On 2/8/2013 9:50 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"tom" wrote in message
...

And OCFD are not good even at HF if you really understand how they work
and the problems they have because of that.

tom
K0TAR



Tom have you ever compaired the OCF to other antennas at your house ?

I have. I have up an 80 meter dipole and OCF at right angles to each other
at about 50 to 60 feet on each end. There is not much differance in the two
on 80 except in the favored directions.

Well, since a 3 element tribander would have less than an S unit over a
dipole or an OCF I would expect you're correct in stating you can see
almost no difference. They still have problems.

tom
K0TAR

"tom" wrote in message
...
Well, since a 3 element tribander would have less than an S unit over a
dipole or an OCF I would expect you're correct in stating you can see
almost no difference. They still have problems.

tom
K0TAR


Again I ask, have you ever used an OCF ?

Also what problems do they have that other antennas do not have as long as
they are used on the bands they are designed for ?

On 2/9/2013 8:51 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:

I am going to explain it, but only once.
If you talk to the owner of that web site, he will tell you that the
designer of the particular model of off center fed dipole that I am
talking about is K3CC.
Again, if you call him on the phone, he will explain to you that K3CC
holds 27 US patents and is a lot more intelligent then you will ever
be.


I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about you.

I'll say it again, if you think that antenna works well from 160 or 80m
to 70cm, which is 420 to 450 MHz if you haven't figured that out, you
are more ignorant than I thought.

And patents aren't always about smart. Nowadays almost never. They
don't even have to be about reality.

They are about lawyers, paperwork, patience, money and lawyers.

tom
K0TAR

On 2/9/2013 5:46 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"tom" wrote in message
...
Well, since a 3 element tribander would have less than an S unit over a
dipole or an OCF I would expect you're correct in stating you can see
almost no difference. They still have problems.

tom
K0TAR


Again I ask, have you ever used an OCF ?

Also what problems do they have that other antennas do not have as long as
they are used on the bands they are designed for ?



Sure. Don't like them. They have problems that center feds don't.

tom
K0TAR

On 2/9/2013 5:46 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"tom" wrote in message
...
Well, since a 3 element tribander would have less than an S unit over a
dipole or an OCF I would expect you're correct in stating you can see
almost no difference. They still have problems.

tom
K0TAR


Again I ask, have you ever used an OCF ?

Also what problems do they have that other antennas do not have as long as
they are used on the bands they are designed for ?



Feedline radiation problems and odd impedances. They seldom live up to
the claims for band coverage. If you have to use a tuner anyway, why
add the unbalanced problems into the mix? Just use a balanced antenna.

tom
K0TAR

On 2/9/2013 8:51 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:
tom;801521 Wrote:
On 2/8/2013 8:24 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:
-
One other antenna - if you had the money and the real estate would be
the High Power - Off Center Fed Dipole - which operates practically
everywhere between 440 MHz and 160 meters - with the exception of 15
and
30 meters.

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/hypower/-

If you believe that an antenna will operate effectively from 160m to
70cm you are even more ignorant than I previously thought.

And OCFD are not good even at HF if you really understand how they work

and the problems they have because of that.

tom
K0TAR

I am going to explain it, but only once.

One other problem you may have missed. Any choking system you have that
works at 160m won't work at about 20m and up. So you you need at least
2 different chokes for 20m+. And probably a third to reach 70cm.

Concerning pattern, anything 10 meters and up becomes a bit crazy
because the wires are quite directional with gain in several different
directions.

And 70cm would be useless compared to a bad yagi with ok coax.

tom
K0TAR

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.

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.

[quote=tom;801584]On 2/9/2013 8:51 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:[color=blue][i]
tom;801521 Wrote:
On 2/8/2013 8:24 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:
-
One other antenna - if you had the money and the real estate would be
the High Power - Off Center Fed Dipole - which operates practically
everywhere between 440 MHz and 160 meters - with the exception of 15
and
30 meters.

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/hypower/-

If you believe that an antenna will operate effectively from 160m to
70cm you are even more ignorant than I previously thought.

And OCFD are not good even at HF if you really understand how they work

and the problems they have because of that.

tom
K0TAR

Blaah blaah blaah

wrote in message
...

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.


When the lower radials were added the Ringo was suspose to work much beter.
By that time, the Ringo had fallen out of favor around here so I do not know
how well they worked. Main thing is that adding the radials defeated the
purpose of the antenna, which was to eliminate the radials.

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