doubt we'll ever see a 2KW version of the GM. What's the point in light of what we already know has happened with piddlin' few watts.

 

[CDX-007]

Steve, I'm already in trouble with one guy, so I would hesitate to make any specific claims about power into my GM, but I do a lot more than he did with two 500Z's and 50 watts in most of the time. On occasion, I discovered I was working the amp with 100 watts in. I don't use an inline meter so, I don't really know the watts out at that time, but 150-250 watts in...will easily do me about 1700 max.

So, I don't know and I hesitate a little to say more after another member here got cross with me illegally showing the picture of his fried GM. I've also read, over there, that there were more failures and that too may be an illegal offense. Maybe it's them little green people up north, hey?

I hate to disagree with you Steve, but I doubt we'll ever see a 2KW version of the GM. What's the point in light of what we already know has happened with piddlin' few watts.

Do you guys also have to re-sign in after only about 10-15 minutes? I have to continually sign-in, sign-in, sign-in all day long, every 10-15 minutes in order for it to know it's me and offer the long page type I have selected, even though I'm not closing the window nor deleting my cookies.

It's getting ludicrous.

Maybe I should email Moleculo and find out why I'm somehow entered into the system in such a fashion, unless that's just how this forum is set up, and if so I'll just learn to live with it.

Anyway, Eustace, I just wanted to say that you're in a large group of good-guys who often confuse my name with Steve. No worries, Eugene, happens all the time, Evan.

I'd really like to see the Imax and SGM back up like you had them for that last test when the Imax couldn't even hear the beacon, except I'd like them to be swapped to the opposite locations.
Lots of unnecessary work, I know, so unless you've just bought a new supply of Vitamin B12 don't sweat it.

I wonder if that's some local noise emanating from somewhere around your block, and possibly blocked by the other antenna acting like a reflector.

Edwardo, you've certainly got the oddest location I've ever seen regarding your antenna tests. Makes me wonder what you'd get if you erected a 72' tower and then compared all your antennas.

But it's been great to watch you and all the effort you've put into this. You're to be commended as an example of someone who puts your money where your mouth is!

You have me contemplating setting up a way here to feasibly swap antennas (before I get rid of most of them) and recording signal strength on video with certain stable stations in this local and outlying areas.

I'd love to get an I-10K back for testing and show it's comparison to the P500 before/after it's .64 mod, along with the SGM of course.
- You'd love that Johnson meter, but I've yet to even figure out how to post a video!

73,
Scott

 

[Marconi]

007, I don't have such a problem, but sometimes the WWRF does act weird and gets real slow at times.

Regarding videos and modeling for that matter, just make up your mind that you're going to do it, and don't look back. It's all about determination.

Thanks for your kind words of encouragement. At my age the effort is actually proving beneficial to my health. I have lost about 20 lbs, and have cut my insulin back for 45 units per day to a bit over 20, and that is significant concerning the side affects. I also have some energy again, but I doubt you guys even know how to relate to that bit of information.

Well 007, no more calling you Steve.

The first time I noticed any issue with the beacon was when the A99 or the A/P (maybe both) did not seem to respond as well, or at all, to the signal as did the GM, and that didn't even seem reasonable for me. I did not know why either and I still don't. I know the Imax did the same and the NTO responds just fine, about equal to the much taller GM. Didn't I put up a video on the AP, Imax, NTO vs. GM on the beacon. The only problem I have is keeping up with all this stuff.

ME THINKS this is how the story goes.

When I was first surprised with the way the beacon responds, I think, was when I was trying a video while raising my A/P, from all the way down, to all the way up. I was expecting the video to show us a somewhat steady increase in signal up to maybe even stronger than my GM and I wanted to post that in the WWRF. That's when I snagged my coax on the ladder as I was tugging on the last section of mast. When I got back to the radio, I was dumb-founded, there was no signal and just barely a sound of the beacon. I figured it had stopped, but when I flipped to the GM, there it was, loud and clear. Since then the A99, and the Imax both responded the same. Last Sunday, I put up the New Top One, and to my utter surprise it was showing virtually the same signal as the GM, but to be sure I'll have to go back and check the video. I'm not going to put anymore videos using the beacon on YouTube or the forum, because I don't understand what it is. I have tried to get guys to check the beacon out and see if they can hear it too, but the guys around here don't want to be caught dead checking anything on-air, for fear that a couple of the big boys, will clamp down and be critical. That is also why I don't do any testing on-air, it is not worth the trouble it causes. This is one of two groups on ssb that are still working in the area, and we have already in the last few months lost the majority of names on my list of buddies noted on my Signal Report due to a few deaths, but mostly to the terrible attitude among several in the group, and there is no where else left to go and still talk SSB.

I have a Comcast power supply deal in my back yard and I've considered the idea that maybe they use such a beacon for testing and tuning purposes when they come visit customer's with service problems. I know they now do all their work almost exclusively at the computer or TV, so I'm just guessing here. If so the mount out back is closer to this big box.

I think I would surprise you if you saw me working my antennas. I thought about doing a video of me pushing up my Sigma4 attached to my pushup pole all by myself and all connected together at about 40' feet I think. Then I secure it to my mount, and get up on a ladder to do what is necessary to raise it up high. I don't get on the roof anymore, but I feel comfortable on the ladder, and if I can reach that big ole' Sigma's tuning area from the ladder I will tune it.

Before I tune, I'll check if first, and with my prior experience I figure it will be ill-tuned just going together on the ground using the instructions. Then I plan to do a full range of my testing, my way side by side with the GM and try to prove on video if tuning the Sigma really makes any of at all difference in performance. The antenna might show a tune I would not ignore fixing, and if it does, this is what I plan to do. If so, the test before tuning and after tuning should show some difference...

IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE TO BE NOTED.

How say you, anybody?

 

[MrSuburban]

For years I've made the excuse that the soil in my area is measured to be "very good" and maybe that help balance all designs and size antennas to perform at their max, but now I'm not too sure that others showing much more difference wouldn't also report less difference if they tested more reporting stations per comparison. Heck, I sometimes see the 1-2 Sunit difference too, just look on my reports. It is the averaging that may be showing the real difference you guys are missing when comparing antennas.

Just something to consider.

Donald, did you get a chance to check out the models I sent you a recap for, with some of my results from modeling the Sigma4 configured as .75, .82, and .875?

This pretty much shows me there maybe real differences among the real world models, but I can't be sure my models are accurate, so I remain open and still believing you and Bob are correct. I'm just learning about the Average Gain and losses feature. I sent these results to both you and Henry.

Henry says the work is silly and has no meaning or importance at all. I expected him to be candied in answering my question, and asked him if the modeling idea presented was silly, so I was not offended.

How say you?

The difference inm everyones test is you are all using a smeter to see a difference none are the same, the reason you are seeing less difference , IMHO is because you are using a rig who's s meter is calibrated tighter than the rest. Just because a guy in England shows 2 s units doesnt mean his S meter is showing the 1/2 db gain correctly or whatever the difference between antennas. The one way to check your system is to add a step attenuator at least you will know what a 1 db difference at your meter shows. I dont think you are going to see much more than 1 db if you see that much difference and again what does that equate to at your meter.

The reason the GM works well to me is because of the choke perhaps you dont suffer from CMC as bad as the other's who have tested thier I max's vs the GM. In the end the S meter isnt going to show a 1/2 db change in gain which is a fair performance gain. Get a old cobra and hook up a volt meter the readings will give u more resolution. But I am afraid that unless everyone else does this you arent going to still get a fair comparision, your 1-2 s-unit gain may not b the same as my radio. They need to nail down some testing parameters, in the end the numbers dont matter thay are just like a watt meter relative, if something works better u should be able to tell, hearing a guy who never could make the trip to you even though he is still giving you 1 sunit when you couldnt hear him prior.

 

[HomerBB]

Marconi,

First, it would be great to live nearby and do some of these things together. Maybe we'd put you up one of these tip-over wooden towers I've got.

Second, I can't do it now, but after the weather improves I'm going to go completely through my Qv4k and redo everything tightening up the whole thing end-to-end, remeasuring to the specs, then retest it. I didn't find the dramatic differences over my 5/8 I expected, except when mounted 10 feet from the ground the receive tramples everything else I've had that low; length helps it there, I suppose.

Wrong weather today:

 

[CDX-007]

Something I've been wondering about is feed line phase.

We all know about velocity factor in coax, and how a ¼λ of, say, 75Ω coax can be used as a matching transformer to match from a 100Ω impedance feed point, (like what's seen when directly feeding a full-wave loop) down to a desired 50Ω impedance when cut to a true ¼λ utilizing it's velocity factor to determine how long a ¼λ will be inside the coax for a given frequency.
... but who tries to cut their coax so it will supply the RF to the antenna at precisely 0° or 180°?

If possible, I do.

I'm well aware of the camp of operators who don't believe this has poo

diddly-squat to do with getting RF to the antenna, but I am not one of those, after having had far too many occasions where it has shown a difference in both swr and performance, even when utilizing a CMC choke in line below the antenna (aerial in the UK ).

Eddie, I'm wondering if this might have something to do with your rather oddly more uniform signal strength readings from differing antennas which have shown literally up to 2+ S-units of difference when I replaced one for another either at my location or another operator's location.

A99 to SGM for instance, I have been part of replacing or testing the replacing of an A99 with an Imax on several occasions over the years and like clockwork I have witnessed 2 S-units improvement, and the SGM beats my Imax hands-down, however you get almost identical readings, Eddie, and this boggles my mind.
With totally different matching systems, wave length and type of feed point antennas, they are still neck-n-neck at your QTH.

All your work at testing this against that and others against those, and they all come out basically THE SAME!! :headbang

What type of coax(s) do you use on each of your masts, and to what lengths are they cut?

Another thing I wonder about is height above ground and how that affects the TOA and gain of the different designs with regard for how they utilize ground wave, direct wave and sky wave to travel their path to or from the receiving / transmitting signal.

Maybe where you live the sky is lower.

 

[MrSuburban]

Something I've been wondering about is feed line phase.

We all know about velocity factor in coax, and how a ¼λ of, say, 75Ω coax can be used as a matching transformer to match from a 100Ω impedance feed point, (like what's seen when directly feeding a full-wave loop) down to a desired 50Ω impedance when cut to a true ¼λ utilizing it's velocity factor to determine how long a ¼λ will be inside the coax for a given frequency.
... but who tries to cut their coax so it will supply the RF to the antenna at precisely 0° or 180°?

If possible, I do.

I'm well aware of the camp of operators who don't believe this has poo

diddly-squat to do with getting RF to the antenna, but I am not one of those, after having had far too many occasions where it has shown a difference in both swr and performance, even when utilizing a CMC choke in line below the antenna (aerial in the UK ).

Eddie, I'm wondering if this might have something to do with your rather oddly more uniform signal strength readings from differing antennas which have shown literally up to 2+ S-units of difference when I replaced one for another either at my location or another operator's location.

A99 to SGM for instance, I have been part of replacing or testing the replacing of an A99 with an Imax on several occasions over the years and like clockwork I have witnessed 2 S-units improvement, and the SGM beats my Imax hands-down, however you get almost identical readings, Eddie, and this boggles my mind.
With totally different matching systems, wave length and type of feed point antennas, they are still neck-n-neck at your QTH.

All your work at testing this against that and others against those, and they all come out basically THE SAME!! :headbang

What type of coax(s) do you use on each of your masts, and to what lengths are they cut?

Another thing I wonder about is height above ground and how that affects the TOA and gain of the different designs with regard for how they utilize ground wave, direct wave and sky wave to travel their path to or from the receiving / transmitting signal.

Maybe where you live the sky is lower.

How about something more plausable like his S meter isn't calibrated same as your's or he doesnt suffer from CMC so the SGM didnt show as much difference. Not one of you is doing the test in the same fashion trying to come up with answers results in Flying Monkey Voodoo Theories like this post.

 

[HomerBB]

I would have to go back and look over all the tests one by one to know whether this was done or not, but simply comparing all the antennas to say 4 or 5 exactly the same distant stations from the same tower same equipment, etc and not averaging out any data from any other stations but those chosen few. Given the unfriendly nature of those operators it could take months to do, but it would have as near the same data as possible under the circumstances.

This would be perhaps one in Alvin, another in Katy, then Aldine, Conroe, Pasadena, etc in every case. The obstructions, distances, tower heights, transmitters, and other uncontrollable particulars would be most nearly the same rather than averaging the data over dissimilar stations on different antennas. Track only the same stations with each antenna.

That said, I have confidence in the integrity of the tester in every one of Marconi's tests.

 

[CDX-007]

How about something more plausable like his S meter isn't calibrated same as your's or he doesnt suffer from CMC so the SGM didnt show as much difference. Not one of you is doing the test in the same fashion trying to come up with answers results in Flying Monkey Voodoo Theories like this post.

Oh, I'm sure that must be it, oh yeah, 'Meter calibration' - Yep, both his dissimilar radios (including a nice newer Kenwood 570) just happened to be out of calibration the same basic amount in the same way and for some reason that makes different antennas look similar in performance...

- Talk about monkey pi...

 

[MrSuburban]

Oh, I'm sure that must be it, oh yeah, 'Meter calibration' - Yep, both his dissimilar radios (including a nice newer Kenwood 570) just happened to be out of calibration the same basic amount in the same way and for some reason that makes different antennas look similar in performance...

- Talk about monkey pi...

I never said they were out of calibration numb nuts I said they were representative of a correct reading, funny both his Kenwoods show close to the same if you go back and look at my post he is using radios who's s meter would show more accurate results than all the guys who used CB radios. Anyone who sees 1-2 s units difference(1 s unit = 4-6 db - 2 s units = 8 to 12db ) and think that is correct when comparing similiar antennas must be smoking the same shit you are. I guarantee my theory holds more water than your's. How can coax make what 1 antenna recieves be out of phase.