• 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.
  • Notice: You may not use this site to facilitate the unauthorized selling of copyrighted material including, but not limited to, in the public dxForums, dxGallery, dxChat and private messsages. If you get caught doing this, you will be permanently banned with no second chances. A notice will be placed on the site of why you were banned and any information collected by this site about you will be made known to the copyright holder.

ASTROPLANE best vertical antenna ever?

loosecannon

Sr. Member
Mar 9, 2006
4,194
3,586
273
glad to hear you're ok Marconi.

I didn't mean to fan any flames with my post, I just wanted Jack to get himself caught up and then explain his position instead of making you repeat yourself.

definitely take it easy and thank goodness you can't catch COVID over the radio!

Maybe disinfect your mics LOL
LC
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marconi

Marconi

Usually if I can hear em' I can talk to em'.
Oct 23, 2005
7,063
2,071
343
Houston
Well, I am getting stronger every day. Not so much overwhelming fatigue and confusion in thinking. Short term memory went first.

The morning of the 2nd day in the Hospital, after test an a medical plan was set...I got 3 transfusions...similar to what President Trump explained. 4 hours later I felt much better, but from day to day for 5 more days...I was on a roll-coaster from good to delusional, and could not do a thing for myself.

For safety of staff and my self, I laid in bed in my own mess sometimes, and if I moved wrong, like a leg over the edge of the bed...alarms would go off in the room. I was like a prisoner without bars.

God has always blessed me. I don't exactly understand why, but I'm thankful to be back doing my thing with my friends on WWDX.com and my family.

I have lots of other health problems, diabetes for 40 years, COPD, and A-Fib. I have several very good DR's that have kept me going for all my 83 years...much while in bad health.
 
Last edited:

freecell

BANNED
Apr 6, 2005
1,922
669
65
non-cartesian cyberspace
www.facebook.com
First things first, nosepc was a troll. I doubt he actually put up an antenna made out of iron, or had the know how to actually make such an antenna.

And when it comes to metals used to make antennas, this really is irrelevant. You said you can use EZ-Nec? Why don't you try modeling the same antenna with different metals in it and see for yourself.

Some comparison models of an antenna made out of various metals and tuned to resonance with each... This was done in 4nec2.

[photo=medium]6462[/photo]

As we can see, the different metals don't make all that much difference when it comes to gain and angle. Seriously, stainless steel, about as bad of a metal commonly used to make antennas, has a loss of 0.07 dB compared to a perfect conductor. Good luck noticing that difference.

And here are the structure losses from the different metals.
  • Perfect conductor, 0%
  • Copper, 0.27%
  • Aluminum, 0.33%
  • Stainless Steel, 0.71%
Seriously, Stainless Steel, the worst metal commonly used to make antennas has a structure loss in this case of less than 1%? Again, gook luck noticing that difference...

There is a very good reason there is such a small difference in performance between these antennas. Most of the RF doesn't actually travel through the metal itself, but the space around said metal. If all of the RF traveled inside of the metal, we wouldn't have to worry about things like velocity factor, or said velocity factor would be specifically determined by the metal used, and not the dielectric material used in said coax.


The DB

https://rudys.typepad.com/files/qex-nov-dec-2k-antenna-wire-conductors.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marconi

Marconi

Usually if I can hear em' I can talk to em'.
Oct 23, 2005
7,063
2,071
343
Houston
Looks like a Maco V-Quad close by.

I ran my Old Top One (A/P knockoff) at close to 50' feet and it worked any of the big antennas I had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Bull

Red Bull

Active Member
Jan 23, 2020
65
76
28
N. Alabama
www.facebook.com
The A/P does pretty good for 25ft. My main Maco 5/8 gp received some major damage from hurricane ZETA when it passed over n ga some weeks back. I can still talk on it and the swrs are still low but the rx/tx is not as good. The A/P hold it's own with the damaged Maco.

It's an original A/P from the 80's all weathered but still has flat standing waves!
 

nfsus

Yeah its turned off, touch it
May 9, 2011
174
80
38
45
Arkansas
I've now built 2 different styles of astroplane as well as owning an original. The 2 I've built are different in design however neither have hats. Both have flat swr readings. Bother are now sitting 9ft between the ground and the hoop. One has a small hoop with the radials straight up to the cross bracket. The other has a 30in hoop and the offset radials like factory. So far 9ft off the ground I've had good results with a difference of 1 to 2 s units from other stations that I talk to daily.

According to what I've read the hat changes electrical length and the radiation focal point. Does it make a difference in function if you eliminate the hat and make the element longer? What about the size of the hoop? I've read that controls the toa.

Think think think. So many opinions.

I have no analyzer but one should be here within the next 2 weeks.
 

Attachments

  • 20210222_135739.jpg
    20210222_135739.jpg
    2.6 MB · Views: 15
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RT431 and Marconi

The DB

Sr. Member
Aug 14, 2011
1,988
1,469
193
St. Louis, MO
Does it make a difference in function if you eliminate the hat and make the element longer?

If you remove the cap hat and lengthen the vertical element to compensate, you will have essentially if not the same radiation pattern. The feed point impedance will also change to some extent, so bear that in mind.

What about the size of the hoop? I've read that controls the toa.

The patent talks about this. You can change the antenna's angle of radiation with this method, but only in one direction, up. So if you need to make the "take off angle" higher, you make the basket support legs shorter, and the ring slightly bigger to compensate. The patent also states that the antenna was designed to have optimized this "take off angle" for CB use, and doesn't say anything about lowering the "take off angle".

Two paragraphs later the patent also talks about this type of change affecting the feed point impedance of the antenna, so be warned about this should you decide to try this.

I should also note that it talks about this angle being blow the horizontal, or below the horizon, which suggests the information the patent is talking about when it comes to "take off angle" is specifically in free space. If an earth is present, there is no angle below the horizontal (or horizon) when referring to the "take off angle", so I feel this should be mentioned.

In the past, I was able to confirm that you can in fact change the antenna's angle of radiation in free space with this method, however, when an earth, any earth, was present below the antenna the modeling software did not show any change in the "take off angel" of the antenna no matter what I did with it, short of changing how high it was mounted above said earth.




The DB
 

nfsus

Yeah its turned off, touch it
May 9, 2011
174
80
38
45
Arkansas
Until my analyzer gets here I'm stuck questioning and guessing. Thanks for the reply. I'm seeing stronger tx reports. Up to 2 s units. However the rx is also a heavy 1 to 1.5 s unit noisier and or louder over the factory astro? So I'm going in the right direction I think. I've also added a small cap hat on the extended element. So it's now a longer element and has a small 16" hat. Cant tell the hat did anything. Flat swr across all 40 ch. So it's all just guesswork at the moment
 
Last edited:

freecell

BANNED
Apr 6, 2005
1,922
669
65
non-cartesian cyberspace
www.facebook.com
from the patent:

"a mast (element #14) having a length below level "B" of about one quarter wavelength, i.e., about the length of the conductors 16, 18 gave an optimum takeoff angle." patent # 3587109, page 5, lines 8, 9 and 10.

the takeoff angle @ maximum directivity shown in figure #7 of the patent is @ 5 degrees above the horizon. accordingly the takeoff angle is optimum when the radiating mast (element #14) is between 16 - 18 feet in length, taking into consideration the large diameter to length ratio of element #14, required to be 1.75 inches in diameter to fill out and fit snugly in the u-bolt located at level "A."

if your mast (element #14) extends to 9 feet below the loop @ level "B" (to ground) connecting both sides of the quarter wave matching stub your current configuration is within the optimized conditions mentioned in the patent. if you choose to increase the elevation you will need to either use some form of non-conducting support structure or you will have to electrically isolate the bottom of the mast (element #14) if mounted on any galvanically conductive support structure to preserve the current level of performance while in pursuit of an improved line-of-sight conducive to long distance ground wave communications. you're off to a good start!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Handy Andy

nfsus

Yeah its turned off, touch it
May 9, 2011
174
80
38
45
Arkansas
from the patent:

"a mast (element #14) having a length below level "B" of about one quarter wavelength, i.e., about the length of the conductors 16, 18 gave an optimum takeoff angle." patent # 3587109, page 5, lines 8, 9 and 10.

the takeoff angle @ maximum directivity shown in figure #7 of the patent is @ 5 degrees above the horizon. accordingly the takeoff angle is optimum when the radiating mast (element #14) is between 16 - 18 feet in length, taking into consideration the large diameter to length ratio of element #14, required to be 1.75 inches in diameter to fill out and fit snugly in the u-bolt located at level "A."

if your mast (element #14) extends to 9 feet below the loop @ level "B" (to ground) connecting both sides of the quarter wave matching stub your current configuration is within the optimized conditions mentioned in the patent. if you choose to increase the elevation you will need to either use some form of non-conducting support structure or you will have to electrically isolate the bottom of the mast (element #14) if mounted on any galvanically conductive support structure to preserve the current level of performance while in pursuit of an improved line-of-sight conducive to long distance ground wave communications. you're off to a good start!
So anything beyond the 9ft below the hoop needs to be isolated? I suppose this is where the undesired currents begin to build? And if so, what is the true effects of this?
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ AudioShockwav:
    Sorry to hear you troubles, he is famous around here for his scams.
  • @ AudioShockwav:
  • @ kb9ghn:
    My first thought was the i.r.s. may be interested in a long term money making scam without proper taxes being paid..probably more than electronics involved.
  • @ Toll_Free:
    My first thought was why hasn't someone paid him a visit. I mean, his address is posted above.
  • @ beakster1715:
    Good news! I opened an appeal case after eBay sided with superhawkwss6. I also opened an IC3 case & sent that information to eBay. Within an hour they responded, reversed their decision and returned all of my money. Unfortunately, superhawkwss6 stole my CB radio and eBay will likely not suspend or close his account, but rather allow him to continue his criminal activity. I think I'll still file a report with our sheriff's dept (the sheriff is a friend of mine) though I know this type of crime isn't worth their time. This guy needs to be stopped and I'm certainly going to do my best to make that happen.