Any Astro Plane Fans ?

[HomerBB]

When I experimentedd with changing the location of the spreader between the two skirt - like radiators the result was the curve deepened slightly when I brought the spreader down, and thecurvature became less deep when I pushed the spreader up. If the mention of radiator curvature in the patent is practical then in all likelihood that is all it means.

 

[HomerBB]

That's what I meant, Marconi. The cap hat was rods, not tubes. I was trying to remember the dimensions for it. My memory is only 1/16" off.

 

[HomerBB]

The patent says the mast extends 8' below the hoop. It referred to it as a 1/4^ below the loop for 27 - 29.7 MHz CB usage. it also says it will be the same length downwards from the loop as the skirt radiators sre upwards from the loop. Additionally it clearly says to shorten the mast from that length will cause the TOA to become higher.

my error for saying 9'.

 

[Marconi]

The patent says the mast extends 8' below the hoop. It referred to it as a 1/4^ below the loop for 27 - 29.7 MHz CB usage.

my error for saying 9'.

Thanks for clarifying that Homer. My model for Bob has an antenna mast that is a fraction less than 16' feet...that is wire # 45, that I reference on the model at 191.263" inches.

As a note, this number is what comes up when I make the radials bow, connect to the hub, and then connect to the hoop.

Those guys at Avanti were pretty smart in my book. I don't think they were BS'ing us, I just think when high tech guys describe stuff...they are into the very small differences. To CB'ers such differences are meaningless.

If accuracy is your goal, then modeling really is more like these high tech pros at Avanti...than most are lead to believe around here.

 

[bob85]

eddie,
when the patent describes creating 10-15 degree downtilt,
i read it as meaning making the radials parallel to the mast and resizing the hoop and top bracket to restore a decent 50ohm match,

of course i can't be 100% sure that's what they meant and no idea if its true, its not something i would try,

i looked at your Needle Bender plot again, what went wrong with that?, is it because the mast sits just inside the hoop?,

 

[HomerBB]

@bob85
I believe you are correct. The patent does describe completely removing the flare in the lower two radiators and running them parallel to the mast. Of course, this would reduce the size of the loop, too.

lt has been found, however, that the flare affects not only the impedance, but also influences the takeoff angle at maximum signal strength. The flare of the construction described herein provides a takeoff angle that is about the maximum reasonably allowable for most efficient CB use of this antenna. When the flare was omitted and the conductors 16 and 18 were tested parallel to the first conductor 14 it was found that the takeoff angle at maximum signal strength was as much as 10º to 15º below the horizontal.

 

[Marconi]

eddie,
when the patent describes creating 10-15 degree downtilt,
i read it as meaning making the radials parallel to the mast and resizing the hoop and top bracket to restore a decent 50ohm match,

of course i can't be 100% sure that's what they meant and no idea if its true, its not something i would try,

i looked at your Needle Bender plot again, what went wrong with that?, is it because the mast sits just inside the hoop?,

I had a vague recollection that is what you might have meant Bob...that is why I asked the specific question...just to make sure. In that case, I'm not sure...I don't think I ever tried that, but you could be right, because I have not seen any down-tilt that much that I can recall.

I think you and I talked about this before however...it reminds me of a story I tell about a conversation with "what's his name" where he claimed to have turned a Starduster upside down in his barn and he saw it produce a down-tilt into the valley right outside his door.

As I can recall, I think I modeled the idea...and it made little to no difference in the model and surely did not produce the effect claimed...a 1/2 is a 1/2 wave don't you think. I don't recall all the details however. The model over real Earth might have shown something different than a Free Space model might. I'll have to check and see if I saved that work.

I'll look back and check on the deal about Needle Benders idea too. All I remember is I set the isolation point right inside the hoop...I thought that was basically what he did.

I recently looked at his post and linked it for you, and he does say he added a choke in that area over the fiber glass insulation rod. I didn't model that, and it should be included in order to be fair. I will go back and try that...since I claimed his idea failed...I owe him that. If the choke helps fix the model any, I will recant my words on that score and apologize.

Bob, does the weather man predict a break in the weather in your area next week?

 

[Marconi]

@bob85
I believe you are correct. The patent does describe completely removing the flare in the lower two radiators and running them parallel to the mast. Of course, this would reduce the size of the loop, too.

You guys are right. I never tried that in my model, mainly because it would require modifying the hoop, and that is tedious work. I might try a square hoop and see if that changes the model any. If it shows a minimal change...then I will try the idea.

That will make modifications much simpler.

 

[Marconi]

eddie,
when the patent describes creating 10-15 degree downtilt,
i read it as meaning making the radials parallel to the mast and resizing the hoop and top bracket to restore a decent 50ohm match,

of course i can't be 100% sure that's what they meant and no idea if its true, its not something i would try,

i looked at your Needle Bender plot again, what went wrong with that?, is it because the mast sits just inside the hoop?,

Bob, here is my model trying to simplify the hoop on the A/P so I could more easily modify the size of the hoop, to check if the Patent is right...this will tilt the TOA down.

So...............

I tried this idea that I've seen other modeler's use, thinking I could more easily make changes, per the Patent, like we're discussing at the moment. Building a model with a hoop, loop, or helix is not a simple process, thus modifying one is not easy either.

This idea of using a square hoop is no good...as noted here. If you have seen models with hoops that use a square in place of going to the trouble to make the hoop like it should be, an orbital object...you will not be seeing a reliable model. IMO, if this is done, it is done for the convenience of the modeler, and disregarding accuracy...such a model is not to be relied on.

It does not prove you guy's idea in the Patent that the TOA will tilt downward, and I tried a 6" offset bracket and a 12" inch. The 6" is even worse. The model looks to me to show the TOA rising.

Bob, I know this is getting really complicated to keep up with for me, so I don't think this demonstration will be convincing to you and Henry either, but it is what I see, and I don't see and down tilt indicated even if the radials are parallel like you think. But on the other hand maybe I've missed something else. I would try and explain further, but I don't think it would help, so I added no notes.

Bob, I will talk more about Waverider's model in another post if I get to feeling better. Right now I can't even read Homer's link to the Patent, trying to find something talking about a choke used on the A/P like he is suggesting.

 

[Marconi]

i looked at your Needle Bender plot again, what went wrong with that?, is it because the mast sits just inside the hoop?,

Here is my models of your idea Bob vs. Needle Bender's idea. I don't include my model where I made a choke/FL on his model to see if it fixed the CMC issue on the mast...like it does your model with a feed line and choke. But believe me with Isolation at the point he said he used...does not show to be a good spot for isolation on my model...even including a feed line or choke.

If you don't get my point this time...I guess you will just have to test his idea too...and maybe that would not be bad idea...like I think you said earlier...that might make isolation much more reliable with your weather and wind.

I added some more images here for more clarity in what I did, and I included my idea for what I think your plan is in the Spring. If you change you mind...just let me know.

Try and remember to get me all of the deminsions for your A/P when you can.

 

[bob85]

thanks eddie,
i think you would need everything else apart from the new radial configuration equal to see if there is any change like they claim,

i thought of a potential better way to modify this and other antennas eddie, the idea came from the top-one i made,
a vector with its cone turned upside down is the same thing,

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/ukmudduck/topsyturvey.png

convert a vector into 2 x 1/2wave

 

[Marconi]

thanks eddie,
i think you would need everything else apart from the new radial configuration equal to see if there is any change like they claim,

i thought of a potential better way to modify this and other antennas eddie, the idea came from the top-one i made,
a vector with its cone turned upside down is the same thing,

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/ukmudduck/topsyturvey.png

convert a vector into 2 x 1/2wave

Bob, I think you are just testing me now like a cat chasing a butterfly. No comment.

I think you guys have won the argument...and the S4/Vector both works like you've claimed...it shows to be a collinear monster that produces more gain than any other CB vertical, and anybody that doesn't see that in the CST model that Shockwave posted is just plane ignorant and too old to keep up.

What more do you want from me, I'm not going to argue the BS anymore.

Marconi is gone.

 

[HomerBB]

Bob, I think you are just testing me now like a cat chasing a butterfly. No comment.

I think you guys have won the argument...and the S4/Vector both work like you've claimed...it shows to be a collinear monster that produces more gain than any other CB vertical and anybody that doesn't see that in the CST model that Shockwave posted is just plane ignorant and too old to keep up.

What more do you want from me, I'm not going to argue the BS anymore.

Marconi is gone.

Say, Marconi, I think Bob's being serious.
I did actually turn my Vector upside down. Remember?
It became a NTO - New Top One Dimensions for Homer

When Spring comes I am going to return to this NTO and work on it with my analyzer back home from repairs/calibration. Also, I may build me another Astroplane. If we get new exact dimensions it would be helpful.
I wish I could get to the information where we put the analyzer on the AP as I moved the spreader up and down the center conductor. It's on a locked up hard disk drive.

 

[bob85]

i am been serious Homer,
i thought eddie would get excited about the topsy turvey,
i just turned a problem on its head so to speak,

think about it Homer 2 x 1/2wave with the same tip height as the vector, or a little taller if you stretch the phasing coil,
i have been out routing in the garage looking for a suitable isolator.

maybe we could make the "true co-linear" for cb" list.

 

[HomerBB]

If you don't find something in the garage use a fiberglass shovel handle.