On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:02:51 -0800 (PST), 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.


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