Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Any truth to what this guy is saying?  (Read 1629 times)
KK4CRY
Member

Posts: 35




Ignore
« on: March 14, 2013, 07:38:51 PM »

Any truth to what this guy is saying about antenna types?  1/4 vs. 5/8 antenna and about ringo ranger base antenna
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAnrp3cJucY
« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 07:42:39 PM by KK4CRY » Logged
KB4QAA
Member

Posts: 2269




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2013, 08:29:54 PM »

I gave it a shot, but no, No, NO!

Ask specific questions you have, please!!!!!   

It is unreasonable to expect us to watch a fifteen minute video and try to guess what your questions are. 

b.
Logged
KK4CRY
Member

Posts: 35




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2013, 09:08:30 PM »

he claims that on 2m mobile antenna a 1/4 wave antenna out put is more shaped like a donut and a 5/8 wave antenna's output is flat like a pancake. He also mentions a ringo ranger vertical antenna being a stacked vertical diople
Logged
N4CR
Member

Posts: 1652




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2013, 10:58:56 PM »

he claims that on 2m mobile antenna a 1/4 wave antenna out put is more shaped like a donut and a 5/8 wave antenna's output is flat like a pancake.

True enough to say True. It's a flatter donut.

Quote
He also mentions a ringo ranger vertical antenna being a stacked vertical diople.

It's a collinear vertical.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 11:06:27 PM by N4CR » Logged

73 de N4CR, Phil

We are Coulomb of Borg. Resistance is futile. Voltage, on the other hand, has potential.
M6GOM
Member

Posts: 875




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2013, 04:59:35 AM »

Any truth to what this guy is saying about antenna types?  1/4 vs. 5/8 antenna and about ringo ranger base antenna
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAnrp3cJucY

Yes although the pattern of the 1/4 wave is more like half a donut cut horizontally through the middle.

I've tried switching between a 1/4 wave and 5/8 wave antenna on 2m quite extensively and noticed very little difference between the two performance wise to a repeater that is 55 miles away - maybe a S point at best. So if you're wondering whether you'll be OK fitting a 1/4 wave antenna and whether or not you'll be missing out massively with the performance in comparison to a 5/8 wave, no you won't. If you're in a valley and repeaters are on hills you may even find the 1/4 wave outperforms the 5/8 wave to those repeaters due to the higher gain at higher take off angles.

Logged
WB6BYU
Member

Posts: 13026




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2013, 01:21:39 PM »

Quote from: KK4CRY

he claims that on 2m mobile antenna a 1/4 wave antenna out put is more shaped like a donut and a 5/8 wave antenna's output is flat like a pancake.



Well, it would be somewhat if you used a small ground plane on the 1/4 wave
antenna and an infinite one on the 5/8 wave.  As antenna misrepresentations
go, it's not too bad, and is probably what many of the textbooks say.

Take a balloon and blow a bit of air into it (but not enough to inflate it all the
way.)  The flatter you squish it top-to-bottom, the further it bulges out on
the sides.  The same thing with your omnidirectional antenna pattern:  the
more you squish it into the horizontal plane, the high the signal at the
horizon. 

Now if you look at the theoretical diagrams of 1/4 and 5/8 wave radiators
over infinite perfect ground, you'll see that that (except for a couple of
high angle lobes) the pattern of the 5/8 wave whip is, indeed, flatter than
the 1/4 wave whip, and gives more gain at low angles.  This is the
theoretical 3dB gain.  HOWEVER, if you put the two antennas in free space,
giving each the same horizontal  1/4 wave radius ground plane to work
against, the actual difference is much less - perhaps 1/2 dB or so.

Why is that?  The gain of the 5/8 wave whip over perfect, infinite ground
is due to the height of the radiating portion over that ground, not anything
intrinsic about the antenna itself.  If you put ground radials on a 1/4 wave
vertical and elevate the top of it to be at the same height as the top of
the 5/8 wave whip, they'd work about the same.

In the case of a mobile antenna on 2m, the roof of even a large van is
not big enough for a 5/8 wave whip to develop the rated gain that
it would have over an infinite ground plane - you'd need something that
extend out to 50 or 100 wavelengths, which isn't practical to drive down
the highway.

So the 5/8 wave has a somewhat flatter pattern, and a little more gain
than a 1/4 wave whip in the real world, but, from my experience switching
between the two, I'd say about 1dB difference on the top of my van.


Quote

He also mentions a ringo ranger vertical antenna being a stacked vertical diople



As is just about every other 2m antenna with a radiator about 8' long.  It's a
very popular design because it gives you useful gain in a reasonable length.
The ASA IsoPole is similar, though it has a second bottom cone to provide
additional feedline decoupling.  (The Ringo Ranger added a decoupling stub
and radials below the feedpoint after AEA advertising pointed out how
common mode currents on the feedline distorted the radiation pattern.)

You can call it colinear dipoles, or an "Extended Double Zepp" (EDZ), or
whatever you want.  There are two half wavelengths providing the
radiation and the ends are spaced about 1/4 wave apart, which is about
the optimum spacing if you are using a simple phasing stub.  You can
build your own antenna to do the same thing using several possible
designs.  If you look inside some of the fiberglass-encased antennas of
similar length you'll probably find about the same arrangement.

Logged
W6EM
Member

Posts: 724




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2013, 06:18:04 PM »


You can call it colinear dipoles, or an "Extended Double Zepp" (EDZ), or
whatever you want.  There are two half wavelengths providing the
radiation and the ends are spaced about 1/4 wave apart, which is about
the optimum spacing if you are using a simple phasing stub.

Actually a Ringo Ranger ARX--2B is more like a 5/8 wave over a 3/4 wave with a 1/8 wavelength stub in the middle.  Not exactly a perfectly matched stacked collinear. http://www.cushcraftamateur.com/pdffiles/ARX-2B.pdf

Quote
  You can build your own antenna to do the same thing using several possible
designs.

Hard to beat a J-pole.  Start off with a shorted 1/4 wave stub at the bottom, feedpoint impedance selectable up and down the stub.  Followed with another 1/4 wave stub at the top and another half wavelength radiator.  Some call this a "super-J."
Or, if you prefer, Double Zepp, when horizontal
Quote

  If you look inside some of the fiberglass-encased antennas of
similar length you'll probably find about the same arrangement.

Most of the fiberglass tube antennas use a series of alternating half-wave coax sections on the inside.  Center to shield and shield to center conductor.  But, be careful to take the velocity factor of the coax into consideration.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!