new 55 merlin base antenna

[W5LZ]

Lower radiation angle? Since when is the lowest radiation angle really all that important? The lowest angle of radiation isn't always the most desirable in all cases, probably not even in most cases. Nothing wrong with a low angle of radiation, but all those other angles are just as useful, sometimes more useful than that lowest one. I would think that the overall efficiency of the antenna would be more important. And that efficiency is always reduced by using a loading coil or top hat. It may not be much, but that reduction of efficiency is always there when using a loading coil or top hat, just no way around it. That doesn't mean that either of those things are not useful when applied in the right manner and circumstances, they certainly are useful. When either is used unnecessarily, they will always lead to a loss of efficiency. That leads me to think that if their use leads to a loss, then radiating a signal isn't the first priority of designing the thing that way. And that leads me to think that it's to make a 'unique' product to sell. That uniqueness means it is noticeable, or that it's not the 'usual' 1/4 wave groundplane antenna. And that 'standing out', is therefore more noticeable, and the opposite of being 'stealthy', and that blows the 'CC&R' use thingy out of the water.
Plain and simple, it works. But it doesn't work as well as a common 1/4 wave groundplane antenna. It certainly appears to be built 'heavier' than other antennas of the same type (I think?). It is unique. If those characteristics fill the need you have, then it's probably a good buy. It is not a 'super' anything.
And just for 'grins', a top hat that has 'points' is less efficient than one that doesn't. One of those 'static' thingys, corona problems, and so on. A 'cloverleaf' shape would be much more effective without the static/corona possibilities. Or a large 'ball' shaped thingy. Corona in a bottle ain't all that bad. On an antenna, it's bad.
- 'Doc

 

[bob85]

doc,
efficiency and maximum gain are not that important for every situation either, what matters most is which puts the strongest signal where you need it to go,
the highest gain antenna does not always do that,

antenna makers have played on the lower radiation angle for years and still do today, that does not mean its the best way to go at every location.

 

[Mr Clean]

Mr. Clean, the antenna adds coils and a capacity hat to shorten a "quarter-wave" base antenna.. Why?? Adding components that aren't needed, only adds loss! This makes sense perhaps if running mobile where you need a smaller sized antenna, however it does nothing to improve gain. Actually, the best quarter wave antenna, is one without "no" coils or capacity hat whatsoever. These are being used to shorten the antenna (or to simulate a full sized quarter wave), thus only adds loss. For a base antenna, this doesn't make alot of sense, and again, you would be better using a 102" whip. Although the top placed coils/hat may be less lossy than other designs, the fact remains that the best solution is not adding any coil and/or capacity hat, or any other component that adds loss, compared to a full sized version.

A quarter wave doesn't need any of these components, as with an adequate ground plane and/or radials, the SWR can be 1:1 (or very close to) without adding any of that. Secondly, the concept they are used to hide the antenna in an HOA area, has no warrant, as it is only making the antenna stand out more, and more of an eye sore. You can by far hide a quarter wave, which is just a straight vertical thin whip.

It would be better for both scenarios, to just use a straight 102" vertical for the quarter wave base antenna.

I have dione alot of reading on antennas but dont claim to know as much as some on this board. I do know that longer is always better in the books. And they say that coils cause loss. I also know that on my little truck a 10K or 55R hears better than my 102 and talks as good or afuzz better. I also know that whats is important is the signal is being shaped in a way to cause the most signal is directed in the direction I am wanting to talk. Im not sure what coils do to takeoff angle but im going to try and find out. Thanks and I know what you saying. Theory would say the 55 is nothing magic. But I have seen some crazy stuff in my 45 years

 

[stingray]

Mr. Clean, the antenna adds coils and a capacity hat to shorten a "quarter-wave" base antenna.. Why?? Adding components that aren't needed, only adds loss! This makes sense perhaps if running mobile where you need a smaller sized antenna, however it does nothing to improve gain. Actually, the best quarter wave antenna, is one without "no" coils or capacity hat whatsoever. These are being used to shorten the antenna (or to simulate a full sized quarter wave), thus only adds loss. For a base antenna, this doesn't make alot of sense, and again, you would be better using a 102" whip. Although the top placed coils/hat may be less lossy than other designs, the fact remains that the best solution is not adding any coil and/or capacity hat, or any other component that adds loss, compared to a full sized version.

A quarter wave doesn't need any of these components, as with an adequate ground plane and/or radials, the SWR can be 1:1 (or very close to) without adding any of that. Secondly, the concept they are used to hide the antenna in an HOA area, has no warrant, as it is only making the antenna stand out more, and more of an eye sore. You can by far hide a quarter wave, which is just a straight vertical thin whip.

It would be better for both scenarios, to just use a straight 102" vertical for the quarter wave base antenna.

I agree! i have been using a 102 with just 1 radial. (going straight down)
so i guess it's a vertical dipole. the bottom of the 102 is 8 feet off the ground, so i guess the tip is at 16 feet high. this thing gets out better than my mobile
(a silverado with a 1000 on the roof) no one can see it and all the guys i talk to are within a 5 mile radius and they hear me almost as good as the other guys running antrons! 102's kick butt!

 

[niterider]

5/8wave over a quarter wave isn't what I call a true Collinear! Actually, any 5/8th wave with quarter wave radials can call itself a collinear, if that's the case.. Antron claims a half wave over a quarter wave, which is even more silly.

A true collinear, meaning 2 x 5/8 waves stacked! Big hair is the only one that I know of, that has made the 48' work. I'm not sure if he makes antennas at all anymore, but I seen pictures of them actually "freestanding" in the wind. He also silver plates antennas, which leads me to believe he is an antenna extremist in the sense of squeezing every last db possible out of an antenna. They are big and ugly though.

A 5/8 wave antenna not only has higher gain, but it's a lower angle of radiation gain. Contrary to what others are trying to portray on here, bigger with antennas is better. If you truly want less gain, and a higher angle of radiation, (which is bad in most cases) then don't use a 5/8th wave and buy a quarter wave. If your 102" quarter wave isn't wasting enough of your signal in a most usable pattern or it still has too much gain for you, than add a bunch of coils and other crap at the top, to make it even smaller. If that's still too much gain for you, make it even smaller and smaller until you have a "rubber ducky" walkie talkie type antenna (hey, they use coils at the top too, and have a very high angle of radiation). If your signal is still getting out too far, with your rubber ducky antenna with all it's coils shortenin the antenna, then use a dummy load, or simply shunt a 50 ohm resistor across your radios so-239 connector.. If this is still too much gain for your taste, than I don't know what to tell you. I can sell you a custom made resistor for $260.00, and you will have something unique from your buddies, (they just won't be able to hear you).

The only antenna that can claim 6-12 db, or match anything similar to a beam in signal strength, is a full sized collinear, and at 27 mhz you're talking about a 48' antenna! There is no way a 8', 6', 2', or even a 2" antenna will provide you any suitable type of gain over a boring have wave dipole or istrophic 1/2 wave antenna whatsoever, regardless how many capacity hats you add! Shortening antennas incurs loss. Save yourself $240.00 and buy a 102" which, and use a few 102" wires for the RF ground.

 

[Marconi]

doctormaster, ham international were selling the ham big-mac 5/8 over 1/4wave 11mtr colinear back in the early 80's,

55 is not the only one out there claiming the coil and hat lower radiation angle, signal engineering claim to be doing the same thing,

even avanti and hygain claimed a hat lowered angle of radiation,

is there a ratio of coil/hat and radiator length that gives a better signal on the horizon than a full length 1/4wave even if the maximum gain is lower than a full 1/4wave ?.

Bob, ‘Doc, and DoctorMaster. Some of my thoughts on this subject. I get a mixed bag of considerations when I mix my thinking and experience with cap hats. I hope this is not side-tracking the issues you are discussing.

My thinking is that I believe ‘Doc and DoctorMaster hit on an important issue regarding the use of coils and cap hats. That issue being coils/cap hats are primarily used in special situations where short elements are required and their use is at best a compromise to benefits.

The thinking part was for some time I had a nagging idea that some well-designed and well-built (mobile) ¼ wave center loaded coil antennas and for sure some antennas with reasonably large cap hats---must be doing something special regarding TOA. I figured these devices must somehow affect the pattern formation and maybe this something special might provide improved results over a standard length ¼ wave radiator with ground radials. At the same time I would tell myself that these two devices just benefited the loading and/or tuning of an otherwise shortened antenna and this was done only for convenience reasons to a particular design and not to improve on it.

Bob, you mention several antenna companies that make positive benefit claims regarding improved angle of radiation, gain, matching, etc., when using such devices. This is a lot of special things to consider, so what was the special things these devices did to make them best?

a. Kale and his antenna guru, Judge, claimed that the coils in particular, when using several of a special ¼ wave antenna Kale made, all reacted together in such a way as to add to the radiated pattern in a constructive way, like magic. Sounds a bit like collinear monopole ideas mixed in there somehow. I have also heard somewhere, ideas about the M800 Starduster doing something similar to what Kale said about his base antenna.

b. You mention Signal Engineering claims, and I suppose that was concerning their Golden Rod 45 mobile antenna with both a coil and cap hat close to the top of the antenna similar to the Merlin.

c. Avanti’s AstroPlane with a cap hat is another antenna I think you are referring too. I’m just not sure the Patent suggests that the top hat affects the angle of radiation in any particular way---except maybe for when the antenna is less than a ½ wavelength above the ground and/or the mast support does not extend clear of the bottom loop by 8’ or more. I reference sections of the Patent, 3-42 thru 4-6, about what affects TOA in the AstroPlane. Unless I have missed it, I see nothing about the top hat radials having anything to do with the angle of radiation.

d. Cebik shows modeling results in Fig. 3, of his article “Counterposies, Capacity Hats, and A Standard for Comparing Antennas Suspected of Radiation from the Feedline.” It would appear at first glance of Fig. 3, that the monopole with the top hat, on the right, showing an improved TOA compared to the standard ¼ wave ground plane that is located in the middle of the comparison. Upon reading the text however your will learn that this dissimilarity of results exists due to the antennas being very close to the earth---with the upside down monopole being only 1/4 wavelength obove Earth while the standard is 1/2 wavelength high at its lowests point. It further states, that if the standard GP is lowered down to the same elevation (1/4 wavelength) above the Earth as the top hat model, then the antennas will be almost identical with gain and TOA. So I have to assume that if all three antennas in Fig. 3 are raised up high above the earth, the values shown for each may change due to the increased height, while the comparative values for gain and TOA between the two monopoles would remain similar in values. If this is true, then I conclude that the top hat adds nothing special to the TOA as compared to the standard shaped ground plane.

Now, on the experience side of this issue, I see unique response differences between regular length vertical radiators without top hats when comparing them to antennas using top hats. My process for this will surely be argued, but I think others can duplicate what I do here. So, maybe we can look to them to tell us what response differences they see. I find a buddy that will cooperate in a little testing and that has a horizontal beam. I simply compare two similar vertical antennas that are in question here with my bud’s horizontal beam and signal. The results for me have been repeatedly what SE claims they see and report for their GR45 mobile antenna.

Responds to horizontally polarized signals unlike any conventional vertical whip, thus extending the useful range of a mobile enormously!

I have seen similar responses when comparing my AstroPlane and my Wolf .64 antennas to my Starduster, my A99, and my Wolf 50_11m ½ wave vertical. The antennas with the cap hats all respond with 3-5 S units and maybe even more signal from the flat beam than did the standard type vertical antennas. Yes I had read SE’s words on the subject, but I took it all in passing until I happened to notice two guys talking to each other using horizontal beams while I was comparing my AP to my A99. You don’t even need to have two antennas up to check this out if you have a bud close by with a top hat type antenna and you have one that is not and you are lucky enough to have someone else close by that has a horizontal beam to compare. This test will just be to indicate the possible response differences and is not intended to be scientific, so cut me some slack on the process. I don’t know why this increased horizontal response occurs, but I think it might somehow account for some better skip if you have a cap hat antenna.

So, do you see the dilemma between my thinking and my experience?

 

[DoctorMaster]

Marconi, I appreciate your well thought out response, and sounds like you are being neutral here. What is probably happening, is that the top hat is a little too long, in the sense that it's becoming part of an horizontal element. Perhaps the elements are at a large enough (or fraction thereof) of a wavelength, that they are radiating some small amount of horizontal polarization. The coil in between the "hat" and shaft may be acting as a resonator (or trap), and the capacity hat is acting as a pair of mini-horizontal elements. These are only a fraction of a wavelength, but since they are top mounted, it could be easier for this smaller horizontal pattern to propagate. Doing this also comes at a cost, as for ever watt that is now being sent to the antenna, now a lower amount of this signal is actually being radiated via vertical polarization, where most stations locally are actually receiving/transmitting.

Even if this is what really is happening in real life testing (when using a "horizontal" beam" for comparison testing), and although this may add some signal diversity for dx (or skip talking), this would in turn rob some of the vertical polarized signal and lower its vertical gain more. Meaning if you are dedicating a single antenna for both flat side and vertical polarization, in turn you lose peak gain from both patterns, due to taking a slice of your radiating power, and splitting the pattern between both polarizations.

NASA and space satelittes use an elliptical or "circulular" polarization, (or even "cross" polarization), to diversify the signal patern in space, where polarization isn't easy to maintain. This has also been tested over and over again, to have 2-3db lower gain, than using a dedicated antenna for each. Meaning although you add polarization diversity, which is critical in space, you never have the peak gain of fixating and using just one form of polarization. This is why most beams don't do this, even if they come with both vertical and horizontal elements. You'll notice Maco antennas for example don't radiate on both the "flat side" and the vertical side of the elements at once, but rather are made to be switchable, otherwise some gain would be lost. You can feed both sides, but you'll lose about 2db or so, by not having a dedicated polarization at one time.

From the claims of a few on here about these "quarter wave" antennas, they are claiming this 6' modified mobile antenna outtalks others 5/8th wave antennas locally. At times when talking skip, a higher angle of radiation can do better than a lower angle, and even horizontal polarization can pull in better results, however the claims on here seem to be talking from station A to B 20 miles away, from what I have read (I may have missed something, as this is a long thread).

Station to station (or line-of-sight) stations generally are all using vertical polarization only.. So with this vertical (or semi-vertical) increased "horizontal" polarization signals are being seen, this means the antenna has even lower gain than what I even originally anticipated (unless you only like to talk on the flatside locally, but if that's the case, then just use a horizontal dipole for more gain).

 

[Moleculo]

What is probably happening, is that the top hat is a little too long, in the sense that it's becoming part of an horizontal element

Not likely on HF, and certainly not considering the size of the cap hats that are on the antennas under discussion.

Why are there tests that show that horizontal antenna show some rx gain on vertical antenans with cap hats? I'm not sure I know, although I have seen antenna models that show bigger lobes right on the horizon at a low angle when a cap hat is used. I tend to think that this is the real reason rather than a small cap hat causing horizontal polarity at HF frequencies.

 

[DoctorMaster]

Moleculo, I'm not claiming they are adding horizontal polarization, but based on his findings on it's horizontal pattern, they are claiming the antenna is illustrating much more gain in the horizontal polarization aspect (based on his results). I'm not convinced of this either, but offered most probable solution where any horizontal polarization at all could originate from, and that you can't have your cake, and eat it too.

Furthermore, Contrary to belief, horizontal polarized antennas do not have a lower angle of radiation than their vertical counterparts. Ham operators use horizontal dipoles on the low bands, simply due to this fact. On 160 and 80 meters, dx is actually not ideal, due to the congestion this adds, so many round table nets prefer not to hear the dx stations, but rather short range skip so they can daily rag chew with their local buddies in the US more easily. Vertical antennas rule the low angle game, and horizontally polarized antennas don't start to come close in take off angles, until they are mounted a wavelength or so off the ground, then their take off angles become more equal, but still not lower than a vertical polarized antenna at a similar height above ground with average soil conductivity.

The capacity hat and coils used to shorten an antenna to supposively "surpass" a full sized quarter wave antenna in performance is just a lot of non-factual hype. Those claiming that a capacity hat does this or that based on literature they read somewhere, as evidence it offers more performance this and that, needs to understand the context they are reading from, as it relates to "coil" shortening versus capacity hat shortening for example, not shortening of antennas are better than full sized verticals. On the Ham Bands, where 133 foot antennas are needed to be considered "full-sized", creative ways must be thought of to most efficiently reduce losses,when such an antenna must be dramatically shortened. Their goal is to make the antenna at least somewhat efficient without too much added loss when compared to the full sized antenna version. Having lower gain is inevitable, unfortunately, as having larger antenna capture and a aperature is the best solution, but just not possible on the low bands in most cases for verticals. Any ham vertical out there today that is made smaller by this scaling down effect, does not have more gain than the full sized version, no matter how great of a capacity hat and/or coils are added to it. It's the shortening of antennas that adds loss, you don't shorten an antenna to add gain!

The keyword here is if you are at a frequency where you "have" a size constraint, and you "must" shorten the antenna due to this constraint, a capacity hat for example would have less added loss than using a bottom mounted coil, or other methods to shorten the antenna. The best solution however, is "not" to shorten the antenna as all, as full sized antenna elements equals full perfomance. Chopping the antenna down, (regardless if it's a coil or hat you're adding) never adds gain! If this was the case, we would all be using rubber ducky antennas right now, made completely out of coiled wire and a top hat on top. Why stop at 6', why not make our antennas 6 inches?

I'm getting completely different stories on results published here, so nothing seems to draw consistent conclusions with the antenna. I feel sorry if you wasted $260 on a 6' quarter wave base antenna, as I'm confident if you take off and discard the whip completely, and replace it with a $20 102" whip, and a few wires for a ground plane kit, you would actually see either no discernable or higher performance than the product you paid such a high price tag for. Comments stating that they are better because they have a higher angle of radiation, others claiming it has lower angle of radiation, or that the improvement is mostly from a horizontal polarization standpoint shows a lot of inclusive data/statements about the performance of the antenna and it's associated design.

If you want an antenna, with the best "overall" performance, get rid of adding coils and a capacity hat to a quarter wave.. Even if these added components somehow makes the antenna shoot out a lower angle of radiation, why not use a full sized 5/8th wave or .64 wave antenna.. A .64 by design already has the highest gain and a lower angle of radiation, than a quarter wave could ever have. Why would you pay all this money, for a lower performing quater wave antenna, when you can buy a 5/8th wave base antenna?

If you somehow think adding all these components magically gives your 6' antenna more gain, or that it's needed for a lower angle of radiation, you need to seriously step back, and ask yourself, why are 5/8th wave antennas made, or beams for that matter? Why not add extra coils and top hats on everything, even though they are really needed for tuning the antenna, or to help shorten the antenna?

 

[Marconi]

Thanks DoctorMaster, you didn't miss a beat giving reason to my dilemma.

The results are what I and others have noticed while comparing my AstroPlane with a top hat vs. an A99. I think it is exactally as you describe---likely the large top hat in the AP creating some horizontal RF at the expense of some vertical effectivness locally. Owner's of AP's have commented that their AP seemed to work skip just fine, but did not seem as good locally compared to their A99, etc. I'm not sure how big the top hat is on the Merlin. I think it is probably about 1/2 as big as the one on the AP so I'm not sure how the response works of the Merlin.

When the DX returns, I hope to be testing my AP to see if I can duplicate this response once again. If successuful, then I will make the top element a full 1/4 wave radiator and see how that affects the responses noted here.

The problem with using a horizontal dipoles is getting them high enough to really be effective. Vertical antennas are just easier to raise up.

 

[W5LZ]

I have a feeling that the loading and/or capacitive hat isn't specifically what's causing the apparent polarity thingy. They can certainly contribute to the cause of it, but they aren't the 'magical' parts that make it happen, they're just contributors to what's really the cause of it (hows that for a confusing statement?).
Here's my thinking.
It boils down to the 'shape'/characteristics of the radiation pattern and how that pattern reacts to propagation. Forget about coils and capacitive hats for a minute. Just think in terms of 'full length' antennas. It's pretty evident that starting with a 1/4 wave antenna, as the length increases, the TOA decreases till you get somewhere around 5/8 wave. From about there, to who knows what length, the TOA increases. It's cyclic, deals with multiples of wave length fractions reoccurring as the length gets longer. If you play around with the antenna modeling programs you can see this happening. (That typically means that you are sooo bored to have to fiddle with one'a them programs, right? Unless you're some kind'a geek to start with? )
So back to thinking about coils and top hats.
If you are going to use those things you are almost always considering making the resulting antenna shorter than a 1/4 wave, for whatever reason. That means that you are dealing with some radiation pattern that will 'approach' that of a 1/4 wave antenna, no matter how 'electrically' long you think the thing is. It won't ever have the properties of a 5/8 wave. All those coils and c-hats do is combine to produce resonance (when done correctly), making the thing have no reactance, only resistance (definition of resonance). If the size of those coils and t-hats are selected right, the thing may even have an input impedance of close to 50 ohms. One example of that is MFJ's hugely ugly HF but short conglomerations of antennas. But they work. The 'catch' is that because they are shortened, the resulting radiation pattern will never be the same as a full sized thingy, so reduced performance capabilities. Until a shortened antenna is 'added to' in complicated ways, it won't/can't have the same radiation pattern.
And that brings you to the whole TOA thingy being greatly over rated for all occasions. A low TOA is just not always desirable. If a 'miracle' antenna was produced that had only one very low TOA, no 'other' angles at all, people would find it so @#$ useless! The resulting signal would only 'go' to very limited areas which would be entirely dependent on propagation. Don't know about you, but I want ALL of them @#$ TOAs! Just means you aren't as limited to where that signal goes, close, distant, whatever. I certainly appreciate 'Momma Nature's help, but I don't wanna have to depend on her, you know? (I will never, Never, NEVER, P.O. 'Momma Nature' intentionally! And will be abjectly sorry if I should happen to! {CYA})

Have I proof of any of the above? No. Have I experimented with it, or has any one else that I know of? No. But it certainly seems to hold true in my experience, and from reading what others have experienced, so I find it a reasonable explanation. How about you?
- 'Doc

(And NO! I am not saying 'Merlin' is the CB equivalent of 'MFJ'! I ain't gonna say that about anybody.)

 

[Marconi]

Not likely on HF, and certainly not considering the size of the cap hats that are on the antennas under discussion.

Why are there tests that show that horizontal antenna show some rx gain on vertical antenans with cap hats? I'm not sure I know, although I have seen antenna models that show bigger lobes right on the horizon at a low angle when a cap hat is used. I tend to think that this is the real reason rather than a small cap hat causing horizontal polarity at HF frequencies.

Moleculo, I hope I'm understanding your question above. I think the idea of mixing polarities goes back to discussions about some vertical antennas showing a bit of horizontal component in their pattern. I don't think I have even seen a pattern described as such, but I have heard the idea discussed several times and I see the response differences using the tests I described.

I may be repeating myself on some things, but the cap hat on the AP is 50% of the 1/4 wave top element. This makes the cap hat, in this case, quite large relative to wavelength. We were discussing the Merlin however to be fair, and I don't know how that one responds either. I wish I could display some result or images that would support this contention, but I can't do that either. However, I think the test and results are repeatable. I hope to soon figure out how to do short videos, and if I can get back to testing here I will try to do that. Hopefully if I can produce a good video, it will be clear what is going on. For me, this scenario might be a good test to show.

What you say makes sense, and that is approximately what I would have believed was going on before I tested this cap hat idea as described. I would have been saying, "...it all had to do with angles, pattern, reflection, etc." It was only for the fact that I experienced a similar reaction working my AP on day against a horizontal beam by coincidence, that I re-considered the idea that SE talked about---when they described their GoldenRod 45 skip responses. When I read their words the first time I said, "...just more smoke and mirrors," but I changed my mind.

At some point later on when I tested my Wolf .64 along with my Wolf 50_11m, that has no cap hat, I said to myself, "...I need to check this out some more, it looks like something is going on here again---just like SE said in their description of the GoldenRod 45."

In fact Moleculo, this comparison test was then repeated with the same buddy that had the 5 element horizontal Maco in the earlier comparison test. Well you ask, what happened? I got similar results to my earlier test using my AP and I suspected then that the comparison would be repeatable again and again.

I guess by now you guys get sick of hearing me say: "...I for one, don't see nearly as much signal difference between all the various antennas I have here to compare as do others on the Internet." That said, the Wolf .64 responded with RX signals several S units better (more than 3 I recall) than my Wolf 50_11m, 1/2 wave vertical showed---coming from the beam. And, when my bud switched to his A99 my two antennas showed him RX signals that were almost identical, and the report form my end was similar---the two antennas were back to being just about equal in the situation. Not to be confused, I saw this difference due to a polar difference and not an antenna gain difference. A gain difference would not likely show that much difference in signals plus we were changing polarity at some point in the procedure.

Maybe someone seeing this thread that has a AP or a Wolf .64 with a cap hat could test this simple procedure to compare with a bud on their end with a horizontal beam and tell us what they see. I think you could do the same using the mobile antenna you described earlier, maybe it was in this thread.

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

why not just do 2 x's one over top of the other ? maybe one foot of shaft and then 8ish feet of x going in each direction , with grounds under them angled/straight ?

kinda like a Cylon Base star , lol . (4 even lobes though)

 

[Moleculo]

Cylon Base star - now there's a reference from the past! LOL

 

[Moleculo]

I think this would work better on the Merlin

Military Radio Broadband Antenna Array Capacitance Hat - eBay (item 220379851737 end time Mar-24-09 14:47:10 PDT)