-
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.
Base Have a look at this Antenna
- Thread starter AudioShockwav
- Start date
LOL why would i get mad at you not making a new smaller hoop Eddie,
i can't make any size hoop,
you demonstrated increasing the spacing increases impedance,
did it lower resonant frequency ?.
i can't make any size hoop,
you demonstrated increasing the spacing increases impedance,
did it lower resonant frequency ?.
That's what happens with sigma & skeleton sleeve antennas,
moving the radials closer raises resonant frequency or electrically shortens the antenna & lowers impedance,
you know which way to go with the hoop if you use parallel conductors
moving the radials closer raises resonant frequency or electrically shortens the antenna & lowers impedance,
you know which way to go with the hoop if you use parallel conductors
With Homer's comments about the A/P patent in column #3, I decided to try the idea placing the A/P radials 3" inches on both sides of the radial mast at the 6" antenna mounting bracket. As a result, I had to make a new bottom radial loop 6" inches in diameter. Then I made the radials straight between the bottom and the top at the mounting bracket. I posted this model below.
Click here: https://www.worldwidedx.com/attachments/ap-parallel-radials-6-pdf.33786/
After this, I've done 7 iterations for this model fixing the errors created by this drastic change to the A/P...as we know it.
In the PDF file below is my model #7, "AP ParlR nMnISOnCwT7 FS". Below the model is set resonant at 27.205 MHz, the Average Gain Report is good, the match is nice at 1.036 SWR, and the antenna pattern for this Free Space model finally shows the steering below the horizon that Bob has been telling us about...and as noted in the A/P patent #3587109, column #3, lines 67 - 75.
Click here: https://www.worldwidedx.com/attachments/ap-parallel-radials-6-pdf.33786/
After this, I've done 7 iterations for this model fixing the errors created by this drastic change to the A/P...as we know it.
In the PDF file below is my model #7, "AP ParlR nMnISOnCwT7 FS". Below the model is set resonant at 27.205 MHz, the Average Gain Report is good, the match is nice at 1.036 SWR, and the antenna pattern for this Free Space model finally shows the steering below the horizon that Bob has been telling us about...and as noted in the A/P patent #3587109, column #3, lines 67 - 75.
Last edited:
Eddie.
I just downloaded the file.
This is a very interesting report!
We can visualize the depression of the TOA ( Take Off Angle ) were the antenna main lobe is below the horizon, when configured like your model very nice here.
Like the patent started it and you refined it.
That is great stuff.
You deserve a bottle of good Scotch!
73
Jeff
P.S.
Eddie.
I think this section is one of the best on the forum.
This area inspires a great deal of thought and ideas and sometimes heated debate.
It has made me change my mind and re think antennas and feed line many times.
It is a great collection of experince, knowledge and hard work.
Thanks to guys like you and Bob, DB, Shockwave, Homer, and everyone that gets involved.
All of your efforts are appreciated.
Cheers
I just downloaded the file.
This is a very interesting report!
We can visualize the depression of the TOA ( Take Off Angle ) were the antenna main lobe is below the horizon, when configured like your model very nice here.
Like the patent started it and you refined it.
That is great stuff.
You deserve a bottle of good Scotch!
73
Jeff
P.S.
Eddie.
I think this section is one of the best on the forum.
This area inspires a great deal of thought and ideas and sometimes heated debate.
It has made me change my mind and re think antennas and feed line many times.
It is a great collection of experince, knowledge and hard work.
Thanks to guys like you and Bob, DB, Shockwave, Homer, and everyone that gets involved.
All of your efforts are appreciated.
Cheers
I think if the antenna were raised to huge heights relative to it's wavelength it might show more steerage/tilting than at a typical height. That is the advantage a VHF or higher wavelength antenna may enjoy. . .
So, the patent looks to be right again and steering looks to be possible after-all in Free Space only.
IMO, there is still some advantage for the standard A/P design. Column 3, lines 69 - 75 and column 4, lines 1 - 6 in spite of this idea for steering, and I think the patent says that as well..
Homer your Quote from the patent below has an omission error noted in red, see note below:
Quote from Patent:
"It 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 hereinafter 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 10* to 15* below the horizontal. Although for certain uses, such a downward tilt may be desirable, it appears that the optimum disposition of conductors l6 and 18 lies between the parallel positioning of straight conductors 16 and 18 and the flared positioning of flared conductors 16 and 18 with respect to the conductor 14, as described in conjunction with the specific embodiment illustrated in the drawings."
Note to Homer, I got the quote above from your earlier post #53 to me with a list of paragraphs from the patent. My patent has the 10* to 15* degrees as noted above in red type. This information was missing from your source document.
Are we possibly looking at two different Patents or did you just miss something while typing?
IMO, there is still some advantage for the standard A/P design. Column 3, lines 69 - 75 and column 4, lines 1 - 6 in spite of this idea for steering, and I think the patent says that as well..
Homer your Quote from the patent below has an omission error noted in red, see note below:
Quote from Patent:
"It 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 hereinafter 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 10* to 15* below the horizontal. Although for certain uses, such a downward tilt may be desirable, it appears that the optimum disposition of conductors l6 and 18 lies between the parallel positioning of straight conductors 16 and 18 and the flared positioning of flared conductors 16 and 18 with respect to the conductor 14, as described in conjunction with the specific embodiment illustrated in the drawings."
Note to Homer, I got the quote above from your earlier post #53 to me with a list of paragraphs from the patent. My patent has the 10* to 15* degrees as noted above in red type. This information was missing from your source document.
Are we possibly looking at two different Patents or did you just miss something while typing?
Last edited:
Here are the A/P steering patterns at -10* and -15* degrees below the horizon just like the patent suggested.
Last edited:
@Marconi
When I followed the link on this page,
https://www.worldwidedx.com/threads/have-a-look-at-this-antenna.251231/page-3#post-703330,
the "10° to 15°" was missing in the text, however, when I went to the actual patent text from which that link said it was sourced, the "10° to 15°" was present.
So...
When I followed the link on this page,
https://www.worldwidedx.com/threads/have-a-look-at-this-antenna.251231/page-3#post-703330,
the "10° to 15°" was missing in the text, however, when I went to the actual patent text from which that link said it was sourced, the "10° to 15°" was present.
So...