Any Astro Plane Fans ?

[bob85]

NB,
not only have you advocated isolating at the hoop you went into some detail about it

"I eliminated most of my local TVI/RFI by using 1.25'' diameter solid fiberglass rod to isolate the mast 105" down from the mounting bracket on my Avanti AP, since the mast is the 1/4 wave counterpoise for this folded 3/4 wave GP. I used 5.5 turns of the coax on a 4" diameter former for the cmc choke around the fiberglass."

"That was many years ago, and the first time I tried a cmc choke. I saw no degradation in signal nor performance when I went to the isolated 1/4 wave mast, and I lived for the local DX. The farther - the better, without using F layer skip of course."

"When I get my AP back (it's still 165 miles away) I want to hang mine with rope ("in free-air") and pull the coax off at an horizontal with chokes, probably three or four CMC chokes, one about every 6'.
- But I've NEVER advocated a 1/4 wave mast."

i already told you i tested this idea, you are free to waste your time as you wish,

1/4wave masts on an astroplane don't work worth a crap nor will it work if you hang it from a tree with rope as you describe,

IM NOT GUESSING as you will discover, i hope you are man enough to come back on here to tell everybody i was correct ,

OH and yes, its a bt104.

 

[Marconi]

maybe Eddie will tweak his mast around the electrical 1/2wave point while looking at his current log to see if im correct about maximising current in the upper 1/4wave & minimising mast current,

Bob, I would post my model results, but after DB linked us to his prior report and you saw what pleased you...I figured you were also thinking about raising the antenna itself in steps up higher to about 2 wavelengths instead of making the mast inside the antenna a bit longer until resonance and maximum gain were achieved.

My idea was to make several 12" inch increases in the length of the mast inside of the antenna and extending down below the hoop making the mast a little longer. I made the masts 9' feet, 10' feet, and 11' feet below the hoop for a total of 3' feet increase in length.

With your mind made up already I won't bother with all the details , ie. currents, but below are the overlays of these models showing virtually no difference in the patterns. These 3 models also show a little difference in gain, and a slight improvement of the match as the mast was made longer.

I generated the tabular currents log and the currents are only fractionally different among the 3 increasing lengths. However the trend is toward lower currents just as you suggest. However, when I went to a 3/4 length mast the current in the radiator was less, and the currents on both mast were increased.

The (*) beside the title of the model is the active model among these three images. Pay no attention to the title of the model in these images. I simply used this model to overlay the other two models. I hope this is clear.

As noted, I also did a model with a 27' foot long mast inside the antenna. The match was better, the gain was a little less, the pattern was different with an 11* degree low angled lobe gain of 2.82 dbi...very close to the maximum gain at 32* degrees with 2.89 dbi gain.

So Bob, according to my model you are right on all characteristics, but again I don't find much difference among the first three models. However, the 3/4 wavelength mast model shows a reduction in the current on the radiator and increasing currents on the both mast, the mast part inside the antenna and the supporting mast to ground that is isolated ISO where I used a 5" space to represent an insulator.

With all this said, I don't see any difference in the currents for the 3 models that would be detectable either. You will just have to take my word on this...since you seem to consider details as a bit too much trouble.

 

[HomerBB]

I also did a model with a 27' foot long mast inside the antenna. The match was better, the gain was a little less, the pattern was different withan 11* degree low angled lobe gain of 2.82 dbi...very close to the maximum gain at 32* degrees with 2.89 dbi gain.

that's why I asked about where the max gain lobe was. . . In this model not at the optimum dx angle.

 

[Marconi]

Because I used my homebrew wooden crank over mast to mount my antennas (except for temporary tuning as I built them) all of my installs were on nonmetallic mast until 5' above earth at which point the steel push up pole began. In such a case when I had an antenna mounted at 32' it was a coincidentally isolated mast at 27', especially if my coax choke was effective.

I've done it here, both ways grounded and not grounded, and I never saw any difference that I could detect just using my radio and SWR meter. I never tested the idea using my analyzer however.

Did you ever try connecting the bottom of the PU pole to a ground rod to provide some protection in case of lightening?

If so, could you tell any difference?

 

[Needle Bender]

NB,
not only have you advocated isolating at the hoop you went into some detail about it

"I eliminated most of my local TVI/RFI by using 1.25'' diameter solid fiberglass rod to isolate the mast 105" down from the mounting bracket on my Avanti AP, since the mast is the 1/4 wave counterpoise for this folded 3/4 wave GP. I used 5.5 turns of the coax on a 4" diameter former for the cmc choke around the fiberglass."

"That was many years ago, and the first time I tried a cmc choke. I saw no degradation in signal nor performance when I went to the isolated 1/4 wave mast, and I lived for the local DX. The farther - the better, without using F layer skip of course."

"When I get my AP back (it's still 165 miles away) I want to hang mine with rope ("in free-air") and pull the coax off at an horizontal with chokes, probably three or four CMC chokes, one about every 6'.
- But I've NEVER advocated a 1/4 wave mast."

i already told you i tested this idea, you are free to waste your time as you wish,

1/4wave masts on an astroplane don't work worth a crap nor will it work if you hang it from a tree with rope as you describe,

IM NOT GUESSING as you will discover, i hope you are man enough to come back on here to tell everybody i was correct ,

OH and yes, its a bt104.

I see you blended two different THREE YEAR OLD posts and didn't use the

.

- but nonetheless, and as I wrote here, it was many years ago before I understood the AP better, and I was mistaken back then about it requiring a 1/4 wave "counterpoise" - HOWEVER - you did fail to mention that I didn't post about any degradation in performance by having that unwanted 1/4 wave mast length... Hmmm, interesting.

I'll have no issue posting the results, but I see it as more about the "Why does it work that way" and as of yet it appears no one, (not even the original designers?) understand it.

Homer, I was hoping you'd chime in about your AP and whether or not it worked for you on your all-wood tower or if you found you needed a 1/2 wave long or so mast attached to the bracket to finish the tuning...?

 

[Marconi]

that's why I asked about where the max gain lobe was. . . In this model not at the optimum dx angle.

Homer, this response may be off base and I don't think you asked me about where the max gain lobe is.

And since my models are off topic in the current discussion with antennas at various heights and not about the length of the mast inside the antenna and below the hoop, I don't think this model with a 27' foot mast will answer your question either. DB will have to respond to your question.

However, here is what I got with my idea for a 3/4 length mast inside the antenna isolated by 5" inches to a 9' foot supporting mast to Earth. My current models are all at 36' feet to the feed point.

 

[HomerBB]

...

Did you ever try connecting the bottom of the PU pole to a ground rod to provide some protection in case of lightening?

If so, could you tell any difference?

I have. Detected no difference.

 

[HomerBB]

...

Homer, I was hoping you'd chime in about your AP and whether or not it worked for you on your all-wood tower or if you found you needed a 1/2 wave long or so mast attached to the bracket to finish the tuning...?

NB, I never tried to add or remove mast to determine that theory. Wasn't a matter of emphasis then except I accepted the prevailing theory regarding the necessity of a conducting mast to complete the antenna. I always used a coax choke 9' beneath the ring on permanent installs. I never viewed the conducting mast as an earth grounded mast anymore than any other constituent part of an antenna as needing to be earthed.
My purpose of trying the AP was rooted in proving it's performance against the taller antennas at same tip height, as I believed the patent and manual expressed. I can't reply to any other nuance of the mast discussion mostly because I wasn't focused on anything else.
With regard to what I sought to evaluate I came away unabashedly in support of the demonstrated truth of the patent's claims.
The AP is the hands down example of delivery on promise. Why? Maybe someone will figure it out. Maybe not...

 

[HomerBB]

Homer, this response may be off base and I don't think you asked me about where the max gain lobe is.

And since my models are off topic in the current discussion with antennas at various heights and not about the length of the mast inside the antenna and below the hoop, I don't think this model with a 27' foot mast will answer your question either. DB will have to respond to your question.

However, here is what I got with my idea for a 3/4 length mast inside the antenna isolated by 5" inches to a 9' foot supporting mast to Earth. My current models are all at 36' feet to the feed point.

I understand. I simply meant your post was revealing of why I asked.
The one consistent thing about all the AP models is, as has been pointed out, their are no deep nulls, and all angles are robust. Very interesting in itself...

 

[bob85]

Eddie,

i meant alter the mast a little either side of an electrical 1/2wave to confirm or refute the mast robbing current from the upper 1/4wave when the mast is not an electrical 1/2wave or multiple,

your models seem to confirm what i think,

DB's latest models have me baffled.

 

[bob85]

NB
i guess we have a different opinion of what NEVER means,

don't try schooling me on shit that don't matter like how i quote you,
it was directed at you & you know what you said its all there in the posts,

you will discover that you don't understand the astroplane any better now than back then if and when you do some tests.

 

[Needle Bender]

NB
i guess we have a different opinion of what NEVER means,

don't try schooling me on shit that don't matter like how i quote you,
it was directed at you & you know what you said its all there in the posts,

you will discover that you don't understand the astroplane any better now than back then if and when you do some tests.

You didn't quote me Bob, you blended two different posts of mine to make it appear I was advocating it when the jist of my post was about adding the 1/4 wave counterpoise & a CMC choke to knock down TVI, about 30 years ago.

And if I feel you need schooling on something, I won't "try", I simply will.

Now go bark your commands at your family, maybe they'll pay some attention to it.

 

[bob85]

NB
the proof is right there in your posts, i only reposted a couple of examples of your twaddle,

you get everything wrong, chokes astroplanes .64waves are just the tip of the iceberg,

you use your own laws of physics & won't ever admit you are wrong or that you learned something new,

you cannot post proof from respected sources of anything you claim because its all made up whereas i can post what you have said in the past even if you go back and delete it all,

stop flapping your shitlips & get your tests done billybullshit.

THANKS.

 

[HomerBB]

Have we run out of antenna related content . . ?

 

[Needle Bender]

NB
the proof is right there in your posts, i only reposted a couple of examples of your twaddle,

you get everything wrong, chokes astroplanes .64waves are just the tip of the iceberg,

you use your own laws of physics & won't ever admit you are wrong or that you learned something new,

you cannot post proof from respected sources of anything you claim because its all made up whereas i can post what you have said in the past even if you go back and delete it all,

stop flapping your shitlips & get your tests done billybullshit.

THANKS.

Join us for another episode of, "As The Rotor Turns" - lol

No thanks Bob, I'm just not into such rude, apparent jealousy-based drama these days, just out here for the fun of it, to help & learn, not get my shorts all twisted up into a tizzy because of a twaddle-walk probably caused by misplacement of a Sigma IV.

1. The .64 goes clear back to the early '70s, Taylor GLR4 .64 & Newtronics.
2. A 5 turn current choke is not employed where voltage is high, 16 turns is.
3. We're all unclear about the true bottom-line regarding the AP as of yet.
4. Go away, and take your bullying attitude with you.

Have we run out of antenna related content . . ?

Good point, Homer, perhaps not. There are more real-world tests to come.
I'm even more curious now about the accuracy of modeling vs real-world. Gotta get that AP back and get testing.
73