wolf radio antennas

[CDX-007]

I was just thinking about Jay's match and the difference in length between a tuned Maco V5/8 and Jay's...
I bet you cold enlarge that circular match on the Maco and get it to tune correctly to a true .64 in length, (or about 23') instead of that wimpy 19.8' or so it needs to be to tune correctly on Lsb 38 in it's stock form.

Anyone have the correct overall length of the tuned match on the Interceptor 10K from both the feed point to the radiator, and the feed point to the radial?

 

[W5LZ]

CDX-007,
Lots of 'no' answers here, be prepared!
Can the matching 'ring' on the Maco be changed to make it work on any particular frequncy? Yes. But that doesn't make the antenna 'resonant' on that particular frequency unless it's length is adjusted also. Then, what does that say about the "true" 0.64 wave length thingy? No idea what it may 'say' to you, but it 'says' several things to me, such as;
A. A resonant length is a nice thing to have but it isn't as critical as it seems sometimes.
B. What a particular antenna is called/named ought to give you at least a little idea of what the thingy is, or is supposed to be, or who made the thing, or something so you don't confuse it with something else.
C. There just ain't no 'perfect' antennas in the 'real world'! Absolutely nothing will do everything that you want it to do, unless what you want to do is very limited. The more extreme that 'limited' is, the closer you can get to a 'perfect' antenna. The key word in that is 'closer', cuz you just will never get there except accidentally, and it depends a lot on your definition of 'perfect'.
D. The more money you can throw at the problem, the easier it gets.
E. The more ~any~ antenna is modified to make it more 'perfect', the more expensive it gets (not just in terms of $$).

So... A strict answer to your question is, 'yes'. Depending on how 'practical' it is, the answer could also be, 'no'. There are five required questions to answer the 'practical' thingy;
Who,
What,
Where,
When,
and
What's it cost.

Being a certified "C & L" Expert, the last one is the 'biggy' for me. Not all of us can be experts.
- 'Doc

[C & L Expert = an expert in cheap and lazy]

 

[Master Chief]

WARNING, Thread HYJACK in PROGRESS!

Can the matching 'ring' on the Maco be changed to make it work on any particular frequncy? Yes. But that doesn't make the antenna 'resonant' on that particular frequency unless it's length is adjusted also.

With the I-10K, you make adjustments for both the vertical element AND the "ring" (tombone) based on your frequency of choice. Oh yea, you also adjust the other trombone (impedance matching) and ground radials too! So I guess the I-10K is really frequency friendly!

Then, what does that say about the "true" 0.64 wave length thingy?

With the I-10K, its ALWAYS at 0.625 wave length (based on x frequency).....if you do the math (included in the TUNING MANUAL) thats provided!

There just ain't no 'perfect' antennas in the 'real world'!

This is true, even for the I-10K, but it still is the BEST!

End of Thread HYJACK!

 

[W5LZ]

'M.C.',
HYJACK IT, please! And take us to somewhere cool.
- 'Doc

 

[CDX-007]

Hijack? Hmm...

Well, Eddie seems to be among the missing, along with his cool antenna design...bummer... so we may as well go for the longest thread ever seen on planet 38 Lsb...

But my brainfar... uh brainstorm, was simply to add 3' of stinger from a joe-blow mobile antenna, or a piece of aluminum to the top of the Maco V-5/8 to get a total of approx 23'.
One would then simply reset the diameter of the loop match to the correct length / diameter, tuning for the correct impedance feedpoint on the new larger ring.
It seems to me one would then see about a +1 S-Unit increase over the stock Maco due to a lower radiation angle from the true .64, especially at further distances.
I expect a better receive, too, due to greater capture area.

One would basically be making a cheap, light-duty, reasonable facsimilie in performance of the:

INTERCEPTOR
SIGMA-5/8
PENETRATOR
Taylor GLR4
WILSON ALPHA V-5/8,
etc...

Since nobody now makes one for under $300, which is out of the price range of more than a few CB'rs, I figure someone with a bit more time than money could spend a couple of hours & a couple 10 spots, and be rather pleased with himself after successfully modding the only sub-$100 metal GP available today into a real .64 GP.

Just a far... uh, thought :idea:

 

[Master Chief]

Since nobody now makes one for under $300, which is out of the price range of more than a few CB'rs, I figure someone with a bit more time than money could spend a couple of hours & a couple 10 spots, and be rather pleased with himself after successfully modding the only sub-$100 metal GP available today into a real .64 GP.

Yet, those with a CB mentality (not a good thing) are more than ready to spend BIG bucks on overpriced "export" radios, a 2x4 to (over)drive their 8 pill, a 10-tube nightmare, or even a 6 X 3-500Z box, yet go cheap cheap cheap on an antenna and coax and wonder why it doesn't work.

I just installed another I-10K for a local and EVERYONE except a couple of us are surprised how well he is getting out. We have been telling people for YEARS and yet they still don't believe.

I rebuilt a Maco V58 for a local. He could never get better than a 1.5:1 with it. I got a 1:1 SWR (sorry, only one SWR today, so I can't say SWR's). The antenna is working better than ever.

I tell people ALL THE TIME, "If you can't afford an I-10K, get the Maco V58."

The difference between a .625 wave and a .640 wave is almost not worth measuring. .625 = 5/8 BTW. If you think about it, .64 is the maximum length before your radiation pattern begins to degrade. If your antenna is tuned to channel 20, all channels above channel 20 suffer because the antenna is longer than .64 wave. Oh GOD, where will this thread go now?! :twisted:

Lastly , read my signature, yet again!!!!

 

[CDX-007]

MACO .55 (V-5/8)

Yep, I have to agree, and you mentioned the difference between a .625 & .64 not being much of a difference, but I'm referring to the difference from a 19.8' to a 23' antenna.
For the price of a couple pieces of 3/8" tubing from the local hardware store, a person could conceiveably build their own nice little true .64 from that light-duty $100 Maco V-.55 wave.

By the way, I pulled off the radials from a buddies brand spankin' new Maco V-5/8 last fall, (that he loaned to me while I was cleaning up the Penetrator) and saw ZER0 difference in performance or SWR without the radials.
The ONLY difference I saw was a little more TVI without them.

After I cleaned up the Hy-Gain Penetrator and put it back up where the Maco had been for testing, EVERYONE noticed at least an S-unit better signal strength and I noticed more like 2 S-units increase on receive, especially with those a little farther away.

If someone enjoys chatting CB or 10m and needs a cost effective .64 which would still handle full legal limit on 10m, I can't imagine one could do better for the $110 or so it would cost to buy & mod a Maco V-5/8 (.55) to a full .64.

Now, anyone got the measurements of the Interceptor match for all those reading this who already own a Maco and want to upgrade their performance?
I'll wager it would be dang close to perfect for a 23' modded Maco, and you could keep it a ring rather than having to mimic the trombone of the I-10K.
Strange, the Avanti Sigma 5/8 is basically the same antenna, but it's match is fed at the beginning of the bottom of the ring, not near the center like the I-10K.

Now I have to decide which amp I want to keep, Drake L-4B, Drake L-7, Kenwood TL-922A, or Swan MarkII...???
Decisions, decisions.

 

[Master Chief]

Re: MACO .55 (V-5/8)

Now, anyone got the measurements of the Interceptor match for all those reading this who already own a Maco and want to upgrade their performance?

I'll wager it would be dang close to perfect for a 23' modded Maco, and you could keep it a ring rather than having to mimic the trombone of the I-10K.

Strange, the Avanti Sigma 5/8 is basically the same antenna, but it's match is fed at the beginning of the bottom of the ring, not near the center like the I-10K.

You keep saying ".55" That would only be slightly longer than a 1/2 wave. Do you mean .625? The Maco is a V58 and probably best not to confuse everyone out here.

The Maco could NEVER be modified like the I-10K. Neither could the Penetrator. They are designed completely different, most notably is the elevated feed of the I-10K.

The Avanti Sigma 5/8 is no way near identical to any of the above mentioned antennas (Maco, Penetrator, Sigma).

If you could make any changes to the Avanti or the Maco, it would be to add a top-hat and re-adjust for best length. But, all these antennas work fine as designed so I wouldn't bother.

Any changes I make to the antennas are more about mechanical upgrades than electrical.

 

[C2]

What he is saying about the .55?

He is talking about the length from the tip of the maco to the lower bolt of the groundplane, which is specified as something like 240 inches by the instruction sheet. Whatever the length is that they do specify, it is somewhere between 1/2 wave and 5/8 wave, IIRC.

Now, if you take a wavelenght of 234/F for a 1/4 wave element and apply some simple math, you get ~413 inches for a full wave element, then divide by Maco's 240 and take the reciprocal, you get a figure of 0.58.

Could that be why they call it a V58? It's 0.58 wave long?

And then I always wondered about the lenght being less than 5/8 wave...I finally guessed that the rest of the lenght was in the matching coil....the path from the coax feed point, along the copper wire, around the aluminum ring, and up the mast would be linearly close to 5/8 wave.

:idea:

 

[Toll_Free]

Re: MACO .55 (V-5/8)

Yep, I have to agree, and you mentioned the difference between a .625 & .64 not being much of a difference, but I'm referring to the difference from a 19.8' to a 23' antenna.
For the price of a couple pieces of 3/8" tubing from the local hardware store, a person could conceiveably build their own nice little true .64 from that light-duty $100 Maco V-.55 wave.

By the way, I pulled off the radials from a buddies brand spankin' new Maco V-5/8 last fall, (that he loaned to me while I was cleaning up the Penetrator) and saw ZER0 difference in performance or SWR without the radials.
The ONLY difference I saw was a little more TVI without them.

After I cleaned up the Hy-Gain Penetrator and put it back up where the Maco had been for testing, EVERYONE noticed at least an S-unit better signal strength and I noticed more like 2 S-units increase on receive, especially with those a little farther away.

If someone enjoys chatting CB or 10m and needs a cost effective .64 which would still handle full legal limit on 10m, I can't imagine one could do better for the $110 or so it would cost to buy & mod a Maco V-5/8 (.55) to a full .64.

Now, anyone got the measurements of the Interceptor match for all those reading this who already own a Maco and want to upgrade their performance?
I'll wager it would be dang close to perfect for a 23' modded Maco, and you could keep it a ring rather than having to mimic the trombone of the I-10K.
Strange, the Avanti Sigma 5/8 is basically the same antenna, but it's match is fed at the beginning of the bottom of the ring, not near the center like the I-10K.

Now I have to decide which amp I want to keep, Drake L-4B, Drake L-7, Kenwood TL-922A, or Swan MarkII...???
Decisions, decisions.

1 full wave at 27.205 = 36.1'
That means a 5/8 = 22.5' long
That means the .64 antenna = 23.1 feet long.

Now, what NONE of this takes into account is the VELOCITY FACTOR!!! These measurements are all in free space.

Take velocity factor into account and you get:
(and this is theoretical at this point, since I don't have the vF sheet in front of me, nor can I get it atm)

Anywho, vF of .75 to .95 are common... Take your 5/8 antenna and see it jump down to:
22.5'x.9 (sake of argument) = 20.25 feet long.


The difference that most of you see is the velocity factor. Nobody takes that into account.



You saw no difference with the Maco when the radials where pulled off because at that point, you created an untuned dipole, a la ringo ranger. Without the tuned counterpoise and decoupling from the mast / tower / etc., you where doing nothing but using your mast as a counterpoise. See elsewhere where I talked of isolating the ground section (plane) of the antenna from the supporting structure. Try that, and remove the ground plane assembly. Your match just went to shit. Again, not isolating your antenna from the supporting structure skews the polar plot of the antenna....... And causes tvi and all sorts of nastiness.

If your going to use your S Meter as the component to measure your antenna improvements, make sure your getting s meter readings from people < S5 on your end... Otherwise your AGC will skew any and all readings. And AGC usually works log.... Meaning its non-linear in it's clamping ability.. The stronger the signal, the more its going to clobber it by varying the gain of the incoming signal. Don't use the RF gain to take a S8 to a S1 either... Won't work, since the RF gain usually varies the AGC voltage. S1 to S3 signals work best, with a DMM on the s meter to make finite adjustments.

Want the best antenna, forget the match. Tune your antenna for the maximum recieved signal (small signal)... Then adjust your feedpoint for minimum reflected power. NOW your where your antenna is RESONANT.

As others have said, the distance to the other station makes a difference as well.

Bottom line, your not going to notice the difference talking between a .6 anything wave antenna. CB meters JUST don't have the ability to do so.

YOUR GOING TO NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FEEDPOINT, THE AMOUNT OF LOSS FROM THE FEEDPOINT DESIGN AND THE INSERTION LOSS OF ANY METERS more than you will from going from .55 to .64... SERIOUSLY!

You saw an increase in the signal before because you took a simple resistive bridge (which is what the Maco feedpoint is, taking and tapping a coil for the maximum power transfer, OR for minimum reflected power... Which don't always coincide) to an antenna that used a tuned input.

What works better on a linear... Tuned input or swamped input?

Nuff said, put it to rest.

--Toll_Free