Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
"Kevin Hastings" wrote in message ... I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest. Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a ARX-2B? What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both. Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this Kevin VE9-XYZ ---------------- I have used the ARX2B with and without the decoupling stubs and didn't notice any real difference. Theoretically, the decoupling stubs flatten the radiation doughnut which provides better signal toward the horizon. I guess I didn't operate many stations that were out there far enough to notice any improvement in range. How high the antenna is mounted also plays into the range. Mounting it low would probably remove any advantage provided by the coax and decoupling stubs. Ed, NM2K |
Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a
ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest. Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a ARX-2B? What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both. My understanding is that the original Ringo design doesn't do a good job of decoupling the feedline (and mast, if conductive) from the antenna. There can be a significant amount of RF current flow on the outside of the feedline, below the impedance-matching loop/ring. This radiates RF which combines with that of the radiating section, altering the antenna's pattern to some extent (I think I've heard people say that it can cause the antenna to "squint", with its main radiation lobe pointing above or below the horizon). Because feedline RF depends on the length of the feedline and its grounding configuration, feedline-RF issue makes the original Ringo somewhat sensitive to the specific conditions under which it's installed - works great for some people, poorly for others. Ordinary copper-pipe J-poles can suffer from the same problem, but as they're a lower-gain antenna with an inherently-broader vertical pattern I suspect that the problem is less noticeable. The coax harness and radials (which you can probably replace with quarter-wave sections of aluminum rod-stock, suitably threaded) act as a decoupling section, isolating the feedline from the antenna and making it less sensitive to the conditions of installation. You might be able to achieve a similar effect by simply rolling up a couple of feed of the top of the feedline into a coil 4-5" in diameter, just below the feedpoint, and insulating the antenna from the mast itself. -- Dave Platt 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! |
Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
On Sep 22, 2:01 pm, "Ed Cregger" wrote:
"Kevin Hastings" wrote in message ... I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest. Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a ARX-2B? What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both. Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this Kevin VE9-XYZ ---------------- I have used the ARX2B with and without the decoupling stubs and didn't notice any real difference. Theoretically, the decoupling stubs flatten the radiation doughnut which provides better signal toward the horizon. I guess I didn't operate many stations that were out there far enough to notice any improvement in range. How high the antenna is mounted also plays into the range. Mounting it low would probably remove any advantage provided by the coax and decoupling stubs. Ed, NM2K- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Even better, you can throw away the top section and run it as an AR2!!! |
Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
wrote in message ps.com... On Sep 22, 2:01 pm, "Ed Cregger" wrote: "Kevin Hastings" wrote in message ... I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest. Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a ARX-2B? What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both. Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this Kevin VE9-XYZ ---------------- I have used the ARX2B with and without the decoupling stubs and didn't notice any real difference. Theoretically, the decoupling stubs flatten the radiation doughnut which provides better signal toward the horizon. I guess I didn't operate many stations that were out there far enough to notice any improvement in range. How high the antenna is mounted also plays into the range. Mounting it low would probably remove any advantage provided by the coax and decoupling stubs. Ed, NM2K- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Even better, you can throw away the top section and run it as an AR2!!! ----------------- Don't laugh, I have done that too. Then I did notice a difference in range. Ed, NM2K |
Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
"Kevin Hastings" wrote in message
... I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest. Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a ARX-2B? What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both. Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this Kevin VE9-XYZ You can also order those missing parts directly from Cushcraft. I would suggest -- before the snow flies -- if you want it up and operating before winter. gb |
Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
On Sep 22, 10:28 am, "Kevin Hastings"
wrote: I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest. Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a ARX-2B? Absolutely. What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both. Yep, I had a ARX-2 which I converted to a 2B. I did tests to see the difference. It was large. What the deal is... That extra section is mainly a decoupling device. This decouples the antenna from the feedline, which can skew the pattern upwards off the horizon. Gain is useless if it's pointing towards Jupiter... You don't need any more mast per say. The radial set clamps to the existing mast you are using now. The 50 inch coax section connects from the feedpoint to that radial set. I made all the parts to convert mine myself but I imagine you can order them from cushcraft. MK |
Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
On Sep 22, 3:41 pm, "Ed Cregger" wrote:
wrote in message ps.com... On Sep 22, 2:01 pm, "Ed Cregger" wrote: "Kevin Hastings" wrote in message . .. I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest. Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a ARX-2B? What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both. Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this Kevin VE9-XYZ ---------------- I have used the ARX2B with and without the decoupling stubs and didn't notice any real difference. Theoretically, the decoupling stubs flatten the radiation doughnut which provides better signal toward the horizon. I guess I didn't operate many stations that were out there far enough to notice any improvement in range. How high the antenna is mounted also plays into the range. Mounting it low would probably remove any advantage provided by the coax and decoupling stubs. Ed, NM2K- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Even better, you can throw away the top section and run it as an AR2!!! ----------------- Don't laugh, I have done that too. Then I did notice a difference in range. Ed, NM2K- I was given an Arx2 on Guam. Looked as if it had gone through numerous typhoons, and was missing the hairpin match. Not having a manual or anything (and pre-internet), I fiddled with a piece of copper wire until I got tired of it. So I gave it to a fellow ham, who unscrewed the top section and threw it away. It matched just fine with only the ring at the bottom. |
Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
"Jimmie D" wrote in message ... "Ed Cregger" wrote in message ... "Kevin Hastings" wrote in message ... I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest. Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a ARX-2B? What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both. Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this Kevin VE9-XYZ ---------------- I have used the ARX2B with and without the decoupling stubs and didn't notice any real difference. Theoretically, the decoupling stubs flatten the radiation doughnut which provides better signal toward the horizon. I guess I didn't operate many stations that were out there far enough to notice any improvement in range. How high the antenna is mounted also plays into the range. Mounting it low would probably remove any advantage provided by the coax and decoupling stubs. Ed, NM2K Apparently there is a big difference from istallation to installation without the decoupling mod the 2B provides. Ive heard many varied reports on how well the -2 performs and what you should do to make it perform well. Some say metal mast, others insulated mast. Some say install it at X height others at Y, use a choke in the coax, other say thats the worst thing you can do. Some praise the antenna others curse it. You should get the idea by now. For those who went to the 2B some say its better some say its worse thn the -2, go figure. Jimmie --------------- Of all of the 2 meter non mobile verticals I have used over the last couple of decades, the ARX2B is my favorite, in spite of my previous comments. Ed, NM2K |
Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
Kevin (and others) What the deal is- that the original ARX-2 (not
De-coupled) allows rf to go on the outside sheath of the coax, allowing it to become part of the antenna system. The decoupleing stub- with 1/4 wave ground plane radials, forces the rf off the coax below the radials, allowing 2 features- 1) minimizes rf feedback towards the rig (eliminates rf burns, in high power, and 2) makes the antenna radiate simetrically (when the coax shield radiates, it distorts the antenna pattern, both in recieve, and transmit.) Realistically, it probably makes little difference, overall, but was a sales pitch, started by AEA, on its Isopole antenna. Was demonstrated at Seattle ARRL convention side by side- The coax from the (original) ARX-2 would light a lamp on a RF sniffer, held next to the coax-- the ISOPOLE didn't! Cushcrafts response was the ARX-2B (and a mod kit for the ARX-2), that eliminated this coax radiation! You can easily duplicate the effect with 3- 19 inch pieces of aluminium wire, to the mast , held on with a hose clamp! (dont forget to also attach that coax shield, at that point! ) Jim NN7K ... I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest. Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a ARX-2B? What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both. Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this Kevin VE9-XYZ |
Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
On Sep 23, 4:16 pm, Jim-NN7K . wrote:
Realistically, it probably makes little difference, overall, but was a sales pitch, started by AEA, on its Isopole antenna. I saw a large difference when I tested mine. Using stable local signals to test, I often saw 3-4 S units worth of difference on the old IC-22u I was using at that time. But the difference will vary to each installation, length of coax, etc... It's even possible for the common mode currents to add in phase and cause an increased gain, but that is very rare. The decoupling kit makes the antenna work the same no matter the length of coax, etc.. Well worth the trouble I think. BTW, I've compared the decoupled cushcraft to the isopole. The decoupled cushcraft was close, much closer than the non decoupled version, but the isopole was still the best by a slight margin. The isopole was probably the best dual 5/8 antenna ever made as far as decoupling the line. But for the money and slimmer looks, the 2B cushcraft is pretty good. I used one for a long time. MK |
Ringo ARX-2 vs ARX-2B - What's the deal?
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:06:19 -0700, nm5k wrote:
BTW, I've compared the decoupled cushcraft to the isopole. The decoupled cushcraft was close, much closer than the non decoupled version, but the isopole was still the best by a slight margin. The isopole was probably the best dual 5/8 antenna ever made as far as decoupling the line. But for the money and slimmer looks, the 2B cushcraft is pretty good. I used one for a long time. MK Speaking of Isopoles, apparently the outfit that bought the Isopole segment of AEA has never brought them to market. Fair enough. However, there is an outfit called Spectral (from Brazil, I believe) that is selling an "Isopole" that looks all the world in their ads the same as an AEA model. Their pricing is rather steep compared to when AEA was still a going concern. Has anyone tried one? Fortunately, I still have most of a new 2m Isopole in a box that I picked up at a hamfest a few years back. 73, de Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true." |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com