Good DIY antennas for 33 cm use?

[Dave Platt]

I recently lucked into a bin-full of Kenwood TK-981 mobile radios at a
ham swap meet, and bought the lot. One seems to need a new final and
pigtail. The other four had "Works" notations on their yellow
stickies, and all transmit with a respectable amount of power.
Pending further testing I think I've got some useful kit here.

These are, of course, FM radios, mostly intended for repeater
operation. They also have simplex "talk-around" capability. Whomever
tested them, had cloned/programmed in a codeplug configuration which
seems to cover most of the West Coast ham repeaters and a few simplex
frequencies as well.

The likely use for these would mostly be as part of an emergency-
response kit, for helping set up command-net and message-net
structures during an exercise, drill, or an actual event. Due to the
scarcity of 33 cm radios I would not expect that many (if any) of the
individual ARES/RACES operators in our area would be taking part.

So... now I need to buy or make antennas for them. I'm interested in
ideas and suggestions.

I've seen a number of DIY designs on the net:

- Simple ground-plane antennas using an N connector and a few wires
soldered on are easy to make, and quite predictable. Unfortunately
the wires sticking out in several directions makes them not all
that "go-kit-friendly". I could figure out a design using (e.g.)
banana plugs and jacks to connect the elements, so the antenna
could be easily "unplugged and knocked down" for storage, but that
seems like a lot of fiddling.

- Several people have published designs for 33 cm J-poles, often with
a collinear structure for higher gain. Fairly predictable but
need some tuning during construction. Go-kit-friendly if installed
in a fiberglass or PVC radome tube.

- Simple sleeve dipoles (fold back the coax braid, trim for SWR,
heat-shrink) are easy, cheap, go-kit-friendly, and should be fairly
robust.

Yagis would also be useful but aren't as go-kit-friendly due to their
size; Kent Britain's "cheap Yagi" design is easy and the ones I've
made for other bands have worked well.

So, any other suggestions for simple-yet-effective DIY antennas for
this band? Are there commercial antennas good and cheap enough that I
should just buy a bunch? Good mobile antennas?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:56:53 -0700, dpl...@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:

>I recently lucked into a bin-full of Kenwood TK-981 mobile radios

Congrats. That's one of the better and easier to deal with 900 MHz
radios. Watch out for V1 versus V2. They're slightly different:
<http://www.kw902.com/981generalinfo.html>

Incidentally, what's with the 33 cm wavelength notation? I'll start
using wavelength instead of frequency when HP, TEK, or some other
reputable vendor supplies a frequency counter or generator calibrated
in wavelength instead of the usual frequency or period.

>The likely use for these would mostly be as part of an emergency-
>response kit, for helping set up command-net and message-net
>structures during an exercise, drill, or an actual event.

OK, portable operation. That means mounted on top of a fiberglass
extension pole or floppy PVC pipe.

>Due to the
>scarcity of 33 cm radios I would not expect that many (if any) of the
>individual ARES/RACES operators in our area would be taking part.

Actually, the problem is tremendous spread spectrum noise in parts of
the band. It's common for repeaters to have different output
frequencies, but sharing the few available input frequencies (usually
902.0125 in Northern Calif) that are out of the cordless phone noisy
areas. Of course, they all use different PL tones. See the list of
frequencies at:
<http://users.innercite.com/kj6ko/page8.html>
and notice the input frequencies. Also:
<http://www.repeater-builder.com/tech-info/900mhz-frequencies-to-avoid.html>

>
>So... now I need to buy or make antennas for them. I'm interested in
>ideas and suggestions.
>
>I've seen a number of DIY designs on the net:
>
>- Simple ground-plane antennas using an N connector and a few wires
> soldered on are easy to make, and quite predictable. Unfortunately
> the wires sticking out in several directions makes them not all
> that "go-kit-friendly". I could figure out a design using (e.g.)
> banana plugs and jacks to connect the elements, so the antenna
> could be easily "unplugged and knocked down" for storage, but that
> seems like a lot of fiddling.
>
>- Several people have published designs for 33 cm J-poles, often with
> a collinear structure for higher gain. Fairly predictable but
> need some tuning during construction. Go-kit-friendly if installed
> in a fiberglass or PVC radome tube.
>
>- Simple sleeve dipoles (fold back the coax braid, trim for SWR,
> heat-shrink) are easy, cheap, go-kit-friendly, and should be fairly
> robust.
>
>Yagis would also be useful but aren't as go-kit-friendly due to their
>size; Kent Britain's "cheap Yagi" design is easy and the ones I've
>made for other bands have worked well.
>
>So, any other suggestions for simple-yet-effective DIY antennas for
>this band? Are there commercial antennas good and cheap enough that I
>should just buy a bunch? Good mobile antennas?
>
>
>
>

--
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

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:05:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Oops. I "send" before I was done. Continuing.

>So... now I need to buy or make antennas for them. I'm interested in
>ideas and suggestions.

Hint: 900 MHz radios don't like high VSWR antennas. I suggest you
optimize the antenna for the 902 MHz TX area.

>I've seen a number of DIY designs on the net:

Allow me to take some pot shots at these:

>- Simple ground-plane antennas using an N connector and a few wires
> soldered on are easy to make, and quite predictable. Unfortunately
> the wires sticking out in several directions makes them not all
> that "go-kit-friendly". I could figure out a design using (e.g.)
> banana plugs and jacks to connect the elements, so the antenna
> could be easily "unplugged and knocked down" for storage, but that
> seems like a lot of fiddling.

Y'er right about that. Worse, the banana jacks and such tend to make
the length of the elements rather variable, which is probably ok for a
simple antenna, but not so great if you want to build something
better, like a double skirted ground plane. I would save the ground
plane for the antenna of last resort.

>- Several people have published designs for 33 cm J-poles, often with
> a collinear structure for higher gain. Fairly predictable but
> need some tuning during construction. Go-kit-friendly if installed
> in a fiberglass or PVC radome tube.

A PVC radome will detune the antenna, often in an unpredictable
manner. Also, before you build something inside a plastic or
fiberglass pipe, put a piece of the stuff in the microwave oven and
see if it gets hot. If it does, it's an RF absorber.

I have a bad attitude about J-poles. I'll let someone else proclaim
what a wonderful antenna they can be. I haven't had much luck with
them.

>- Simple sleeve dipoles (fold back the coax braid, trim for SWR,
> heat-shrink) are easy, cheap, go-kit-friendly, and should be fairly
> robust.

The simple coaxial antennas have a common problem. There needs to be
a gap between the outer sleeve, and the coax cable braid. If you look
at commercial coaxial antennas, the sleeve ground diameter is huge
compared to the center mounting pipe. Just peeling back the braid and
burying it under some shrink tubing is kinda marginal.

>Yagis would also be useful but aren't as go-kit-friendly due to their
>size; Kent Britain's "cheap Yagi" design is easy and the ones I've
>made for other bands have worked well.

The problem with mounting vertically polarized Yagi antennas on a pole
is that the coax cable gets in the way of the pattern. If you use a
metal pipe for mounting, that too gets in the way.

>So, any other suggestions for simple-yet-effective DIY antennas for
>this band?

Of course. I wouldn't have taken pot shots at the other ideas without
having a favorite solution available. It's called an AMOS or Franklin
antenna. Here's some I've done for 1090 MHz:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/AMOS-5-1090MHz/>
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/AMOS-7/>
I build the 2.4Ghz variety inside ABS rain gutter downspout pipe.
More:
<http://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/vhf_ant.htm>
<http://www.brest-wireless.net/wiki/materiel:amos>
While 900 MHz results in a longer and larger antenna, it's not that
big. The same methods popular with sector antennas on 2.4/5GHz can be
used.

Note the vertical radiation pattern of the 1090 Mhz antennas above.
It's totally horizontal because the antenna is vertically symmetrical.
That means you're not sending as much RF into the ground or into the
air as you would with an end fed antenna, which tends to have uptilt
problems. Since the back of the AMOS antenna is a strip of sheet
metal or wire mesh, the coax cable can be fed behind the strip without
trashing the antenna pattern (as in a yagi or vertical dipole). Since
it's fed with a balun, the coax cable doesn't radiate.

You can also get very creative with the construction and still end up
with a decent antenna. I've made them on 2.4Ghz out of a KD pine 2x4,
some #12 hose wire, and assembled with a staple gun. For shielding, a
strip of aluminum duct tape trimmed to the proper diameter. I'm also
working on one that's made out of copper stained glass tape glued to
the outside of an inflatable vinyl tube. Use your imagination.

Be prepared to have some method of measuring VSWR versus frequency on
900 Mhz. Leave your Bird Wattmeter at home and look into a return
loss bridge, RF sweep generator, DC amp, and a scope:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=return+loss+bridge>
Or, just build one:
<http://www.wb.commufa.jp/ja2djh/html/e_rlb.html>
Basically, what an RLB give you is a display of the VSWR versus
frequency without any indication of whether the mismatch is inductive
or capacitive. It's not a VNA (vector network analyzer) but for this
project, you don't need one.

If you want, I can grind out the numbers for most any configuration
you want for 900 MHz.

>Are there commercial antennas good and cheap enough that I
>should just buy a bunch? Good mobile antennas?

Of course. Most commercial mobile wire antennas cut for the 800-900
Mhz band can be trimmed to 902 Mhz. I have a mess of Motorola NMO
mount 800/900 Mhz antennas that should work. Here's one:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/Misc/slides/Motorola-850mhz-NMO.html>
I could probably send you a few if you want them. To use for portable
operation, put some kind of ground plane under it. The downside is
that you'll end up with some uptilt, which is great for talking to
airplanes, but not very good for talking to the horizon.

Low gain fiberglass antennas are usually marked 902-928 MHz. However,
once the gain goes above about 6dBi, they end up cut for specific
frequencies. Since they're sealed, they can't be retuned. Yagi's are
ok, because they can usually be retuned.

You can also find 900 Mhz patch and panel antennas. These do not
handle high power very well, but if you have the 15 watt flavor of
TK-981, it should be ok. The catch is that they're directional, which
might be a good thing. I use one on my Motorola GTX 900 MHz radio in
my palatial office.
<http://www.microcom.us/mt262006trhak.html>
Note the 9dBi gain. Also note that this one is circular polarized,
which produces an automatic -3dB polarization mismatch loss. CP is
common for RFID tag readers.

Good luck.

[Rob]

Dave Platt <dpl...@coop.radagast.org> wrote:
> So... now I need to buy or make antennas for them. I'm interested in
> ideas and suggestions.

Not sure if you want an omni antenna, but when you are interested in
a small directional antenna I would recommend the double-quad, which
on that kind of frequency is very easy to reproduce and works well.

[Dave Platt]

In article <slrnmiupjg...@xs8.xs4all.nl>,

Rob <nom...@example.com> wrote:

>Not sure if you want an omni antenna, but when you are interested in
>a small directional antenna I would recommend the double-quad, which
>on that kind of frequency is very easy to reproduce and works well.

Thanks - that's a good suggestion! I build one of these years ago for
WiFi experimentation, and doing something similar for 900 MHz ought
not to be difficult.

As Jeff suggested, I really need a good way of measuring reflected
power at low levels, so I can trim-and-tune up properly.

[Dave Platt]

In article <98duia973viui0rt6...@4ax.com>,

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

>Congrats. That's one of the better and easier to deal with 900 MHz
>radios. Watch out for V1 versus V2. They're slightly different:
><http://www.kw902.com/981generalinfo.html>

That's the very site I checked on my phone when I found the bin and
said "Hmmm, do I want these?" :-)

They all have a V2 on the manufacturer's ID plate. One of the five
has a high enough serial number that it probably has the newer final;
the others are the original V2 final.

>Incidentally, what's with the 33 cm wavelength notation? I'll start
>using wavelength instead of frequency when HP, TEK, or some other
>reputable vendor supplies a frequency counter or generator calibrated
>in wavelength instead of the usual frequency or period.

Awww, I'll bet you even say "2 meters" sometimes ;-)

It's a potato/potahtoe issue, I think. Sometimes I say "440", other
times I say "70 cm". Dualing terms, as it were :-)

>OK, portable operation. That means mounted on top of a fiberglass
>extension pole or floppy PVC pipe.

Yup.

>Actually, the problem is tremendous spread spectrum noise in parts of
>the band. It's common for repeaters to have different output
>frequencies, but sharing the few available input frequencies (usually
>902.0125 in Northern Calif) that are out of the cordless phone noisy
>areas. Of course, they all use different PL tones. See the list of
>frequencies at:
><http://users.innercite.com/kj6ko/page8.html>
>and notice the input frequencies. Also:
><http://www.repeater-builder.com/tech-info/900mhz-frequencies-to-avoid.html>

Noted - these are consistent with what I'd inferred from reading some
of the repeater-network writeups.

>Hint: 900 MHz radios don't like high VSWR antennas. I suggest you
>optimize the antenna for the 902 MHz TX area.

Valuable hint indeed, and I'd sorta figured that the TX part was
what's important, especially as the band and split are fairly wide.

>Y'er right about that. Worse, the banana jacks and such tend to make
>the length of the elements rather variable, which is probably ok for a
>simple antenna, but not so great if you want to build something
>better, like a double skirted ground plane. I would save the ground
>plane for the antenna of last resort.

Agreed.

>>- Several people have published designs for 33 cm J-poles, often with
>> a collinear structure for higher gain. Fairly predictable but
>> need some tuning during construction. Go-kit-friendly if installed
>> in a fiberglass or PVC radome tube.
>
>A PVC radome will detune the antenna, often in an unpredictable
>manner. Also, before you build something inside a plastic or
>fiberglass pipe, put a piece of the stuff in the microwave oven and
>see if it gets hot. If it does, it's an RF absorber.

Yes. Buying radome-grade fiberglass tubing would probably make sense
in this case.

>I have a bad attitude about J-poles. I'll let someone else proclaim
>what a wonderful antenna they can be. I haven't had much luck with
>them.

I'd put J-poles, along with Windoms and "cross-field" antennas, as
being in the "love/hate relationship and religious wars" category.

I've had decent luck with some J-poles, poor with others. Right now
I'm playing around with a combination of Cebik's description of
open-sleeve J-poles, NEC2, and a genetic-optimization package I
whipped up in Perl, to see just what sort of multiband J-pole-like
antennas I can brute-force into existence.

>The simple coaxial antennas have a common problem. There needs to be
>a gap between the outer sleeve, and the coax cable braid. If you look
>at commercial coaxial antennas, the sleeve ground diameter is huge
>compared to the center mounting pipe. Just peeling back the braid and
>burying it under some shrink tubing is kinda marginal.

Yeah... it would be better to do them as a real center-fed dipole
using metal tubing and a center insulator, and use fat-enough tubing
that it can be kept well away from the coax.

>The problem with mounting vertically polarized Yagi antennas on a pole
>is that the coax cable gets in the way of the pattern. If you use a
>metal pipe for mounting, that too gets in the way.

Best method I know there is to run the coax out the back end (through
the center of the reflector), and have the Yagi side-mounted far
enough away from the mast that coupling beyond the reflector isn't too
much of an issue. Not the best thing for light field deployment.

>Of course. I wouldn't have taken pot shots at the other ideas without
>having a favorite solution available. It's called an AMOS or Franklin
>antenna.

Quite interesting! It reminds me a bit of the center-fed plumber's-
delight Extended Double Zepp configuration, which also uses a coaxial
balun. I built one such, for 440, which we have side-mounted on our
tower at El Camino Hospital and use as our system-linking antenna when
we tie into another 440 repeater in the area. Seems to work out very
nicely.

The EDZ is an omni (excepting pattern disruption from the tower or
mast it's mounted on). I'm not sure whether it, or an AMOS, would be
more useful in the sort of deployment I'm thinking about. Stations at
the outside edge of the event might benefit by the directionality of
the AMOS; the station in the center might want an omni.

>You can also get very creative with the construction and still end up
>with a decent antenna. I've made them on 2.4Ghz out of a KD pine 2x4,
>some #12 hose wire, and assembled with a staple gun. For shielding, a
>strip of aluminum duct tape trimmed to the proper diameter. I'm also
>working on one that's made out of copper stained glass tape glued to
>the outside of an inflatable vinyl tube. Use your imagination.

Neat! I like being able to build good, useful antennas from
indigenous materials (that's why I like the "cheap Yagi" design).

>Be prepared to have some method of measuring VSWR versus frequency on
>900 Mhz. Leave your Bird Wattmeter at home and look into a return
>loss bridge, RF sweep generator, DC amp, and a scope:

What I have to work with at the moment is an 8640B (unfortunately
without the doubler), plenty of scopes, and a Systron-Donner spectrum
analyzer which goes up well above 2 gig. I've been thinking that by
adding a decent directional coupler, I could kluge up a simple scalar
network analyzer setup:

- Set the spectrum analyzer to sweep over the approximate frequency
range in question. Manually open up the selectivity filter to as
broad as possible. Probably set for "linear" vertical axis.

- Feed the analyzer's horizontal sweep output to the modulation input
of the 8640B.

- Center the 8640B where I want it, set it for FM, and adjust the
modulation width to something reasonable.

- 8640B output to the directional coupler drive port, directional
coupler reverse-sample port to the spectrum analyzer input, hook up
the DUT to the test port, and dummy-load the forward-sample port.

Not as good as a real SNA or VNA, or even a spectrum analyzer with
a tracking generator, but I *think* it would show me something useful.

I'll still need a doubler (with HPF) to get up to 900 MHz... throw
together some RF Shottky diodes for the former, I suppose, and maybe
carve a microstrip-with-stubs on some double-sided PCB stock for the
filter.

On the other hand, a friend of mine does a scalar network analyzer
good for up to 1 GHz, so I'll probably just go over to his place to
tune things up. :-)

>Basically, what an RLB give you is a display of the VSWR versus
>frequency without any indication of whether the mismatch is inductive
>or capacitive. It's not a VNA (vector network analyzer) but for this
>project, you don't need one.

Right... it's easy enough to infer the signs of the reactances
experimentally.

>If you want, I can grind out the numbers for most any configuration
>you want for 900 MHz.

I'd definitely appreciate it if you could crank out an AMOS or two of
varying lengths, for 902, and see what they look like.

>Of course. Most commercial mobile wire antennas cut for the 800-900
>Mhz band can be trimmed to 902 Mhz. I have a mess of Motorola NMO
>mount 800/900 Mhz antennas that should work. Here's one:
><http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/Misc/slides/Motorola-850mhz-NMO.html>
>I could probably send you a few if you want them.

I'd love to have a few, if you have 'em to spare! If you can let me
know what the postage cost is (to 94043) I'll reimburse you via
PayPal, or mail you a check.

> To use for portable
>operation, put some kind of ground plane under it. The downside is
>that you'll end up with some uptilt, which is great for talking to
>airplanes, but not very good for talking to the horizon.

They would at least get me started, until I can make or acquire
something better.

I've got one Larsen mag-mount base with an NMO, and I think I still
have the old through-hole NMO I used to use on my van and could mount
it in a sheet of something.

>Low gain fiberglass antennas are usually marked 902-928 MHz. However,
>once the gain goes above about 6dBi, they end up cut for specific
>frequencies. Since they're sealed, they can't be retuned. Yagi's are
>ok, because they can usually be retuned.
>
>You can also find 900 Mhz patch and panel antennas. These do not
>handle high power very well, but if you have the 15 watt flavor of
>TK-981, it should be ok.

For all of these, I'll look around.

I've got a few sheets of FR-4 and (certainly better) some Rogers
low-loss PCB stock, and could probably etch or cut-and-trim to make a
patch antenna of this size... once I figure out what the matching
section would need to be.

>Good luck.

Thanks! More fun stuff to play with, in my (not-so-)copious spare
time!

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:04:21 -0700, dpl...@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:

>>Incidentally, what's with the 33 cm wavelength notation? I'll start
>>using wavelength instead of frequency when HP, TEK, or some other
>>reputable vendor supplies a frequency counter or generator calibrated
>>in wavelength instead of the usual frequency or period.
>
>Awww, I'll bet you even say "2 meters" sometimes ;-)

Sure, but when I feel like being a PITA, I often say "the 6 foot
band".

>The EDZ is an omni (excepting pattern disruption from the tower or
>mast it's mounted on). I'm not sure whether it, or an AMOS, would be
>more useful in the sort of deployment I'm thinking about. Stations at
>the outside edge of the event might benefit by the directionality of
>the AMOS; the station in the center might want an omni.

Oh swell. Take two problematic J-Poles and stick them together and
hope that the result will be a better antenna. Two wrongs don't make
a right.

Ed Fong gave a presentation to the San Lorenzo Valley ARC a few months
ago on J-Poles. Here's the slide show from the presentation.
<https://www.slvarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/dbj-2-slides_hawaii.pdf>
<http://edsantennas.weebly.com>
<http://www.work-sat.com/Antennas_files/FONG-DBJ1.pdf>
<

The AMOS/Franklin antenna is NOT an omni thanks the reflector. It's
commonly used in sector antennas found in 800 MHz and up cellular
panel antennas. The stubs can be replaced by coils but it's still an
AMOS/Franklin antenna.

>Neat! I like being able to build good, useful antennas from
>indigenous materials (that's why I like the "cheap Yagi" design).

Rule-of-thumb. It's easy to build a low gain antenna ( <8dBi ) out of
junk parts, using sloppy construction, and loose tolerances. Things
become more critical above 8dBi. You could probably build a biquad,
AMOS-3, patch, or similar antenna using the aforementioned methods. An
AMOS-5 or AMOS-7 requires more precision.

>What I have to work with at the moment is an 8640B (unfortunately
>without the doubler),

I have 2 or 3 of those. Let me know when you need the gears fixed.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/HP8640B/>

>plenty of scopes,

Yep. I have the same problem:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/scopes-to-be-fixed.jpg>
That's the "to be fixed one of these days" pile, which now has 4 more
scopes in the pile.

>and a Systron-Donner spectrum
>analyzer which goes up well above 2 gig.

You'll need a sweep generator. I have about 7, none of which work
well.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/slides/BL-shop5.html>
The logic was to buy 3 broken generators on eBay and make one that
works out of the parts. However, I goofed and bought one each
revisions A, B, and C, which are mutually incompatible. Argh.

>I've been thinking that by
>adding a decent directional coupler,

Yeah, that would work. However, I suggest you just get an RF sweeper
and a reflection coefficient bridge and be done with it. The real
problem with indoor antenna testing and the test equipment is that the
position of everything, including your body, has an effect on the VSWR
curve. You can move around my shop and produce almost any disgusting
pattern desired. It's much like RADAR, where the reflected signal
become the VSWR.

>>If you want, I can grind out the numbers for most any configuration
>>you want for 900 MHz.
>
>I'd definitely appreciate it if you could crank out an AMOS or two of
>varying lengths, for 902, and see what they look like.

Done using 4NEC2. See:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/AMOS-5-915MHz/>
12.7dBi gain.
150 degree horizontal beamwidth.
10 degree vertical beamwidth.
VSWR = 1.15 to 1.50:1 in the 902-928 MHz range.
The wire is #12 AWG copper without any insulation.

Some details:
1. I changed my mind and made it for 915 Mhz instead of 902 MHz.
2. I goofed and made the reflector too short. It will work as is but
I need to recalculate and re-optimize for a slightly longer reflector.
3. The antenna is designed for 200 ohms and will require a 4:1 coax
balun. Something like this:
<http://www.brest-wireless.net/albums/AntenneAmos/balun.jpg>
but using 1/4 wave electrical coax at 915 MHz.
4. Most of the dimensions are a radius, not a diameter and that
measurements are to the center of the wires, not the edge.
5. The numbers are all in wavelengths. Scraping the NEC file:
SY W=.003 'Wire radius #12 AWG = 2mm dia.
SY Rx=0.50/2, Rnx=4 'Reflector width / 2 , number of wires
SY Ry=3.70/2, Rny=20 'Reflector height / 2 , number of wires
SY Dl=0.335472 'Half of center dipole length
SY Dh=0.216148 'Feed distance from reflector to dipole
SY D=0.147626 'Stub Length
SY E=0.183988 'Stub width
SY B=0.605056 'Length of 2nd element
SY C=0.512391 'Length of 3rd element

To convert these to cut lengths, take the wavelength at 915 MHz,
convert 915 MHz to mm wavelength = 328 mm, and multiple by the
calculated wavelengths. For example, the reflector is:
0.50 wavelegths wide or 0.52 * 328 mm = 171 mm wide
3.70 wavlengths long or 3.70 * 328 mm = 1214 mm long (about 4ft)
and so on.

I also claculated a larger AMOS-7 (14.3dBi gain) which is about 6-7 ft
long. That might be a too big for portable use. Might be worthwhile
if you really need 1.6dB more gain. Bug me if you want it posted.

>I've got a few sheets of FR-4 and (certainly better) some Rogers
>low-loss PCB stock, and could probably etch or cut-and-trim to make a
>patch antenna of this size... once I figure out what the matching
>section would need to be.

I don't think you'll be able to do much without a pile of test
equipment. That works ok for 440 MHz, but is twice as tricky for 915
MHz. At 2400 MHz (wi-fi), cut-n-try is quite difficult.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 18:35:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>2. I goofed and made the reflector too short. It will work as is but
>I need to recalculate and re-optimize for a slightly longer reflector.

Done. Antenna is now 4.2 wavelengths long or:
4.2 * 328 mm/wavelength = 1380 mm high (4.5ft)