Dual band antenna ???

[Tom]

Hi all

Now I need a recommendation for a 2m 70cm base antenna. This will go right
at the top of a 50ft tower. My ringo 2m modification antenna didn't pan out
too well. I could get low SWR on some freq but I want a wider range of work.
If that is possible. I also use it for 156 megs (Marine band).

I am looking at the utubes of dual band antennas for home, I like the
UVS-300.

Can anyone make a recommendation for the purchase of a dual band antenna? I
would also like to use it as a SWL antenna as I listen a lot on all bands.
This antenna will be verticle and right at the top of the tower. I am hoping
to spend about 200 dollars.

Thanks for any comments,

[Channel Jumper]

'Tom[_8_ Wrote:
> ;801430']Hi all

The antenna of choice is the Diamond X 510 fed with Belden 9913 or LMR
400

Ringo's are nothing more then a over glorified dummy load..

Second choice would be a Diamond V2000 if you also wanted to include 6
meters.....

On two meters FM - I have talked up to 1500 miles when the bands were
open with the Diamond V2000 and frequently talk 50 / 75 miles in the
mountains of western Pennsylvania - although my elevation helps a
little.

I am at 1400' amsl - 60 miles west of State College and 65 miles east of
Pittsburgh and I can talk and listen - north, south, east and west
about 50 miles full quieting.




--
Channel Jumper

[Helmut Wabnig]

Do not take the Diamond X510, take a shorter one.
The long antenna bends and swayes in the wind causing unnecessary
fading. The bending results in early failure.

You cannot SWL with a real duoband antenna, because it is frequency
selective and is dead on the SW bands.

w.

[Channel Jumper]

'Helmut Wabnig[_2_ Wrote:
> ;801459']On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 22:08:02 +0000, Channel Jumper
> Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com wrote:
> -
>
> 'Tom[_8_ Wrote: -

> ;801430']Hi all
>
> Now I need a recommendation for a 2m 70cm base antenna. This will go
> right
> at the top of a 50ft tower. My ringo 2m modification antenna didn't
> pan
> out
> too well. I could get low SWR on some freq but I want a wider range of
> work.
> If that is possible. I also use it for 156 megs (Marine band).
>
> I am looking at the utubes of dual band antennas for home, I like the
> UVS-300.
>
> Can anyone make a recommendation for the purchase of a dual band
> antenna? I
> would also like to use it as a SWL antenna as I listen a lot on all
> bands.
> This antenna will be verticle and right at the top of the tower. I am
> hoping
> to spend about 200 dollars.
>

> Thanks for any comments,-

>
> The antenna of choice is the Diamond X 510 fed with Belden 9913 or LMR
> 400
>
> Ringo's are nothing more then a over glorified dummy load..
>
> Second choice would be a Diamond V2000 if you also wanted to include 6
> meters.....
>
> On two meters FM - I have talked up to 1500 miles when the bands were
> open with the Diamond V2000 and frequently talk 50 / 75 miles in the
> mountains of western Pennsylvania - although my elevation helps a
> little.
>
> I am at 1400' amsl - 60 miles west of State College and 65 miles east
> of
> Pittsburgh and I can talk and listen - north, south, east and west

> about 50 miles full quieting.-

>
>
> Do not take the Diamond X510, take a shorter one.
> The long antenna bends and swayes in the wind causing unnecessary
> fading. The bending results in early failure.
>
> You cannot SWL with a real duoband antenna, because it is frequency
> selective and is dead on the SW bands.
>
> w.

Ya - I didn't catch that one.
Longer wavelengths requires a larger antenna, hence you aren't going to
use a 2 meter antenna to listen to 80 or 160 meters - at least you
probably aren't going to work much DX - but the bottom line is - you
need more then one antenna to do everything...

MIght I suggest the Barker and Williamson BWD 90 folded dipole for the
HF bands. Problem is - it costs more then 200 dollars.

The Diamond X510 should not give you much problems with bending -
opposed to what Wabnig sez...

Technicially, you should never put a vertical antenna at the very top of
any tower. You should side mount it - which would eliminate any bending
or flexing. Putting it at the top of the tower - just turns it into a
good lightning rod.




--
Channel Jumper

[Tom]

Thanks for the tips

Are any better than the others in cross frequency rejection? I want a high
gain antenna but nothing that would pull in too many high power operators
locally.

Sometimes there are pagers or text message providers who bleed onto two
meters, especially when a local ham transmits, seems to come in strong. Are
there any ways to reduce or eliminate the cross frequency intermodulation? I
like the idea of the 17 foot, no problem with height, height means gain,
gain sometimes means intermodulation.

The diamond X-510 has very good reviews,

Any ideas how to eliminate cross channel intermodulation with good antenna?
Or right antenna?

Thanks





"Channel Jumper" <Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote in message
news:Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com...

[Channel Jumper]

Not to get too technicial, but the title of the post was Dual Band
Antenna ???
Not one antenna that does it all.

The only antenna that does more then one or three bands would be the
discone antenna...

The Diamond Discone will operate somewhere between 10 meters and 900
MHz.

Any other antenna would require the use of traps or solenoids to make
the antenna resonant for that band.

One other antenna - if you had the money and the real estate would be
the High Power - Off Center Fed Dipole - which operates practically
everywhere between 440 MHz and 160 meters - with the exception of 15 and
30 meters.

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/hypower/




--
Channel Jumper

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:08:47 -0500, "Tom" <ab...@cadabraa.ca> wrote:

>Are any better than the others in cross frequency rejection? I want a high
>gain antenna but nothing that would pull in too many high power operators
>locally.
>
>Sometimes there are pagers or text message providers who bleed onto two
>meters, especially when a local ham transmits, seems to come in strong. Are
>there any ways to reduce or eliminate the cross frequency intermodulation? I
>like the idea of the 17 foot, no problem with height, height means gain,
>gain sometimes means intermodulation.
>
>The diamond X-510 has very good reviews,
>
>Any ideas how to eliminate cross channel intermodulation with good antenna?
>Or right antenna?

You're antenna isn't going to do much for removing excessively strong
signals, such as paging. The single best improvement you can do is to
lose your scanner, and get a better receiver with a better 3rd order
intermod (IMD3) specification. By the nature of the beast, scanners
are highly susceptible to intermod mixes in their front ends.

There are cavity and crystal notch filters, that will reduce the
signal levels around the paging transmitter frequency, without
affecting the operating frequency (much). Search for crystal VHF
notch filter or cavity VHF notch filter.
<http://www.parelectronics.com/amateur.php>
<http://www.vk5zd.com/PagerFilter/Filter.aspx>
Careful what you buy as some notch filers are receive only and will
blow up if you transmit through it.

You can also build a tolerable notch filter with a T-connector and a
1/4 wave coax stub:
<http://dl4xav.sysve.de/coax.filter/coax-filter.html>

There are also ham radio bandpass filters, such as:
<http://www.dci.ca/?Section=Products&SubSection=Amateur-FAQ>
A BPF has the advantage of removing multiple sources of IMD, from a
wide variety of off frequency sources, while the various notch filters
only remove one frequency.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Dave Platt]

In article <k2bah89f7u69sasr3...@4ax.com>,

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

>>Any ideas how to eliminate cross channel intermodulation with good antenna?
>>Or right antenna?

>You're antenna isn't going to do much for removing excessively strong
>signals, such as paging. The single best improvement you can do is to
>lose your scanner, and get a better receiver with a better 3rd order
>intermod (IMD3) specification. By the nature of the beast, scanners
>are highly susceptible to intermod mixes in their front ends.

This is also a problem for many (most?) modern ham HTs, which have
broad-as-a-barn front ends. Their "DC to daylight" reception is both
a feature-advantage and a robustness-disadvantage. Older single-band
radios often have better front end filters.

>There are cavity and crystal notch filters, that will reduce the
>signal levels around the paging transmitter frequency, without
>affecting the operating frequency (much). Search for crystal VHF
>notch filter or cavity VHF notch filter.

><http://www.parelectronics.com/amateur.php>

I can offer a thumbs-up for the PAR Electronics VHFTN152-158. I had
terrible pager intermod problems with my Yaesu VX-5, whenever I had it
hooked to a "real" antenna (roof, bicycle-mobile flag J-pole, etc.)
rather than a rubber duck.

The pager-notch filter eliminated the problem, and as far as I can
tell it hasn't had a significant effect on ham-band receive
sensitivity or transmit power on either 2 meters or 440. I assume I'm
losing some signal and power due to insertion loss but it hasn't been
noticeable.

--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[tom]

On 2/8/2013 8:24 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:

> One other antenna - if you had the money and the real estate would be
> the High Power - Off Center Fed Dipole - which operates practically
> everywhere between 440 MHz and 160 meters - with the exception of 15 and
> 30 meters.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/hypower/

If you believe that an antenna will operate effectively from 160m to
70cm you are even more ignorant than I previously thought.

And OCFD are not good even at HF if you really understand how they work
and the problems they have because of that.

tom
K0TAR

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:26:03 -0600, tom <news...@taring.org> wrote:

>If you believe that an antenna will operate effectively from 160m to
>70cm you are even more ignorant than I previously thought.

Yep. To paraphrase Roy Lewallen (W7EL):
Small size, broadband, gain.... pick any two.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:57:03 -0800, dpl...@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
wrote:

>In article <k2bah89f7u69sasr3...@4ax.com>,
>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>>Any ideas how to eliminate cross channel intermodulation with good antenna?
>>>Or right antenna?
>
>>You're antenna isn't going to do much for removing excessively strong
>>signals, such as paging. The single best improvement you can do is to
>>lose your scanner, and get a better receiver with a better 3rd order
>>intermod (IMD3) specification. By the nature of the beast, scanners
>>are highly susceptible to intermod mixes in their front ends.
>
>This is also a problem for many (most?) modern ham HTs, which have
>broad-as-a-barn front ends. Their "DC to daylight" reception is both
>a feature-advantage and a robustness-disadvantage. Older single-band
>radios often have better front end filters.

Yep. Some receivers and scanner at least have tracking filters in the
front end. These have their own collection of problems, such as the
varactors going nonlinear when overloaded and creating a nifty mixer.
However, for most applications, they're much better than a barn door
front end.

>>There are cavity and crystal notch filters, that will reduce the
>>signal levels around the paging transmitter frequency, without
>>affecting the operating frequency (much). Search for crystal VHF
>>notch filter or cavity VHF notch filter.
>
>><http://www.parelectronics.com/amateur.php>
>
>I can offer a thumbs-up for the PAR Electronics VHFTN152-158. I had
>terrible pager intermod problems with my Yaesu VX-5, whenever I had it
>hooked to a "real" antenna (roof, bicycle-mobile flag J-pole, etc.)
>rather than a rubber duck.

I have a VX-5 and know what you mean. Totally useless receiver with
an outside antenna. Good to know that the PAR notch filters work. I
may have an application at a repeater site. I usually make my own
notch filters, but I'm tend to get lazy when I'm short on time.

>The pager-notch filter eliminated the problem, and as far as I can
>tell it hasn't had a significant effect on ham-band receive
>sensitivity or transmit power on either 2 meters or 440. I assume I'm
>losing some signal and power due to insertion loss but it hasn't been
>noticeable.

The Par site claims 0.5dB loss on both 144 and 440Mhz. That's about
5%, which is barely noticeable. No clue what's inside the Par
filters, but from the trimmer, my guess(tm) would be some helical
resonators.

I usually use single port cavities, which are generally useless for
anything except traps, instead of 1/4 wave stubs. I also have a few
adjustable coax sleeves, which work great, but tend to leak a bit.
Lots of ways to build a notch filter.

[Ralph Mowery]

"tom" <news...@taring.org> wrote in message
news:Fo-dnVqoAq0kLojM...@iphouse.net...

>
> And OCFD are not good even at HF if you really understand how they work
> and the problems they have because of that.
>
> tom
> K0TAR
>
>

Tom have you ever compaired the OCF to other antennas at your house ?

I have. I have up an 80 meter dipole and OCF at right angles to each other
at about 50 to 60 feet on each end. There is not much differance in the two
on 80 except in the favored directions.

Also is a 3 element tribander at 60 feet. On 20 and 10 meters there is not
really that much differance on the stateside stations either when the
stations are in the direction the OCF favors. There is a big differance in
the directions that the OCF does not favor as it should be.
If I could only put up a dipole nonrotating antenna, that would still be the
results.

Now granted the OCF will not work all that well above 10 meters, and there
are some low bands such as 15 meters it will not work well as the swr is
very high.

The OCF I am using is a home made Carolina Windom type for 80 meters and
above.

de KU4PT

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:08:47 -0500, "Tom" <ab...@cadabraa.ca> wrote:

>Thanks for the tips

snip

>The diamond X-510 has very good reviews,
>

I cut mine to small pieces and dumped into the garbage bin.

That much for the good reviews.

But you don't want to listen and learn.

w.

[Channel Jumper]

tom;801521 Wrote:
> On 2/8/2013 8:24 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:

> -

> One other antenna - if you had the money and the real estate would be
> the High Power - Off Center Fed Dipole - which operates practically
> everywhere between 440 MHz and 160 meters - with the exception of 15
> and
> 30 meters.
>

> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/hypower/-

>
> If you believe that an antenna will operate effectively from 160m to
> 70cm you are even more ignorant than I previously thought.
>
> And OCFD are not good even at HF if you really understand how they work
>
> and the problems they have because of that.
>
> tom
> K0TAR

I am going to explain it, but only once.
If you talk to the owner of that web site, he will tell you that the
designer of the particular model of off center fed dipole that I am
talking about is K3CC.
Again, if you call him on the phone, he will explain to you that K3CC
holds 27 US patents and is a lot more intelligent then you will ever
be.

Radio works on the principal of wavelengths - the off center fed dipole
works on the principal of 1/3 - 2/3rds.
A balanced dipole antenna is 1/2 wave length on the frequency of
design.

A off center fed dipole is not a balanced antenna, but exhibits some
properities not found in a regular old dipole.

If it is resonant - 1/2 wavelength at 160 meters, then it is a full
wavelength at 80 meters, is 2 wavelengths long at 40 meters, is 4
wavelengths long at 20 meters etc etc etc............

Reguardless of it's length - you can always find someplace where it is
resonant. Its SWR is flat as a board on most bands and is below 2:1
most everywhere else with the exception of 15 and 30 meters........

The neatest thing I ever heard was from a old Motorola Technician who
told me two important things.
First was that God gave us two ears and only one mouth.
That means we should listen twice as much as we should speak.

Second was that when a manufacturer makes a radio, they make the most
important knob the largest knob - hence the tuning knob is the largest
knob on the radio.
If you don't like what you hear - you turn the knob.

I was under the impression that this person was a HAM and wanted to talk
as well as listen.
Then we got into a discussion about scanners.
Now I am confused.

With any type of communications - if a pager is suspect and it
interferes with amateur radio, you can either A - turn the operator of
the pager into the FCC for interfering with amateur radio communications
- good luck, or you can add filtering.

Even some two meter repeaters operates illegally, because their signals
splatter all over other peoples repeaters.. We need to remember that
repeaters are not built and owned by the government or industry, but by
regular old ham radio operators like you and me.

As far as analog scanners goes, you sure can't beat a Uniden 890XLT...
Even unmodded, it should hold 200 channels, and has a very sensitive
receive.

Moving up to a dedicated transceiver - that can be used as a all band
scanner, you could purchase a Yaesu 8900 which does everything from 10
meters to 800 MHz.... At about $450 new, and with a slight
modification - resistor removal, will transmit 28 - 29 Mhz, 50 - 54 MHz,
140 - 148 Mhz, 430 - 460 Mhz. and will listen everywhere else.

If you don't have a ham license, then just put the microphone away and
listen.




--
Channel Jumper

[Rob]

Channel Jumper <Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote:
>
> tom;801521 Wrote:
>> On 2/8/2013 8:24 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:
>> -
>> One other antenna - if you had the money and the real estate would be
>> the High Power - Off Center Fed Dipole - which operates practically
>> everywhere between 440 MHz and 160 meters - with the exception of 15
>> and
>> 30 meters.
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/hypower/-
>>
>> If you believe that an antenna will operate effectively from 160m to
>> 70cm you are even more ignorant than I previously thought.
>>
>> And OCFD are not good even at HF if you really understand how they work
>>
>> and the problems they have because of that.
>>
>> tom
>> K0TAR
>
> I am going to explain it, but only once.
> If you talk to the owner of that web site, he will tell you that the
> designer of the particular model of off center fed dipole that I am
> talking about is K3CC.
> Again, if you call him on the phone, he will explain to you that K3CC
> holds 27 US patents and is a lot more intelligent then you will ever
> be.

I hope he is better at designing antennas than at building websites...
Sheesh, what a load of crap. It is still waiting after 5 minutes, and
when I click the "no popups" version I end up at some Google login.

[Ralph Mowery]

"Rob" <nom...@example.com> wrote in message
news:slrnkhd0r7...@xs8.xs4all.nl...

>
> I hope he is better at designing antennas than at building websites...
> Sheesh, what a load of crap. It is still waiting after 5 minutes, and
> when I click the "no popups" version I end up at some Google login.

I thought it was just me, but looks like you are having the same problem I
have with that site. I just gave up on trying to get anywhere with it.

I use an OCF lots of times for the low bands, but just do not see it being
very good on 2 meters if designed to start at 160 or 80 meters.
Mine does not appear to be that good even at 6 meters. It might be IF I
find a station in the right direction. My triband for 20,15,10 makes a
beter antenna for 6 than the OCF. I do have 5 elements on 6 with an 18
foot boom to compair it with.

[Me]

In article <Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com>,

Channel Jumper <Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote:

> Ringo's are nothing more then a over glorified dummy load..

I am sure Dr Reynolds of the University of Washington School of
Electrical Engineering, who designed that antenna for AEA, would
take considerable disagreement, with the above. This design was
Extensively Tested on the UofW's Antenna Range, up on Pigeon Hill, West
Seattle, Washington, which was donated to the UoW, after the Army was
finished with the old Army Communications System site, post WWII.

Channel Jumper sure is a Morooon (Bugs Bunny Definition) and has no
relevant Historical Knowledge.....

Me One who actually KNOEWS the relevant FACTS....

[Ralph Mowery]

"Me" <m...@shadow.orgs> wrote in message
news:me-03DD4C.10...@news.starband.net...

Are you sure AEA had an antenna called Ringo ?

Cushcraft is the only major company I knew of that produced an antenna
called Ringo.

AEA did have several other antennas, the Isopole being one for 2 meters and
some other frequencies.

The origional Ringo for 2 meters was not a very good antenna for most. It
worked , but tended to shoot much of the signal off at high angles. Fine if
in a low area, not so good for the higher areas.
CC also produced some 11 element beams that were a very poor antenna for the
size. I compaired a couple of them with a home built quagi out of the ARRL
handbook and the 8 element quagi was much beter than the 11 element CC.

de KU4PT

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 10:53:00 -0900, Me <m...@shadow.orgs> wrote:

>In article <Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com>,
> Channel Jumper <Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote:
>
>> Ringo's are nothing more then a over glorified dummy load..
>
>I am sure Dr Reynolds of the University of Washington School of
>Electrical Engineering, who designed that antenna for AEA, would
>take considerable disagreement, with the above. This design was
>Extensively Tested on the UofW's Antenna Range, up on Pigeon Hill, West
>Seattle, Washington, which was donated to the UoW, after the Army was
>finished with the old Army Communications System site, post WWII.

Not AEA, but for Cushcraft.

Obituary:
<http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1474034>
I don't believe Dr Reynolds designed the Ringo Ranger for Cushcraft
(Now MFJ). The MFJ catalog page claims the Ringo Ranger II was
designed by Lester A. Cushman, W1BX(sk)
<http://www.cushcraftamateur.com/Product.php?productid=AR-2>
Dr Reynolds did write an article "The 5/8-Wavelength Antenna Mystique"
for the ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 1 Pg 101-106, (that seems to
have disappeared from my shelf), which may have created some
confusion.

My take on the Ringo Ranger is that it's a tolerable design, but not
the way it's being built. I've seen far too many cracked SO-239 like
connectors, corroded adjustment screws and elements, crumbling
insulators, crushed mounting tubes, etc. It's major advantage is that
without a molded base transformer, this 5/8 wave or (0.64 wave)
antenna can be cheaply built, and that tunes a tolerable wide
frequency range. Were it built mechanically better, I'm sure it would
have had a better reputation. That lack of a commercial equivalent
also offers a clue as to its quality.

[tom]

On 2/8/2013 9:50 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> "tom" <news...@taring.org> wrote in message
> news:Fo-dnVqoAq0kLojM...@iphouse.net...
>>
>> And OCFD are not good even at HF if you really understand how they work
>> and the problems they have because of that.
>>
>> tom
>> K0TAR
>>
>>
>
> Tom have you ever compaired the OCF to other antennas at your house ?
>
> I have. I have up an 80 meter dipole and OCF at right angles to each other
> at about 50 to 60 feet on each end. There is not much differance in the two
> on 80 except in the favored directions.

Well, since a 3 element tribander would have less than an S unit over a
dipole or an OCF I would expect you're correct in stating you can see
almost no difference. They still have problems.

tom
K0TAR

[Ralph Mowery]

"tom" <news...@taring.org> wrote in message

news:SLOdnaUBgv9-QIvM...@iphouse.net...

> Well, since a 3 element tribander would have less than an S unit over a
> dipole or an OCF I would expect you're correct in stating you can see
> almost no difference. They still have problems.
>
> tom
> K0TAR
>

Again I ask, have you ever used an OCF ?

Also what problems do they have that other antennas do not have as long as
they are used on the bands they are designed for ?

[tom]

On 2/9/2013 8:51 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:
>
> I am going to explain it, but only once.
> If you talk to the owner of that web site, he will tell you that the
> designer of the particular model of off center fed dipole that I am
> talking about is K3CC.
> Again, if you call him on the phone, he will explain to you that K3CC
> holds 27 US patents and is a lot more intelligent then you will ever
> be.
>

I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about you.

I'll say it again, if you think that antenna works well from 160 or 80m
to 70cm, which is 420 to 450 MHz if you haven't figured that out, you
are more ignorant than I thought.

And patents aren't always about smart. Nowadays almost never. They
don't even have to be about reality.

They are about lawyers, paperwork, patience, money and lawyers.

tom
K0TAR

[tom]

Sure. Don't like them. They have problems that center feds don't.

tom
K0TAR

[tom]

On 2/9/2013 5:46 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

Feedline radiation problems and odd impedances. They seldom live up to
the claims for band coverage. If you have to use a tuner anyway, why
add the unbalanced problems into the mix? Just use a balanced antenna.

tom
K0TAR

[tom]

On 2/9/2013 8:51 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:

> tom;801521 Wrote:
>> On 2/8/2013 8:24 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:
>> -
>> One other antenna - if you had the money and the real estate would be
>> the High Power - Off Center Fed Dipole - which operates practically
>> everywhere between 440 MHz and 160 meters - with the exception of 15
>> and
>> 30 meters.
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/hypower/-
>>
>> If you believe that an antenna will operate effectively from 160m to
>> 70cm you are even more ignorant than I previously thought.
>>
>> And OCFD are not good even at HF if you really understand how they work
>>
>> and the problems they have because of that.
>>
>> tom
>> K0TAR
>
> I am going to explain it, but only once.

One other problem you may have missed. Any choking system you have that
works at 160m won't work at about 20m and up. So you you need at least
2 different chokes for 20m+. And probably a third to reach 70cm.

Concerning pattern, anything 10 meters and up becomes a bit crazy
because the wires are quite directional with gain in several different
directions.

And 70cm would be useless compared to a bad yagi with ok coax.

tom
K0TAR

[nm...@wt.net]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:37:26 PM UTC-6, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Dr Reynolds did write an article "The 5/8-Wavelength Antenna Mystique"
>
> for the ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 1 Pg 101-106, (that seems to
>
> have disappeared from my shelf), which may have created some
>
> confusion.
>
>
>
> My take on the Ringo Ranger is that it's a tolerable design, but not
>
> the way it's being built.

I think they were OK for a simple and fairly cheap design, but
the Ringo Ranger 2 was a much better antenna than the regular
Ringo Ranger without the lower decoupling section.
I picked up a Ringo Ranger free years ago, and made my own radial
set which copied the commercial Ringo Ranger 2 design.

I tested it without the section, and with, and there was a huge
difference in the pattern. I'm talking in the multi S units range
with the local low angle signals I was testing with.
So there was obviously a large amount of skewing without the
decoupling section. With it, it was not a bad antenna at all,
and fairly low impact visually.

Reynolds was involved with AEA, and was behind the design of
the Isopoles, and other marine type whips they sold.
The Isopole was slightly superior to the Ringo Ranger 2, mainly
because it had superior decoupling with it's cones, vs the RR2
using a length of feedline, and a set of radials.
But to me, the Isopole was kind of ugly.. Like having a ballistic
missile on the house.. lol.. But it was the best of the dual
5/8 wave verticals when it came to performance.

[Ralph Mowery]

<nm...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:8af455c5-041b-4d14...@googlegroups.com...

>> My take on the Ringo Ranger is that it's a tolerable design, but not
>>
>> the way it's being built.
>
> I think they were OK for a simple and fairly cheap design, but
> the Ringo Ranger 2 was a much better antenna than the regular
> Ringo Ranger without the lower decoupling section.
> I picked up a Ringo Ranger free years ago, and made my own radial
> set which copied the commercial Ringo Ranger 2 design.
>
> I tested it without the section, and with, and there was a huge
> difference in the pattern. I'm talking in the multi S units range
> with the local low angle signals I was testing with.
> So there was obviously a large amount of skewing without the
> decoupling section. With it, it was not a bad antenna at all,
> and fairly low impact visually.
>

When the lower radials were added the Ringo was suspose to work much beter.
By that time, the Ringo had fallen out of favor around here so I do not know
how well they worked. Main thing is that adding the radials defeated the
purpose of the antenna, which was to eliminate the radials.

[Channel Jumper]

tom;801584 Wrote:
> On 2/9/2013 8:51 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:-
> tom;801521 Wrote:-

> On 2/8/2013 8:24 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:
> -
> One other antenna - if you had the money and the real estate would be
> the High Power - Off Center Fed Dipole - which operates practically
> everywhere between 440 MHz and 160 meters - with the exception of 15
> and
> 30 meters.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/hypower/-
>
> If you believe that an antenna will operate effectively from 160m to
> 70cm you are even more ignorant than I previously thought.
>
> And OCFD are not good even at HF if you really understand how they
> work
>
> and the problems they have because of that.
>
> tom

> K0TAR-
>
> I am going to explain it, but only once.-

>
> One other problem you may have missed. Any choking system you have that
>
> works at 160m won't work at about 20m and up. So you you need at least
>
> 2 different chokes for 20m+. And probably a third to reach 70cm.
>
> Concerning pattern, anything 10 meters and up becomes a bit crazy
> because the wires are quite directional with gain in several different
> directions.
>
> And 70cm would be useless compared to a bad yagi with ok coax.
>
> tom
> K0TAR

Your problem is - you want to use a choke with a off center fed
antenna.
Either to reduce the RF going into the shack or to reduce noise.
If you really want to work DX, you don't want to use a choke.
It would be better to use a BALUN / transformer before the coax enters
the shack then to use a choke.

As a comparison, I worked Field Days this year with K3CC's design
antenna, @ 30' off the ground.
The group I worked with, had never met me in person before.
They had a dedicated group of people to operate and I was the odd man
out.
I basically walked into the Field Days site 2 hours before start time,
put up my antenna, connected my antenna and waited for Field Days to
begin.

At 2 PM EST, I sat down and operated until 6 PM when they broke for
supper.
At 7:30 PM - after supper, I found another spot to operate and hovered
between 20 and 40 meters.

At 9 PM a club member showed up with a G5RV and demanded that I give him
20 meters.
At the same time, one of the club members was working digital modes with
a Tarheel jr - about 60' away - and was not particular where he
operated.
I experienced severe overload.

By 9 PM I already had 400 contacts.

The only reason why I had 400 contacts was because a club member asked
me to try to operate on 15 meters for a hour to let other people operate
on the other bands and I only made 2 contacts on 15.

11 - 1 AM I probably made another 100 contacts, at that point, it was
getting harder and harder to find people that I had not already worked.

6 AM the next morning, I turned on the transceiver and started operating
and by 8 AM I had a pileup going and was working 3 stations a minute,
doing my own logging by hand and talking on a desk mic.
At 10 AM - the group decided that the bands were too noisy or that they
couldn't find a quiet place to talk or they were all wore out from
operating and so they decided to shut down, tear down and go home.

By that point I already had close to 700 contacts in the log.
Had they left me operate until closing time - which I could have
operated the entire 27 hours, I could have easily went over 1500
contacts myself.

The guy working the digital modes only had about 90 contacts and he
dumped his log and didn't even turn it in to the club.
Several other club members only had less then 100 contacts in their
log.
It was a 5 station operation.

Reguardless of if they were using a beam antenna - 15 was operated on a
home brew beam, or with dipole antenna's, or mobile antenna's - I still
heard more then everyone else and I still did 7 times as many contacts.

To work them, you first have to hear them.

In the end, the person responsible for the clubs logs, didn't turn in
the logs due to the fact that he was not computer literate, did not know
how to use QRZ to confirm the call signs - so he could have matched the
call signs to the operator or the location.
He turned in the paper logs - as 650 contacts for the entire group, and
we were 3rd for the whole USA for that catagory. 5A I believe.
Commercial mains - I believe, because the guy working digital modes
refused to let me hook up to his generator and I did not bring my
own...

Had I not brought my 16' trailer, 100' of tower - for anyone to use,
200' of coax at all different lengths, spare power supplies and
equipment, a 36' aluminum ladder and traveled 75 miles one way to
participate, I could have brought my generator and we could have been in
the top 50 in the USA for a 5 station effort on emergency power. And
that would have only been because of my effort and my antenna and not
because of anyone else in the group.

If you really want to compare antenna's, and if you operate somewhere
beyond checking into nets and giving your no traffic, you need to find
yourself a place like niles hill road, Coudersport PA - where the
elevation is 2400' AMSL and very quiet.
The reason why most of you cannot understand good antenna design is
because your experiences are limited to what you know, which is usually
a city dweller that is in a bad location, that has to put up with power
line noise, a lack of elevation and a lot too small for much of anything
beyond a G5RV.

If you really want to contest - you need to check with the Frankford
Radio Club - maybe they can tell you who set up their antenna's and who
their best operators were...
Some BOZO in some backwater town that knows little to nothing giving
advice about antenna's, that didn't even know that Cushcraft made a
Ringo, attacking someone else's reputation - just because they don't
like they guy, is not relevant. Usually the more educated people can
see right through the Facade..




--
Channel Jumper

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:02:51 -0800 (PST), nm...@wt.net wrote:

>On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:37:26 PM UTC-6, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> Dr Reynolds did write an article "The 5/8-Wavelength Antenna Mystique"
>> for the ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 1 Pg 101-106, (that seems to
>> have disappeared from my shelf), which may have created some
>> confusion.
>>
>> My take on the Ringo Ranger is that it's a tolerable design, but not
>> the way it's being built.

>I think they were OK for a simple and fairly cheap design, but
>the Ringo Ranger 2 was a much better antenna than the regular
>Ringo Ranger without the lower decoupling section.
>I picked up a Ringo Ranger free years ago, and made my own radial
>set which copied the commercial Ringo Ranger 2 design.
>
>I tested it without the section, and with, and there was a huge
>difference in the pattern. I'm talking in the multi S units range
>with the local low angle signals I was testing with.
>So there was obviously a large amount of skewing without the
>decoupling section. With it, it was not a bad antenna at all,
>and fairly low impact visually.

Did you perhaps mount the antenna over a metal roof or on a tower side
arm? Without the decoupling section, the ground under the antenna
will cause pattern uptilt.

>Reynolds was involved with AEA, and was behind the design of
>the Isopoles, and other marine type whips they sold.
>The Isopole was slightly superior to the Ringo Ranger 2, mainly
>because it had superior decoupling with it's cones, vs the RR2
>using a length of feedline, and a set of radials.
>But to me, the Isopole was kind of ugly.. Like having a ballistic
>missile on the house.. lol.. But it was the best of the dual
>5/8 wave verticals when it came to performance.

Thanks. That explains a few things. Incidentally, my rule "The
uglier the antenna, the better it works" was originally based on the
isopole antenna.

I had the displeasure of going through a variety of antennas on our
radio club VHF repeater (K6BJ) about 10 years ago. We started with a
Cushcraft something (forgot the model number). After pouring water
out of the insides, I decided to replace it. The first attempt was a
Cushcraft AR2 Ring Ranger that was previously used as a backup
antenna. It exhibited all the mechanical problems I previously
itemized. The corrosion also generated intermod. After several other
failed antenna tests, I settled on an a Diamond F22a, which has been
in service since about 1997 without any problems. A second F22a was
installed at our other repeater (KI6EH) with similar good results. The
F22a is stainless and fiberglass, as opposed to the Ringo aluminum and
galvanized steel. For UHF, we installed a Diamond X-50.
<http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/k6bj/K6BJ%20Repeater/slides/Antennas.html>

I recently inherited a very used VHF isopole antenna, which I haven't
tried yet. It's going to need extensive cleaning before installation.
I agree that the cones do look rather strange. There are commercial
antennas, with a similar design that use cylindrical tubing as
decoupling sleeves, which are functionally identical and far less
strange looking.

[tom]

On 2/10/2013 7:34 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:

<snip loads of braggadocio unrelated to what I said.>


You still haven't addressed your claim about 70cm.

tom
K0TAR

[Channel Jumper]

'Jeff Liebermann[_2_ Wrote:
> ;801600']On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:02:51 -0800 (PST), nm...@wt.net wrote:
> -

> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:37:26 PM UTC-6, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> -

> Dr Reynolds did write an article "The 5/8-Wavelength Antenna Mystique"
> for the ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 1 Pg 101-106, (that seems to
> have disappeared from my shelf), which may have created some
> confusion.
>
> My take on the Ringo Ranger is that it's a tolerable design, but not

> the way it's being built. --
> -

> I think they were OK for a simple and fairly cheap design, but
> the Ringo Ranger 2 was a much better antenna than the regular
> Ringo Ranger without the lower decoupling section.
> I picked up a Ringo Ranger free years ago, and made my own radial
> set which copied the commercial Ringo Ranger 2 design.
>
> I tested it without the section, and with, and there was a huge
> difference in the pattern. I'm talking in the multi S units range
> with the local low angle signals I was testing with.
> So there was obviously a large amount of skewing without the
> decoupling section. With it, it was not a bad antenna at all,

> and fairly low impact visually.-

>
> Did you perhaps mount the antenna over a metal roof or on a tower side
> arm? Without the decoupling section, the ground under the antenna
> will cause pattern uptilt.

> -

> Reynolds was involved with AEA, and was behind the design of
> the Isopoles, and other marine type whips they sold.
> The Isopole was slightly superior to the Ringo Ranger 2, mainly
> because it had superior decoupling with it's cones, vs the RR2
> using a length of feedline, and a set of radials.
> But to me, the Isopole was kind of ugly.. Like having a ballistic
> missile on the house.. lol.. But it was the best of the dual

> 5/8 wave verticals when it came to performance.-

>
> Thanks. That explains a few things. Incidentally, my rule "The
> uglier the antenna, the better it works" was originally based on the
> isopole antenna.
>
> I had the displeasure of going through a variety of antennas on our
> radio club VHF repeater (K6BJ) about 10 years ago. We started with a
> Cushcraft something (forgot the model number). After pouring water
> out of the insides, I decided to replace it. The first attempt was a
> Cushcraft AR2 Ring Ranger that was previously used as a backup
> antenna. It exhibited all the mechanical problems I previously
> itemized. The corrosion also generated intermod. After several other
> failed antenna tests, I settled on an a Diamond F22a, which has been
> in service since about 1997 without any problems. A second F22a was
> installed at our other repeater (KI6EH) with similar good results. The
> F22a is stainless and fiberglass, as opposed to the Ringo aluminum and
> galvanized steel. For UHF, we installed a Diamond X-50.

> http://tinyurl.com/bdbqaso

>
> I recently inherited a very used VHF isopole antenna, which I haven't
> tried yet. It's going to need extensive cleaning before installation.
> I agree that the cones do look rather strange. There are commercial
> antennas, with a similar design that use cylindrical tubing as
> decoupling sleeves, which are functionally identical and far less
> strange looking.
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

If you are building a repeater - you use a Station Master - commercial
grade antenna, not a cheap vertical like the Diamond X 50.
http://www.wadsworthsales.com/Pages/celwave.aspx




--
Channel Jumper

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:15:33 +0000, Channel Jumper
<Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote:

>If you are building a repeater - you use a Station Master - commercial
>grade antenna, not a cheap vertical like the Diamond X 50.
>http://www.wadsworthsales.com/Pages/celwave.aspx

Thanks for the sage advice. There were problems with the installation
which prevented the use of heavy antennas with a high wind load. We
were offered a free 20 year old super station monster antenna but
turned it down due to the size (22ft). The Diamond F22a on the VHF
repeater has been quite adequate. While I'm sure the station monster
antenna would work well for those in the distance, we are more
interested in local communications. VHF and UHF coverage:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/coverage/k6bj/146mhz/k6bj-146-3d.jpg>
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/coverage/k6bj/440mhz/k6bj-440-3d.jpg>

If you look at the photo of the (former) antenna tower[1],
<http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/k6bj/K6BJ%20Repeater/slides/Antennas.html>
you'll notice that the Diamond X50 was located so that it would not be
inside the antenna pattern of the upper Diamond F22a. The VHF antenna
was also limited in height by the proximity of the county and Verizon
radio vault and tower. This arrangement limited the length of the UHF
antenna to approximately that of an X50. I could have used a longer
UHF antenna, but I wanted altitude to clear some obstructions, rather
than gain. Since the UHF antenna was side mounted, the grounded arm
under the antenna tends to create some uptilt in the antenna pattern.
With a fairly low gain antenna, such as the X50, the effect is
minimal. Were it a higher gain antenna, which would have a narrower
beamwidth, the effect would be sufficient to dramatically reduce
signal strengths below the horizon. I've had to deal with this on
mountain tops quite often, and have sometimes resorted to mounting the
antenna upside-down in order to take advantage of the effect.

For the curious, the black yagi is the 420MHz link to KI6EH. The
coaxial antenna is a spare antenna for plugging in test equipment and
HT's when working on the machines.

[Barry V.]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:51:37 +0000, Channel Jumper
<Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote:

>I was under the impression that this person was a HAM and wanted to talk
>as well as listen.
>Then we got into a discussion about scanners.
>Now I am confused.

It may help to understand this is TUUK we are talking about. At least this time
it isn't about saunas.

[tom]

On 2/10/2013 7:34 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:
> tom;801584 Wrote:
<snip>

>
> Your problem is - you want to use a choke with a off center fed
> antenna.
> Either to reduce the RF going into the shack or to reduce noise.
> If you really want to work DX, you don't want to use a choke.
> It would be better to use a BALUN / transformer before the coax enters
> the shack then to use a choke.
>

Please explain the difference between a choke and a balun in this situation.

tom
K0TAR

[Channel Jumper]

tom;801652 Wrote:
> On 2/10/2013 7:34 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:-
> tom;801584 Wrote:-
> snip
> -

>
> Your problem is - you want to use a choke with a off center fed
> antenna.
> Either to reduce the RF going into the shack or to reduce noise.
> If you really want to work DX, you don't want to use a choke.
> It would be better to use a BALUN / transformer before the coax enters
> the shack then to use a choke.

> -

>
> Please explain the difference between a choke and a balun in this
> situation.
>
> tom
> K0TAR

A balun is an electrical device that converts between a balanced signal
(two signals working against each other where ground is irrelevant) and
an unbalanced signal (a single signal working against ground or
pseudo-ground). A balun can take many forms and may include devices that
also transform impedances but need not do so. Transformer baluns can
also be used to connect lines of differing impedance. The origin of the
word balun is balance + unbalance.

Generally a balun consists of two wires (primary and secondary) and a
toroid core: it converts the electrical energy of the primary wire into
a magnetic field. Depending on how the secondary wire is done the
magnetic field is converted back to a electric field.

A Choke - is simply a piece of coax or wire which is wound at the
mininum bend radius of the coax. Several turns of coax makes a simple
choke.
You have to be very careful not to open up the shield by winding it too
tightly.

Baluns can take many forms and their presence is not always obvious.
Sometimes, in the case of transformer baluns, they use magnetic coupling
but need not do so. COMMON MODE CHOKES ARE ALSO USED AS BALUNS! and work
by eliminating, rather than ignoring, common mode signals.

The key word there is - used as baluns.
If it was a Balun - they would call it a Balun

Coax works on the principal of a Faraday Cage.

Maybe you would like to explain for the people on this forum what a
Faraday Cage is?




--
Channel Jumper

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:36:32 +0000, Channel Jumper
<Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote:

>A balun is an electrical device that converts between a balanced signal
>(two signals working against each other where ground is irrelevant) and
>an unbalanced signal (a single signal working against ground or

(...)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balun>
Please provide a citation when plagerizing.

[tom]

On 2/12/2013 1:08 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:36:32 +0000, Channel Jumper
> <Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote:
>
>> A balun is an electrical device that converts between a balanced signal
>> (two signals working against each other where ground is irrelevant) and
>> an unbalanced signal (a single signal working against ground or
> (...)
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balun>
> Please provide a citation when plagerizing.
>
>

He also didn't answer the question I asked, which would have been a much
much shorter answer.

tom
K0TAR

[nm...@wt.net]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:14:32 AM UTC-6, Ralph Mowery wrote:

> When the lower radials were added the Ringo was suspose to work much beter.
>
> By that time, the Ringo had fallen out of favor around here so I do not know
>
> how well they worked. Main thing is that adding the radials defeated the
>
> purpose of the antenna, which was to eliminate the radials.

Well maybe as far as the standard Ringo, which is a half wave.
But the Ringo Ranger was a dual 5/8 collinear. Seems to me that
design was used more to get more gain vs the shorter antennas,
rather than trying to avoid radials.

When it first came out, decoupling from the feed line was not
given too much consideration, at least for lower cost amateur
antennas.. And most that used it, thought it did OK. Likely
because they had nothing better to compare to, or the feed line
lengths, mounting, did not skew that pattern as bad in some
cases, as it did others. The amount of skewing will vary some
in each installation. It was pretty bad in my case. :(

But then the Isopole came out.. And the roof caved in. lol..
The Isopole was so much better performing than the regular
Ringo Ranger, that Cushcraft had no choice but to add some
method of decoupling to their antenna, if they wanted to
continue to sell many of them.
So they added the lower 50 inches of coax, and a set of
1/4 wave radials at the bottom of that length of coax, which
was grounded at that point, to the mast supporting the antenna.

The decoupling section helped greatly, and saved Cushcraft
from certain VHF vertical sales ruination.
It was still slightly inferior to the method the Isopole
used, but close enough to keep them in the game.
Many preferred the RR2 because it was a bit less ugly than
the Isopole. And maybe a bit cheaper, but I can't remember
how they were priced at the time.

The only band I ever used a 1/2 wave Ringo, was on 10m.
And I ended up adding a Cushcraft type decoupling section
to it. It worked very well. But the 5/8 antennas I used
were better still.. But I didn't use 1/4 wave radials like
most do with 5/8 ground planes. At that time, I used 3/4
wave radials, and the antenna doubled as an appx 1/4 GP
on 30m.

[nm...@wt.net]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:47:11 AM UTC-6, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Did you perhaps mount the antenna over a metal roof or on a tower side
>
> arm? Without the decoupling section, the ground under the antenna
>
> will cause pattern uptilt.

Nope.. It was a mounted on a metal mast that was on my
non conducting roof. Probably about 30 feet off the ground or so.
I think most of the skewing in my case was due to feed line
radiation, more than effects from the ground.

>
>

> Thanks. That explains a few things. Incidentally, my rule "The
>
> uglier the antenna, the better it works" was originally based on the
>
> isopole antenna.

They were kinda ugly, but they sure worked well.
And some other companies have used that type of decoupling,
but most were more like cylinders, instead of funnel like cones.
Those were fairly common on some of the commercial verticals
used for public service, etc..
Also, most of those were 1/2 waves. IE: 1/4 wave upper radiator,
1/4 wave lower cylinder to complete the antenna, and then a lower
1/4 wave cylinder below that one for decoupling.
I think "Dodge" was one company that made those if I remember right.
The upper part of each cylinder was closed, and the bottom open.

[tom]

I have a Cushcraft engineering connection from that era. I will seen
what I can learn.

tom
K0TAR

[Channel Jumper]

tom;801718 Wrote:
> On 2/12/2013 10:15 PM, nm...@wt.net wrote:

> -

> how they were priced at the time.-

>
> I have a Cushcraft engineering connection from that era. I will seen
> what I can learn.
>
> tom
> K0TAR

Thanks for the information TOM




--
Channel Jumper

[David]

At Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:22:05 -0500, Barry V. rearranged some electrons to
write:

Or magic lava rocks.

[tom]

On 2/13/2013 9:50 PM, tom wrote:
> On 2/12/2013 10:15 PM, nm...@wt.net wrote:
>
> I have a Cushcraft engineering connection from that era. I will see

> what I can learn.
>
> tom
> K0TAR

Well I called this evening and he's contesting all weekend. I'll call
him back Monday. It's very likely he was around when it was designed.
Some may know who he was - "Joe" should be identification enough for
those who are familiar the Cushcraft designers.

tom
K0TAR

[Sal]

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
news:d6o6h8lmfqbvton5l...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 22:08:02 +0000, Channel Jumper
> <Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>'Tom[_8_ Wrote:
>>> ;801430']Hi all
>>>
>>> Now I need a recommendation for a 2m 70cm base antenna. This will go
>>> right
>>> at the top of a 50ft tower. My ringo 2m modification antenna didn't pan
>>> out
>>> too well. I could get low SWR on some freq but I want a wider range of
>>> work.
>>> If that is possible. I also use it for 156 megs (Marine band).
>>>
>>> I am looking at the utubes of dual band antennas for home, I like the
>>> UVS-300.
>>>
>>> Can anyone make a recommendation for the purchase of a dual band
>>> antenna? I
>>> would also like to use it as a SWL antenna as I listen a lot on all
>>> bands.


// snip //

> You cannot SWL with a real duoband antenna, because it is frequency
> selective and is dead on the SW bands.
>
> w.

The shield on his dual-bander coax may work. The downside is the likely
pickup of interference close to the SW rcvr, like from a computer, switching
PS, fluorescent lights, etc.

I just tried it, using a coax-to-banana-jack adapter. I used a clip-lead to
connect the red banana jack to the shield of my 6m j-pole, making the shield
the antenna. It's about thirty feet long and it worked tolerably well on
the SW bands that are active at the moment. I did some A/B comparisons by
switching between the "shield-antenna" and my 20m dipole. Some SW stations
were actually better on the "shield-antenna."

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)

[lt...@yahoo.com]

For the original question.
All the in production dual band antennas are going to be fairly comparable, so pick the one that you can afford. The more gain it may have (within reason) the better off you are. I'll add the Comet line of dual band antennas in the rest of the opinions already expressed. Are they 'better' than all the rest? I haven't the slightest clue, but the ones I have are certainly comparable.

As for a monitoring antenna, since you've got a 50 foot tower, run a wire antenna off of it. Cheap, variable length possibilities, and they tend to work. If it's strictly for monitoring, just run a wire as long as possible and end feed it. Will be good for transmitting? That's not likely without a lot of effort, but it'll 'listen' real well. And it's cheap.
There is no such thing as a 'do it all well' antenna. They are about like all the other "one size fit's all" thingys, no they don't.
And probably the most profound argument you can be given is that it's VERY doubtful if you only have one antenna for anything. Or one antenna for very long...
- 'Doc

[tom]

On 2/13/2013 9:50 PM, tom wrote:

Spent a while on the phone with Joe. Most was about other things for an
hour and a half.

Story as I know it -

Dateline was mid 70's. A local ham (unknown) designed a CB antenna that
was the original Ranger. It was copied by Lester Cushman.

It was redone as antennas for 6 and 2. And it had decoupling issues.

And Dave Olean (still well known) was assigned to handle the decoupling
issues.

And that's what we know.

tom
K0TAR