"christofire" wrote in message
...

"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


Hi Chris

The Lindenblad antenna is fed to produce a null toward zenith. The
Lindenblad antenna as defined by Brown and Woodward in the mid 1940s for TV
transmission, has an omniazimuth radiation pattern.
The DCA has no zenith null.

If you consider an antenna with an overhead null to be the same as an
antenna with no null to be the same, I have no expectation that you and I
will agree.

The DCA offers little advantage over a Quad Helix when radiation pattern
is considered.
The DCA is slightly more sensitive toward the horizon than the Quad Helix.
..
The bandwidth of a DCA is far wider than a Quad helix.
The DCA is very insensitive to dimensional errors when built by an
amateur. The Quad Helix is extreemely demanding of prescission of
construction.

The original subject of this thread was related to building an antenna for
reception of Low Earth Orbiting satellites. I figured the OP could
appreciate knowing that a DCA will perform better than a Lindenblad and
needs no series matching transformors.

Jerry KD6JDJ

Jerry wrote:

Hi Chris

The Lindenblad antenna is fed to produce a null toward zenith. The
Lindenblad antenna as defined by Brown and Woodward in the mid 1940s for TV
transmission, has an omniazimuth radiation pattern.
The DCA has no zenith null.

If you consider an antenna with an overhead null to be the same as an
antenna with no null to be the same, I have no expectation that you and I
will agree.

The DCA offers little advantage over a Quad Helix when radiation pattern
is considered.
The DCA is slightly more sensitive toward the horizon than the Quad Helix.
.
The bandwidth of a DCA is far wider than a Quad helix.
The DCA is very insensitive to dimensional errors when built by an
amateur. The Quad Helix is extreemely demanding of prescission of
construction.

The original subject of this thread was related to building an antenna for
reception of Low Earth Orbiting satellites. I figured the OP could
appreciate knowing that a DCA will perform better than a Lindenblad and
needs no series matching transformors.

Jerry KD6JDJ



Just how good does this antenna have to be. It's not like it's being
used as a probe to measure randomly polarized signals, where AR=1 is
really important.

Quad helix antennas have a reputation for being demanding, but that's
where the performance requirements are demanding. Considering that quad
helix antennas are made by the millions for GPS and by the thousands for
WxSat use on boats, they aren't all that picky, because conventional
mass production tolerances are "good enough".

Relax the performance requirements and the helix is no more or less
difficult than a turnstile or Lindenblad or CP patch. Before the advent
of modern modeling tools, *designing* a quad helix was a huge chore,
especially if you didn't want to use a quad hybrid in the feed network,
but wanted to do the "one a bit long, one a bit short" to get the 90
degrees.

But, returning to the original question, why not a turnstile (crossed
dipoles fed 90 degrees out of phase)? For LEO satellites, you don't
really want a hemispherical pattern anyway. You want something with more
gain at the horizon where the slant range is much greater (thousands of
km) than at zenith (where the range is hundreds of km).

And, for that matter CP is probably not worth worrying about. The loss
from a perfect CP to a perfect linear is 3dB. If you're in a situation
where 3dB is going to kill you, you've got other problems to worry about.

Where CP is really, really nice is when you want to kill multipath from
close by reflectors. Or in deep space applications, where you don't
know the linear orientation of the transmitter/receiver (and you also
ARE worried about eke'ing out the last tenth or hundredth of a dB of
performance)


Jim, w6rmk

"Jim Lux" wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:

Hi Chris

The Lindenblad antenna is fed to produce a null toward zenith. The
Lindenblad antenna as defined by Brown and Woodward in the mid 1940s for
TV transmission, has an omniazimuth radiation pattern.
The DCA has no zenith null.

If you consider an antenna with an overhead null to be the same as an
antenna with no null to be the same, I have no expectation that you and I
will agree.

The DCA offers little advantage over a Quad Helix when radiation
pattern is considered.
The DCA is slightly more sensitive toward the horizon than the Quad
Helix. .
The bandwidth of a DCA is far wider than a Quad helix.
The DCA is very insensitive to dimensional errors when built by an
amateur. The Quad Helix is extreemely demanding of prescission of
construction.

The original subject of this thread was related to building an antenna
for reception of Low Earth Orbiting satellites. I figured the OP could
appreciate knowing that a DCA will perform better than a Lindenblad and
needs no series matching transformors.

Jerry KD6JDJ

Just how good does this antenna have to be. It's not like it's being used
as a probe to measure randomly polarized signals, where AR=1 is really
important.

Quad helix antennas have a reputation for being demanding, but that's
where the performance requirements are demanding. Considering that quad
helix antennas are made by the millions for GPS and by the thousands for
WxSat use on boats, they aren't all that picky, because conventional mass
production tolerances are "good enough".

Relax the performance requirements and the helix is no more or less
difficult than a turnstile or Lindenblad or CP patch. Before the advent
of modern modeling tools, *designing* a quad helix was a huge chore,
especially if you didn't want to use a quad hybrid in the feed network,
but wanted to do the "one a bit long, one a bit short" to get the 90
degrees.

But, returning to the original question, why not a turnstile (crossed
dipoles fed 90 degrees out of phase)? For LEO satellites, you don't
really want a hemispherical pattern anyway. You want something with more
gain at the horizon where the slant range is much greater (thousands of
km) than at zenith (where the range is hundreds of km).

And, for that matter CP is probably not worth worrying about. The loss
from a perfect CP to a perfect linear is 3dB. If you're in a situation
where 3dB is going to kill you, you've got other problems to worry about.

Where CP is really, really nice is when you want to kill multipath from
close by reflectors. Or in deep space applications, where you don't know
the linear orientation of the transmitter/receiver (and you also ARE
worried about eke'ing out the last tenth or hundredth of a dB of
performance)


Jim, w6rmk


Hi Jim

It isnt clear to me that you read Howard Kowall's original post. He
intends to build his own antenna to communicate with low earth orbiting
satellites. I have information that will allow Howard to design and build
his own antenna that performs better than the design he chose (Lindenblad).
Do you disagree that a DCA will perform better than a Lindenblad?

I have read many of your post and recognize that you are a smart guy with
lots of information about antennas. Thats why I wonder why you'd write
something as stupid as " And, for that matter CP is probably not worth
worrying about". You know that 3dB *is* normally something to try to
achieve while building an antenna. The reason you write that the circular
polarization is minimally significant seems to be that you are attempting to
minimize the value of the DCA. I wonder if you have any facts or data,
measured or calculated, to demonstrate that you know of any antenna that
performs better than a DCA for ground based reception from LEOs

I agree with you that a Turnstile is a good antenna for LEO satellite
communication from Earth. But, I also claim that a DCA will perform better
than a Turnstile. Do you disagree?

Can you tell me more about why you wrote "For LEO satellites, you don't
really want a hemispherical pattern anyway. You want something with more
gain at the horizon where the slant range is much greater (thousands of
km) than at zenith (where the range is hundreds of km). That is precisely
what I tried to address in the QST article. That is precisely why the
DCA performs better than all others. Besides, the DCA is relatively easy
to build , unlike the Quad helix.

Again, do you know of any antenna design that performs better than a DCA
for communication with LEOs from earth and doesnt require pointing?

Jerry KD6JDJ

Jerry wrote:

Hi Jim

It isnt clear to me that you read Howard Kowall's original post. He
intends to build his own antenna to communicate with low earth orbiting
satellites. I have information that will allow Howard to design and build
his own antenna that performs better than the design he chose (Lindenblad).
Do you disagree that a DCA will perform better than a Lindenblad?

Nope.. haven't actually looked at it. BUT.. the thing I was pointing out
is looking at the overall system design, (for which design complexity
and tolerances are factors that need to be considered), it might not matter.


I have read many of your post and recognize that you are a smart guy with
lots of information about antennas. Thats why I wonder why you'd write
something as stupid as " And, for that matter CP is probably not worth
worrying about". You know that 3dB *is* normally something to try to
achieve while building an antenna.

Not if you've got plenty of link margin already, or if there's an easier
way to get the margin (e.g. rather than get 3dB more on the antenna,
shorten the feedline from 100 ft, etc.). Howard didn't say which 2m
satellite he's looking to listen to, or what kind of receiver he's using.


The reason you write that the circular
polarization is minimally significant seems to be that you are attempting to
minimize the value of the DCA. I wonder if you have any facts or data,
measured or calculated, to demonstrate that you know of any antenna that
performs better than a DCA for ground based reception from LEOs

Nope, that's not what I said. What I said was that sometimes, striving
for perfect axial ratio isn't worth it. A linear antenna will have 3dB
loss against a perfect CP, and that's a worst case. It might well be
that 3dB is ok (for receiving WESAT on 137 MHz, for instance, where they
have pretty big EIRP, it wouldn't matter)




I agree with you that a Turnstile is a good antenna for LEO satellite
communication from Earth. But, I also claim that a DCA will perform better
than a Turnstile. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree or agree. Don't know how well a DCA does or
doesn't do.


Can you tell me more about why you wrote "For LEO satellites, you don't
really want a hemispherical pattern anyway. You want something with more
gain at the horizon where the slant range is much greater (thousands of
km) than at zenith (where the range is hundreds of km). That is precisely
what I tried to address in the QST article. That is precisely why the
DCA performs better than all others. Besides, the DCA is relatively easy
to build , unlike the Quad helix.

My comment was general, on what sorts of patterns one might want for a
satellite antenna in a fixed position to communicate with LEO.

And, yes, your DCA is easy to build and probably non-critical in
dimensions and tolerances (have you checked this? either by modeling or
measurement?) But so is a turnstile or a turnstile with reflector or a
Lindenblad or even a quad helix, depending on how much variability
you're willing to tolerate

I will readily concede that building a quad helix for VHF is a
mechanical problem, compared to say, 1.5 GHz for GPS. It's going to be a
physically large structure (about the size of two gallon paintcans
stacked), but if you have a cookbook design (as in, buy X feet of
aluminum rod or copper wire, wind it around a plastic trash can, etc.)

I've built monofilar and quad helixes (and Lindenblads and turnstiles)
using copper foil tape on plastic buckets, rolled up paper, and all
sorts of things. Some work better than others, but mostly, it's
mechanical issues that are important. The "RF performance" is pretty
much the same for a given physical size. After all, for an "omni" sort
of antenna close to the ground, there's lots of other factors that
probably have a bigger effect. (which was where I started..)



Again, do you know of any antenna design that performs better than a DCA
for communication with LEOs from earth and doesnt require pointing?


How does one define "better"?

Is your article in QST posted somewhere? Got a NEC deck? (Can't get it
from ARRL because it's too new). Or, heck, rough dimensions and angles,
and I can build the NEC model. (googling KD6JDJ DCA doesn't turn up
anything useful.)

As you know, it's very challenging to get CP with good axial ratio in
all directions (sort of an extension of the hairy ball theorem). For
that matter, the axial ratio of the signal you're receiving may not be
all that hot.

Taking GPS as an example, the SVs have a spec that the axial ratio is no
worse than 1.2dB within 14.3 degrees of boresight for L1, and 3.2 dB for L2.

I couldn't find any convenient data on ham satellite antennas. I think
AO51 uses some variant of a turnstile with separate ports for the two
transmitters, so one is LHCP the other RHCP. I did find a rough link
budget for AO51 (aka Echo) that shows path loss varying by about 8-9 dB
from zenith to horizon.

If we look at state of the art (at least in the 70s) for deep space
exploration, the Low Gain Antenna on Galileo (CP for 2.3GHz) had an
axial ratio of 2dB on boresight, and 11dB at 90 degrees off boresight.
See Bill Imbriale's book at
http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/Monogra...rce_external=0
(Volume 8)

for more details and lots and lots of measurements.



Jim

"Jim Lux" wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:

Hi Jim

It isnt clear to me that you read Howard Kowall's original post. He
intends to build his own antenna to communicate with low earth orbiting
satellites. I have information that will allow Howard to design and
build his own antenna that performs better than the design he chose
(Lindenblad).
Do you disagree that a DCA will perform better than a Lindenblad?

Nope.. haven't actually looked at it. BUT.. the thing I was pointing out
is looking at the overall system design, (for which design complexity and
tolerances are factors that need to be considered), it might not matter.


I have read many of your post and recognize that you are a smart guy
with lots of information about antennas. Thats why I wonder why you'd
write something as stupid as " And, for that matter CP is probably not
worth worrying about". You know that 3dB *is* normally something to try
to achieve while building an antenna.

Not if you've got plenty of link margin already, or if there's an easier
way to get the margin (e.g. rather than get 3dB more on the antenna,
shorten the feedline from 100 ft, etc.). Howard didn't say which 2m
satellite he's looking to listen to, or what kind of receiver he's using.


The reason you write that the circular
polarization is minimally significant seems to be that you are attempting
to minimize the value of the DCA. I wonder if you have any facts or
data, measured or calculated, to demonstrate that you know of any antenna
that performs better than a DCA for ground based reception from LEOs

Nope, that's not what I said. What I said was that sometimes, striving
for perfect axial ratio isn't worth it. A linear antenna will have 3dB
loss against a perfect CP, and that's a worst case. It might well be that
3dB is ok (for receiving WESAT on 137 MHz, for instance, where they have
pretty big EIRP, it wouldn't matter)




I agree with you that a Turnstile is a good antenna for LEO satellite
communication from Earth. But, I also claim that a DCA will perform
better than a Turnstile. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree or agree. Don't know how well a DCA does or doesn't
do.


Can you tell me more about why you wrote "For LEO satellites, you
don't
really want a hemispherical pattern anyway. You want something with more
gain at the horizon where the slant range is much greater (thousands of
km) than at zenith (where the range is hundreds of km). That is
precisely what I tried to address in the QST article. That is
precisely why the DCA performs better than all others. Besides, the
DCA is relatively easy to build , unlike the Quad helix.

My comment was general, on what sorts of patterns one might want for a
satellite antenna in a fixed position to communicate with LEO.

And, yes, your DCA is easy to build and probably non-critical in
dimensions and tolerances (have you checked this? either by modeling or
measurement?) But so is a turnstile or a turnstile with reflector or a
Lindenblad or even a quad helix, depending on how much variability you're
willing to tolerate

I will readily concede that building a quad helix for VHF is a mechanical
problem, compared to say, 1.5 GHz for GPS. It's going to be a physically
large structure (about the size of two gallon paintcans stacked), but if
you have a cookbook design (as in, buy X feet of aluminum rod or copper
wire, wind it around a plastic trash can, etc.)

I've built monofilar and quad helixes (and Lindenblads and turnstiles)
using copper foil tape on plastic buckets, rolled up paper, and all sorts
of things. Some work better than others, but mostly, it's mechanical
issues that are important. The "RF performance" is pretty much the same
for a given physical size. After all, for an "omni" sort of antenna close
to the ground, there's lots of other factors that probably have a bigger
effect. (which was where I started..)



Again, do you know of any antenna design that performs better than a
DCA for communication with LEOs from earth and doesnt require pointing?


How does one define "better"?

Is your article in QST posted somewhere? Got a NEC deck? (Can't get it
from ARRL because it's too new). Or, heck, rough dimensions and angles,
and I can build the NEC model. (googling KD6JDJ DCA doesn't turn up
anything useful.)

As you know, it's very challenging to get CP with good axial ratio in all
directions (sort of an extension of the hairy ball theorem). For that
matter, the axial ratio of the signal you're receiving may not be all that
hot.

Taking GPS as an example, the SVs have a spec that the axial ratio is no
worse than 1.2dB within 14.3 degrees of boresight for L1, and 3.2 dB for
L2.

I couldn't find any convenient data on ham satellite antennas. I think
AO51 uses some variant of a turnstile with separate ports for the two
transmitters, so one is LHCP the other RHCP. I did find a rough link
budget for AO51 (aka Echo) that shows path loss varying by about 8-9 dB
from zenith to horizon.

If we look at state of the art (at least in the 70s) for deep space
exploration, the Low Gain Antenna on Galileo (CP for 2.3GHz) had an axial
ratio of 2dB on boresight, and 11dB at 90 degrees off boresight.
See Bill Imbriale's book at
http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/Monogra...rce_external=0
(Volume 8)

for more details and lots and lots of measurements.



Jim

Hi Jim

I wont interlace my reply so that it might be easier for us to read.

You wrote that "it might not matter that a DCA performs better than a
Lindenblad" Well it does perform better for contact with a LEO satellite
and I'd expect that be enough to make the DCA worth considering. Maybe I am
missing something. Why would you *not* try making DCA for LEOs??

What (exactly is your point in writing about eliminating line loss when
the discussion is antenna sensitivity??? Why is it pertinent what LEO he
is interested in or what receiver he uses??? He asked about coax for an
antenna harness. I thought I was helping Howard when I pointed him toward
the DCA. Jim, if you dont need the DCA design concept there is no need for
you to consider it. But, please dont diminish the value of the DCA for
LEO use unless you have facts or data to show where I'm wrong about how well
the DCA performs.

Jim, are you writing that antenna sensitivity "doesnt matter" when
receiving NOAA weather satellite signals at 137-138 MHz? If so you are
completely wrong. Oh, you personally may have no interest in reception
from the NOAA satellites (APT) as low elevations. but, when recording
images of the Earth from NOAA satellites (APT) there is *no* antenna that
performs better than a DCA. And, that extra sensitivity using the DCA is
highly desired by most APT imagers.

Yes, I have made lots of measurements of the DCA. I made my own slotted
line so I could know the antenna's impedance. I have hundreds of actual
(measured) radiation patterns. I have plenty of EZNEC models of the DCA.
As I posted earlier, Patrik Tast posts lots of fundamental design
information on his Web Site http://www.poes-weather.com/index.php .
Clearly, I am proud of the results I have realized with this DCA antenna
design project, so I'm always happy to share it with anyone interested.
Anyone interested in the DCA has always received answers to any/all
questions sent to me.

I define better performance as greater sensitivity to signals from LEO
satellites. But, the DCA has a much wider impedance match than a Quad
Helix.

I was pleasantly surprised that the axial ratio of the DCA radiation is
exceptionally good at most angles. EZNEC gives good prediction of AR at all
angles. Patrik Tast's Signal Plotter records the antenna sensitivity at 1
second intervals while the NOAA satellite is above the horizon. As I
remember, you acknowledged that I have developed a method of recording
actual radiation patterns using the program Patrik developed for me
(SignalPlotter).
I submit to you that, if you ever have need to develop a hemispheric
coverage antenna for CP signals, you could benefit from learning about the
DCA. It works.

Jerry KD6JDJ (who sincerely wants to know
facts about the flaws in the DCA design)