The Lindenblad has an overhead null that you might find anoying for some
high elevation passes of LEOs.
Are you open to trying to build a DCA (which is an antenna that I
developed)? I make the claim that there is no other hemispheric coverage
antenna design that performs better than a DCA. But, I sure am open to
being corrected.
The Feb 2008 QST contains an article on the DCA antenna design concept.
It is my claim that a DCA is extreemely forgiving of construction errors
and uses 4 wire dipoles and 50 ohm coax with 5 RFI type ferrites as
"baluns'.

Jerry KD6JDJ
Given the fact I don't subscribe to QST, domicile Australia, would you have
a copy of the article?

HH

"Harry H" wrote in message
...

The Lindenblad has an overhead null that you might find anoying for some
high elevation passes of LEOs.
Are you open to trying to build a DCA (which is an antenna that I
developed)? I make the claim that there is no other hemispheric
coverage antenna design that performs better than a DCA. But, I sure am
open to being corrected.
The Feb 2008 QST contains an article on the DCA antenna design concept.
It is my claim that a DCA is extreemely forgiving of construction errors
and uses 4 wire dipoles and 50 ohm coax with 5 RFI type ferrites as
"baluns'.

Jerry KD6JDJ
Given the fact I don't subscribe to QST, domicile Australia, would you
have a copy of the article?

HH


Hi HH

It would be my pleasure to disclose any/all the information I have
relating to the DCA antenna design concept. It is simple. It is two pairs
of crossed dipoles. Each pair is spaced 1/4 wave apart and fed in phase.
One pair is physically mounted 90 degrees from the other pair. All four
dipoles are tilted 30 degtrees from vertical. One pair is fed 90 degrees
later than the other pair.
The concept is so simple and straightfoeward that it is probable that the
concept has been developed before I thought of it. But, I have been unable
to find anything published related to this simple "Double Cross Antenna"
I told my *Internet buddy*, Patrik Tast, in Finland about the concept and
he found it to be exactly what he needed for reception of NOAA weather
satellite signals. Patrik publishes alot of what I send him related to the
antenna. Patrik shows a section of his web page to describe the DCA to
anyone interested. You can find the QST article in the section Patrik
identifies as ANTENNAS on the first page of his site
http://www.poes-weather.com/index.php.

If you have any questions about the DCA concept you are free to E-mail me,
anytime. Or, if you have any facts or data to show where I am wrong about
how well this antenna performs, or know of something that performs better,
please set me straight.

Jerry KD6JDJ

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Harry H" wrote in message
...

The Lindenblad has an overhead null that you might find anoying for
some high elevation passes of LEOs.
Are you open to trying to build a DCA (which is an antenna that I
developed)? I make the claim that there is no other hemispheric
coverage antenna design that performs better than a DCA. But, I sure
am open to being corrected.
The Feb 2008 QST contains an article on the DCA antenna design concept.
It is my claim that a DCA is extreemely forgiving of construction
errors and uses 4 wire dipoles and 50 ohm coax with 5 RFI type ferrites
as "baluns'.

Jerry KD6JDJ
Given the fact I don't subscribe to QST, domicile Australia, would you
have a copy of the article?

HH


Hi HH

It would be my pleasure to disclose any/all the information I have
relating to the DCA antenna design concept. It is simple. It is two
pairs of crossed dipoles. Each pair is spaced 1/4 wave apart and fed in
phase. One pair is physically mounted 90 degrees from the other pair.
All four dipoles are tilted 30 degtrees from vertical. One pair is fed
90 degrees later than the other pair.
The concept is so simple and straightfoeward that it is probable that the
concept has been developed before I thought of it. But, I have been
unable to find anything published related to this simple "Double Cross
Antenna"
I told my *Internet buddy*, Patrik Tast, in Finland about the concept and
he found it to be exactly what he needed for reception of NOAA weather
satellite signals. Patrik publishes alot of what I send him related to
the antenna. Patrik shows a section of his web page to describe the DCA
to anyone interested. You can find the QST article in the section Patrik
identifies as ANTENNAS on the first page of his site
http://www.poes-weather.com/index.php.

If you have any questions about the DCA concept you are free to E-mail
me, anytime. Or, if you have any facts or data to show where I am wrong
about how well this antenna performs, or know of something that performs
better, please set me straight.

Jerry KD6JDJ


.... but surely this is the same as a Lindenblad array? The tilt of the
dipoles was always a parameter in the Lindenblad, so I wonder how your DCA
differs from what N. E. Lindenblad described in the April 1941 edition of
'Communications'.

Chris

"christofire" wrote in message
...
"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Harry H" wrote in message
...

The Lindenblad has an overhead null that you might find anoying for
some high elevation passes of LEOs.
Are you open to trying to build a DCA (which is an antenna that I
developed)? I make the claim that there is no other hemispheric
coverage antenna design that performs better than a DCA. But, I sure
am open to being corrected.
The Feb 2008 QST contains an article on the DCA antenna design
concept.
It is my claim that a DCA is extreemely forgiving of construction
errors and uses 4 wire dipoles and 50 ohm coax with 5 RFI type ferrites
as "baluns'.

Jerry KD6JDJ
Given the fact I don't subscribe to QST, domicile Australia, would you
have a copy of the article?

HH


Hi HH

It would be my pleasure to disclose any/all the information I have
relating to the DCA antenna design concept. It is simple. It is two
pairs of crossed dipoles. Each pair is spaced 1/4 wave apart and fed in
phase. One pair is physically mounted 90 degrees from the other pair. All
four dipoles are tilted 30 degtrees from vertical. One pair is fed 90
degrees later than the other pair.
The concept is so simple and straightfoeward that it is probable that
the concept has been developed before I thought of it. But, I have been
unable to find anything published related to this simple "Double Cross
Antenna"
I told my *Internet buddy*, Patrik Tast, in Finland about the concept
and he found it to be exactly what he needed for reception of NOAA
weather satellite signals. Patrik publishes alot of what I send him
related to the antenna. Patrik shows a section of his web page to
describe the DCA to anyone interested. You can find the QST article in
the section Patrik identifies as ANTENNAS on the first page of his site
http://www.poes-weather.com/index.php.

If you have any questions about the DCA concept you are free to E-mail
me, anytime. Or, if you have any facts or data to show where I am wrong
about how well this antenna performs, or know of something that performs
better, please set me straight.

Jerry KD6JDJ


... but surely this is the same as a Lindenblad array? The tilt of the
dipoles was always a parameter in the Lindenblad, so I wonder how your DCA
differs from what N. E. Lindenblad described in the April 1941 edition of
'Communications'.

Chris


Hi Chris

Several, well educated, antenna experts insist that the DCA is actually a
Lindenblad. If you thought the DCA is a Lindenblad, you are not alone.
The DCA is not a Lindenblad. The array of four dipoles in a Lindenblad
are fed to produce an overhead null. The four dipoles in a DCA are fed to
produce no overhead null. The DCA is a hemispheric coverage CP antenna.
The Lindenblad is not.
Let me know if you have reason to consider the DCA to be the same as a
Lindenblad. I knew nothing about Lindenblad until after recognizing the
DCA concept.

Jerry m KD6JDJ

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote in message
...
"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Harry H" wrote in message
...

The Lindenblad has an overhead null that you might find anoying for
some high elevation passes of LEOs.
Are you open to trying to build a DCA (which is an antenna that I
developed)? I make the claim that there is no other hemispheric
coverage antenna design that performs better than a DCA. But, I sure
am open to being corrected.
The Feb 2008 QST contains an article on the DCA antenna design
concept.
It is my claim that a DCA is extreemely forgiving of construction
errors and uses 4 wire dipoles and 50 ohm coax with 5 RFI type
ferrites as "baluns'.

Jerry KD6JDJ
Given the fact I don't subscribe to QST, domicile Australia, would you
have a copy of the article?

HH


Hi HH

It would be my pleasure to disclose any/all the information I have
relating to the DCA antenna design concept. It is simple. It is two
pairs of crossed dipoles. Each pair is spaced 1/4 wave apart and fed
in phase. One pair is physically mounted 90 degrees from the other pair.
All four dipoles are tilted 30 degtrees from vertical. One pair is fed
90 degrees later than the other pair.
The concept is so simple and straightfoeward that it is probable that
the concept has been developed before I thought of it. But, I have
been unable to find anything published related to this simple "Double
Cross Antenna"
I told my *Internet buddy*, Patrik Tast, in Finland about the concept
and he found it to be exactly what he needed for reception of NOAA
weather satellite signals. Patrik publishes alot of what I send him
related to the antenna. Patrik shows a section of his web page to
describe the DCA to anyone interested. You can find the QST article in
the section Patrik identifies as ANTENNAS on the first page of his site
http://www.poes-weather.com/index.php.

If you have any questions about the DCA concept you are free to E-mail
me, anytime. Or, if you have any facts or data to show where I am
wrong about how well this antenna performs, or know of something that
performs better, please set me straight.

Jerry KD6JDJ


... but surely this is the same as a Lindenblad array? The tilt of the
dipoles was always a parameter in the Lindenblad, so I wonder how your
DCA differs from what N. E. Lindenblad described in the April 1941
edition of 'Communications'.

Chris


Hi Chris

Several, well educated, antenna experts insist that the DCA is actually a
Lindenblad. If you thought the DCA is a Lindenblad, you are not alone.
The DCA is not a Lindenblad. The array of four dipoles in a Lindenblad
are fed to produce an overhead null. The four dipoles in a DCA are fed
to produce no overhead null. The DCA is a hemispheric coverage CP
antenna. The Lindenblad is not.
Let me know if you have reason to consider the DCA to be the same as a
Lindenblad. I knew nothing about Lindenblad until after recognizing the
DCA concept.

Jerry m KD6JDJ

Jerry


Perhaps it's a rather fine distinction to say an antenna that has the same
physical form as the Lindenblad array is something different because the
elements are driven differently. The original version that he patented
didn't have rod elements at all (see, for example,
http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rwolff...B_antennas.pdf )
but it was the configuration of four slanted dipoles around a central pole
that appears to have borne his name since 1941. Henry Jasik's 'Antenna
Engineering Handbook' (now by John L. Volakis, Richard C. Johnson and Henry
Jasik, Chapter 29, Page 34) refers to the configuration as a Lindenblad
array, without being specific about the way the dipoles are driven.
However, applying new names to antennas that exploit well known
configurations seems fairly commonplace in the professional field,
particularly in broadcasting.

Of course you can name your antenna as you please, but there might be some
value in mentioning that it is a development of the Lindenblad array - you'd
certainly need to demonstrate awareness of, and distinction from, the prior
art if you were to seek a patent.

Chris

"christofire" wrote in message
...

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote in message
...
"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Harry H" wrote in message
...

The Lindenblad has an overhead null that you might find anoying for
some high elevation passes of LEOs.
Are you open to trying to build a DCA (which is an antenna that I
developed)? I make the claim that there is no other hemispheric
coverage antenna design that performs better than a DCA. But, I
sure am open to being corrected.
The Feb 2008 QST contains an article on the DCA antenna design
concept.
It is my claim that a DCA is extreemely forgiving of construction
errors and uses 4 wire dipoles and 50 ohm coax with 5 RFI type
ferrites as "baluns'.

Jerry KD6JDJ
Given the fact I don't subscribe to QST, domicile Australia, would you
have a copy of the article?

HH


Hi HH

It would be my pleasure to disclose any/all the information I have
relating to the DCA antenna design concept. It is simple. It is two
pairs of crossed dipoles. Each pair is spaced 1/4 wave apart and fed
in phase. One pair is physically mounted 90 degrees from the other
pair. All four dipoles are tilted 30 degtrees from vertical. One pair
is fed 90 degrees later than the other pair.
The concept is so simple and straightfoeward that it is probable that
the concept has been developed before I thought of it. But, I have
been unable to find anything published related to this simple "Double
Cross Antenna"
I told my *Internet buddy*, Patrik Tast, in Finland about the concept
and he found it to be exactly what he needed for reception of NOAA
weather satellite signals. Patrik publishes alot of what I send him
related to the antenna. Patrik shows a section of his web page to
describe the DCA to anyone interested. You can find the QST article
in the section Patrik identifies as ANTENNAS on the first page of his
site http://www.poes-weather.com/index.php.

If you have any questions about the DCA concept you are free to E-mail
me, anytime. Or, if you have any facts or data to show where I am
wrong about how well this antenna performs, or know of something that
performs better, please set me straight.

Jerry KD6JDJ


... but surely this is the same as a Lindenblad array? The tilt of the
dipoles was always a parameter in the Lindenblad, so I wonder how your
DCA differs from what N. E. Lindenblad described in the April 1941
edition of 'Communications'.

Chris


Hi Chris

Several, well educated, antenna experts insist that the DCA is actually
a Lindenblad. If you thought the DCA is a Lindenblad, you are not
alone.
The DCA is not a Lindenblad. The array of four dipoles in a Lindenblad
are fed to produce an overhead null. The four dipoles in a DCA are fed
to produce no overhead null. The DCA is a hemispheric coverage CP
antenna. The Lindenblad is not.
Let me know if you have reason to consider the DCA to be the same as a
Lindenblad. I knew nothing about Lindenblad until after recognizing the
DCA concept.

Jerry m KD6JDJ

Jerry


Perhaps it's a rather fine distinction to say an antenna that has the same
physical form as the Lindenblad array is something different because the
elements are driven differently. The original version that he patented
didn't have rod elements at all (see, for example,
http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rwolff...B_antennas.pdf
) but it was the configuration of four slanted dipoles around a central
pole that appears to have borne his name since 1941. Henry Jasik's
'Antenna Engineering Handbook' (now by John L. Volakis, Richard C. Johnson
and Henry Jasik, Chapter 29, Page 34) refers to the configuration as a
Lindenblad array, without being specific about the way the dipoles are
driven. However, applying new names to antennas that exploit well known
configurations seems fairly commonplace in the professional field,
particularly in broadcasting.

Of course you can name your antenna as you please, but there might be some
value in mentioning that it is a development of the Lindenblad array -
you'd certainly need to demonstrate awareness of, and distinction from,
the prior art if you were to seek a patent.

Chris


Hi Chris

I wonder if you have any pictures of a Lindenblad and any radiation plots.
I also wonder if an end fire antenna is the same as a broadside antenna when
they look the same from a distance.

Jerry KD6JDJ

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote in message
...

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote in message
...
"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Harry H" wrote in message
...

The Lindenblad has an overhead null that you might find anoying for
some high elevation passes of LEOs.
Are you open to trying to build a DCA (which is an antenna that I
developed)? I make the claim that there is no other hemispheric
coverage antenna design that performs better than a DCA. But, I
sure am open to being corrected.
The Feb 2008 QST contains an article on the DCA antenna design
concept.
It is my claim that a DCA is extreemely forgiving of construction
errors and uses 4 wire dipoles and 50 ohm coax with 5 RFI type
ferrites as "baluns'.

Jerry KD6JDJ
Given the fact I don't subscribe to QST, domicile Australia, would
you have a copy of the article?

HH


Hi HH

It would be my pleasure to disclose any/all the information I have
relating to the DCA antenna design concept. It is simple. It is two
pairs of crossed dipoles. Each pair is spaced 1/4 wave apart and fed
in phase. One pair is physically mounted 90 degrees from the other
pair. All four dipoles are tilted 30 degtrees from vertical. One
pair is fed 90 degrees later than the other pair.
The concept is so simple and straightfoeward that it is probable that
the concept has been developed before I thought of it. But, I have
been unable to find anything published related to this simple "Double
Cross Antenna"
I told my *Internet buddy*, Patrik Tast, in Finland about the concept
and he found it to be exactly what he needed for reception of NOAA
weather satellite signals. Patrik publishes alot of what I send him
related to the antenna. Patrik shows a section of his web page to
describe the DCA to anyone interested. You can find the QST article
in the section Patrik identifies as ANTENNAS on the first page of his
site http://www.poes-weather.com/index.php.

If you have any questions about the DCA concept you are free to
E-mail me, anytime. Or, if you have any facts or data to show where
I am wrong about how well this antenna performs, or know of something
that performs better, please set me straight.

Jerry KD6JDJ


... but surely this is the same as a Lindenblad array? The tilt of the
dipoles was always a parameter in the Lindenblad, so I wonder how your
DCA differs from what N. E. Lindenblad described in the April 1941
edition of 'Communications'.

Chris


Hi Chris

Several, well educated, antenna experts insist that the DCA is actually
a Lindenblad. If you thought the DCA is a Lindenblad, you are not
alone.
The DCA is not a Lindenblad. The array of four dipoles in a
Lindenblad are fed to produce an overhead null. The four dipoles in a
DCA are fed to produce no overhead null. The DCA is a hemispheric
coverage CP antenna. The Lindenblad is not.
Let me know if you have reason to consider the DCA to be the same as a
Lindenblad. I knew nothing about Lindenblad until after recognizing
the DCA concept.

Jerry m KD6JDJ

Jerry


Perhaps it's a rather fine distinction to say an antenna that has the
same physical form as the Lindenblad array is something different because
the elements are driven differently. The original version that he
patented didn't have rod elements at all (see, for example,
http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rwolff...B_antennas.pdf
) but it was the configuration of four slanted dipoles around a central
pole that appears to have borne his name since 1941. Henry Jasik's
'Antenna Engineering Handbook' (now by John L. Volakis, Richard C.
Johnson and Henry Jasik, Chapter 29, Page 34) refers to the configuration
as a Lindenblad array, without being specific about the way the dipoles
are driven. However, applying new names to antennas that exploit well
known configurations seems fairly commonplace in the professional field,
particularly in broadcasting.

Of course you can name your antenna as you please, but there might be
some value in mentioning that it is a development of the Lindenblad
array - you'd certainly need to demonstrate awareness of, and distinction
from, the prior art if you were to seek a patent.

Chris


Hi Chris

I wonder if you have any pictures of a Lindenblad and any radiation
plots. I also wonder if an end fire antenna is the same as a broadside
antenna when they look the same from a distance.

Jerry KD6JDJ


You could take a look at www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1991-15.pdf which on
pages 9 and 10 has some details of a Lindenblad for 2.5 GHz, with patterns,
that was made from semi-rigid coax and brass tube. The aim in that work was
to achieve the best possible axial ratio in order to reject first-order
reflections from the ground and nearby objects. If I remember correctly,
phase rotation was tried but there really weren't enough variables to get
the axial ratio good enough over the whole sphere, so the dipoles were
driven in phase and the hole in the vertical radiation pattern at the bottom
was 'embraced' as a good thing! In this application, if good axial ratio
couldn't be achieved somewhere it was probably better to avoid radiating in
that direction.

Another Lindenblad, but also arrayed vertically in four tiers, was used at
High Hunsley transmitting station for FM radio. The older photos at
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/high-hunsley.php show it (at the top of the
structure) but they are rather distant. The modern replacements are
basically crossed dipoles in front of reflectors. A significant challenge
in the design of these (big) things is to get the horizontal radiation
pattern to hand over cleanly from one element to the next around the
structure, without lobes or nulls in either the vertical or horizontal
component. In UK Band II broadcasting, the polarisation is usually said to
be 'mixed' rather than intentionally circular. The Alan Dick company
http://www.alandick.com/broadcast_an...roduct_004.htm still offers a
Lindenblad array for Band II. Their 'FMAC' looks interesting!

As to your question, I'm not certain what you mean so perhaps you could
amplify a bit. Certainly if the paths of currents, their relative
amplitudes and their relative phases in time, appear the same from different
directions then the polarisation should be the same in those directions. A
short helix can operate as a broadside and end-fire antenna at the same time
and I know the quadrifilar helix is a popular option for small L-Band
satellite terminals. However, that radio-camera application imposed
stringent demands for axial ratio and, obviously, the requirements for
satisfactory reception of CP signals from satellites can be less demanding
when CP is used simply to avoid loss on account of mismatched linear
polarisations - when the other sense of CP isn't in use at the same
frequency by the same satellite.

Chris

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:12:26 -0000, "christofire"
wrote:


"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote in message
...
"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Harry H" wrote in message
...

The Lindenblad has an overhead null that you might find anoying for
some high elevation passes of LEOs.
Are you open to trying to build a DCA (which is an antenna that I
developed)? I make the claim that there is no other hemispheric
coverage antenna design that performs better than a DCA. But, I sure
am open to being corrected.
The Feb 2008 QST contains an article on the DCA antenna design
concept.
It is my claim that a DCA is extreemely forgiving of construction
errors and uses 4 wire dipoles and 50 ohm coax with 5 RFI type
ferrites as "baluns'.

Jerry KD6JDJ
Given the fact I don't subscribe to QST, domicile Australia, would you
have a copy of the article?

HH


Hi HH

It would be my pleasure to disclose any/all the information I have
relating to the DCA antenna design concept. It is simple. It is two
pairs of crossed dipoles. Each pair is spaced 1/4 wave apart and fed
in phase. One pair is physically mounted 90 degrees from the other pair.
All four dipoles are tilted 30 degtrees from vertical. One pair is fed
90 degrees later than the other pair.
The concept is so simple and straightfoeward that it is probable that
the concept has been developed before I thought of it. But, I have
been unable to find anything published related to this simple "Double
Cross Antenna"
I told my *Internet buddy*, Patrik Tast, in Finland about the concept
and he found it to be exactly what he needed for reception of NOAA
weather satellite signals. Patrik publishes alot of what I send him
related to the antenna. Patrik shows a section of his web page to
describe the DCA to anyone interested. You can find the QST article in
the section Patrik identifies as ANTENNAS on the first page of his site
http://www.poes-weather.com/index.php.

If you have any questions about the DCA concept you are free to E-mail
me, anytime. Or, if you have any facts or data to show where I am
wrong about how well this antenna performs, or know of something that
performs better, please set me straight.

Jerry KD6JDJ


... but surely this is the same as a Lindenblad array? The tilt of the
dipoles was always a parameter in the Lindenblad, so I wonder how your
DCA differs from what N. E. Lindenblad described in the April 1941
edition of 'Communications'.

Chris


Hi Chris

Several, well educated, antenna experts insist that the DCA is actually a
Lindenblad. If you thought the DCA is a Lindenblad, you are not alone.
The DCA is not a Lindenblad. The array of four dipoles in a Lindenblad
are fed to produce an overhead null. The four dipoles in a DCA are fed
to produce no overhead null. The DCA is a hemispheric coverage CP
antenna. The Lindenblad is not.
Let me know if you have reason to consider the DCA to be the same as a
Lindenblad. I knew nothing about Lindenblad until after recognizing the
DCA concept.

Jerry m KD6JDJ

Jerry


Perhaps it's a rather fine distinction to say an antenna that has the same
physical form as the Lindenblad array is something different because the
elements are driven differently. The original version that he patented
didn't have rod elements at all (see, for example,
http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rwolff...B_antennas.pdf )
but it was the configuration of four slanted dipoles around a central pole
that appears to have borne his name since 1941. Henry Jasik's 'Antenna
Engineering Handbook' (now by John L. Volakis, Richard C. Johnson and Henry
Jasik, Chapter 29, Page 34) refers to the configuration as a Lindenblad
array, without being specific about the way the dipoles are driven.
However, applying new names to antennas that exploit well known
configurations seems fairly commonplace in the professional field,
particularly in broadcasting.

Of course you can name your antenna as you please, but there might be some
value in mentioning that it is a development of the Lindenblad array - you'd
certainly need to demonstrate awareness of, and distinction from, the prior
art if you were to seek a patent.

Chris

Interesting article, it describes the Lindenblat array as a quartet of
coaxial horns. Not the same as a quartet of dipoles at all.

"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:12:26 -0000, "christofire"
wrote:


"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote in message
...
"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Harry H" wrote in message
...

The Lindenblad has an overhead null that you might find anoying for
some high elevation passes of LEOs.
Are you open to trying to build a DCA (which is an antenna that I
developed)? I make the claim that there is no other hemispheric
coverage antenna design that performs better than a DCA. But, I
sure
am open to being corrected.
The Feb 2008 QST contains an article on the DCA antenna design
concept.
It is my claim that a DCA is extreemely forgiving of construction
errors and uses 4 wire dipoles and 50 ohm coax with 5 RFI type
ferrites as "baluns'.

Jerry KD6JDJ
Given the fact I don't subscribe to QST, domicile Australia, would
you
have a copy of the article?

HH


Hi HH

It would be my pleasure to disclose any/all the information I have
relating to the DCA antenna design concept. It is simple. It is two
pairs of crossed dipoles. Each pair is spaced 1/4 wave apart and fed
in phase. One pair is physically mounted 90 degrees from the other
pair.
All four dipoles are tilted 30 degtrees from vertical. One pair is
fed
90 degrees later than the other pair.
The concept is so simple and straightfoeward that it is probable that
the concept has been developed before I thought of it. But, I have
been unable to find anything published related to this simple "Double
Cross Antenna"
I told my *Internet buddy*, Patrik Tast, in Finland about the concept
and he found it to be exactly what he needed for reception of NOAA
weather satellite signals. Patrik publishes alot of what I send him
related to the antenna. Patrik shows a section of his web page to
describe the DCA to anyone interested. You can find the QST article
in
the section Patrik identifies as ANTENNAS on the first page of his
site
http://www.poes-weather.com/index.php.

If you have any questions about the DCA concept you are free to
E-mail
me, anytime. Or, if you have any facts or data to show where I am
wrong about how well this antenna performs, or know of something that
performs better, please set me straight.

Jerry KD6JDJ


... but surely this is the same as a Lindenblad array? The tilt of the
dipoles was always a parameter in the Lindenblad, so I wonder how your
DCA differs from what N. E. Lindenblad described in the April 1941
edition of 'Communications'.

Chris


Hi Chris

Several, well educated, antenna experts insist that the DCA is actually
a
Lindenblad. If you thought the DCA is a Lindenblad, you are not alone.
The DCA is not a Lindenblad. The array of four dipoles in a
Lindenblad
are fed to produce an overhead null. The four dipoles in a DCA are fed
to produce no overhead null. The DCA is a hemispheric coverage CP
antenna. The Lindenblad is not.
Let me know if you have reason to consider the DCA to be the same as a
Lindenblad. I knew nothing about Lindenblad until after recognizing
the
DCA concept.

Jerry m KD6JDJ

Jerry


Perhaps it's a rather fine distinction to say an antenna that has the same
physical form as the Lindenblad array is something different because the
elements are driven differently. The original version that he patented
didn't have rod elements at all (see, for example,
http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rwolff...B_antennas.pdf
)
but it was the configuration of four slanted dipoles around a central pole
that appears to have borne his name since 1941. Henry Jasik's 'Antenna
Engineering Handbook' (now by John L. Volakis, Richard C. Johnson and
Henry
Jasik, Chapter 29, Page 34) refers to the configuration as a Lindenblad
array, without being specific about the way the dipoles are driven.
However, applying new names to antennas that exploit well known
configurations seems fairly commonplace in the professional field,
particularly in broadcasting.

Of course you can name your antenna as you please, but there might be some
value in mentioning that it is a development of the Lindenblad array -
you'd
certainly need to demonstrate awareness of, and distinction from, the
prior
art if you were to seek a patent.

Chris

Interesting article, it describes the Lindenblat array as a quartet of
coaxial horns. Not the same as a quartet of dipoles at all.


Hi Joseph

I sent an E-mail to the address shown as yours in this group. I use
EZNEC and have lots of files on various sizes and shapes of the DCA and
other OmniAzimuth and Hemispheric coverage antennas. I'd be happy to share
them with you if you E-mail me directly.
I figure it will benefit me to see the facts and data that shows where I
am mistaken about how the DCA better than the other hemispheric coverage
antennas for LEO use. It is likely that I have overlooked something.
maybe the DCA can be improved.

Jerry KD6JDJ

Jerry KD6JDJ

On Feb 16, 10:03*am, JosephKK wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:12:26 -0000, "christofire"



wrote:

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote in message
.. .
"Jerry" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry H" wrote in message
...

*The Lindenblad has an overhead null that you might find anoying for
some high elevation passes of LEOs.
*Are you open to trying to build a DCA (which is an antenna that I
developed)? * I make the claim that there is no other hemispheric
coverage antenna design that performs better than a DCA. * But, I sure
am open to being corrected.
*The Feb 2008 QST contains an article on the DCA antenna design
concept.
*It is my claim that a DCA is extreemely forgiving of construction
errors and uses 4 wire dipoles and 50 ohm coax with 5 RFI type
ferrites as "baluns'.

* * * * * * * * * * * *Jerry * KD6JDJ
Given the fact I don't subscribe to QST, domicile Australia, would you
have a copy of the article?

HH

*Hi HH

*It would be my pleasure to disclose any/all the information I have
relating to the DCA antenna design concept. * It is simple. *It is two
pairs of crossed dipoles. * Each pair is spaced 1/4 wave apart and fed
in phase. One pair is physically mounted 90 degrees from the other pair.
All four dipoles are tilted 30 degtrees from vertical. * One pair is fed
90 degrees later than the other pair.
*The concept is so simple and straightfoeward that it is probable that
the concept has been developed before I thought of it. * But, I have
been unable to find anything published related to this simple "Double
Cross Antenna"
*I told my *Internet buddy*, Patrik Tast, in Finland about the concept
and he found it to be exactly what he needed for reception of NOAA
weather satellite signals. * Patrik publishes alot of what I send him
related to the antenna. *Patrik shows a section of his web page to
describe the DCA to anyone interested. * You can find the QST article in
the section Patrik identifies as ANTENNAS on the first page of his site
http://www.poes-weather.com/index.php.

*If you have any questions about the DCA concept you are free to E-mail
me, anytime. * Or, if you have any facts or data to show where I am
wrong about how well this antenna performs, *or know of something that
performs better, please set me straight.

* * * * * * *Jerry * *KD6JDJ

... but surely this is the same as a Lindenblad array? *The tilt of the
dipoles was always a parameter in the Lindenblad, so I wonder how your
DCA differs from what N. E. Lindenblad described in the April 1941
edition of 'Communications'.

Chris

*Hi Chris

*Several, well educated, antenna experts insist that the DCA is actually a
Lindenblad. * If you thought the DCA is a Lindenblad, you are not alone.
*The DCA is not a Lindenblad. * The array of four dipoles in a Lindenblad
are fed to produce an overhead null. * The four dipoles in a DCA are fed
to produce no overhead null. * The DCA is a hemispheric coverage CP
antenna. The Lindenblad is not.
*Let me know if you have reason to consider the DCA to be the same as a
Lindenblad. * I knew nothing about Lindenblad until after recognizing the
DCA concept.

* * * * * * * * * * * Jerry m * *KD6JDJ

* * * * * * * * * * *Jerry

Perhaps it's a rather fine distinction to say an antenna that has the same
physical form as the Lindenblad array is something different because the
elements are driven differently. *The original version that he patented
didn't have rod elements at all (see, for example,
http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rwolff...ry_UWB_antenna...)
but it was the configuration of four slanted dipoles around a central pole
that appears to have borne his name since 1941. *Henry Jasik's 'Antenna
Engineering Handbook' (now by John L. Volakis, Richard C. Johnson and Henry
Jasik, Chapter 29, Page 34) refers to the configuration as a Lindenblad
array, without being specific about the way the dipoles are driven.
However, applying new names to antennas that exploit well known
configurations seems fairly commonplace in the professional field,
particularly in broadcasting.

Of course you can name your antenna as you please, but there might be some
value in mentioning that it is a development of the Lindenblad array - you'd
certainly need to demonstrate awareness of, and distinction from, the prior
art if you were to seek a patent.

Chris

Interesting article, it describes the Lindenblat array as a quartet of
coaxial horns. *Not the same as a quartet of dipoles at all.

Actually, it's not much different.. Both are radiators that radiate a
linearly polarized signal. The Lindenblad (and variants) make the CP
with two dipoles canted relative to each other and fed with a phase
shift (same idea as crossed yagis for Satellite CP antennas). The "two
dipole" thing radiates in both directions, of course. Add another pair
pointing at 90 degrees from the first, and you get roughly
omnidirectional coverage. You can do the same thing with 4 (or 3 or
27) CP horns arranged in a circle.

Most of the fooling around with dimensions and spacing and phasing has
to do with the overall pattern and just how circular it is at which
look angles.