On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 10:53:00 -0900, Me wrote:

In article ,
Channel Jumper wrote:

Ringo's are nothing more then a over glorified dummy load..

I am sure Dr Reynolds of the University of Washington School of
Electrical Engineering, who designed that antenna for AEA, would
take considerable disagreement, with the above. This design was
Extensively Tested on the UofW's Antenna Range, up on Pigeon Hill, West
Seattle, Washington, which was donated to the UoW, after the Army was
finished with the old Army Communications System site, post WWII.

Not AEA, but for Cushcraft.

Obituary:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1474034
I don't believe Dr Reynolds designed the Ringo Ranger for Cushcraft
(Now MFJ). The MFJ catalog page claims the Ringo Ranger II was
designed by Lester A. Cushman, W1BX(sk)
http://www.cushcraftamateur.com/Product.php?productid=AR-2
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've seen far too many cracked SO-239 like
connectors, corroded adjustment screws and elements, crumbling
insulators, crushed mounting tubes, etc. It's major advantage is that
without a molded base transformer, this 5/8 wave or (0.64 wave)
antenna can be cheaply built, and that tunes a tolerable wide
frequency range. Were it built mechanically better, I'm sure it would
have had a better reputation. That lack of a commercial equivalent
also offers a clue as to its quality.



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

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.

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 Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:14:32 AM UTC-6, Ralph Mowery wrote:

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.

Well maybe as far as the standard Ringo, which is a half wave.
But the Ringo Ranger was a dual 5/8 collinear. Seems to me that
design was used more to get more gain vs the shorter antennas,
rather than trying to avoid radials.

When it first came out, decoupling from the feed line was not
given too much consideration, at least for lower cost amateur
antennas.. And most that used it, thought it did OK. Likely
because they had nothing better to compare to, or the feed line
lengths, mounting, did not skew that pattern as bad in some
cases, as it did others. The amount of skewing will vary some
in each installation. It was pretty bad in my case.

But then the Isopole came out.. And the roof caved in. lol..
The Isopole was so much better performing than the regular
Ringo Ranger, that Cushcraft had no choice but to add some
method of decoupling to their antenna, if they wanted to
continue to sell many of them.
So they added the lower 50 inches of coax, and a set of
1/4 wave radials at the bottom of that length of coax, which
was grounded at that point, to the mast supporting the antenna.

The decoupling section helped greatly, and saved Cushcraft
from certain VHF vertical sales ruination.
It was still slightly inferior to the method the Isopole
used, but close enough to keep them in the game.
Many preferred the RR2 because it was a bit less ugly than
the Isopole. And maybe a bit cheaper, but I can't remember
how they were priced at the time.

The only band I ever used a 1/2 wave Ringo, was on 10m.
And I ended up adding a Cushcraft type decoupling section
to it. It worked very well. But the 5/8 antennas I used
were better still.. But I didn't use 1/4 wave radials like
most do with 5/8 ground planes. At that time, I used 3/4
wave radials, and the antenna doubled as an appx 1/4 GP
on 30m.

On 2/12/2013 10:15 PM, wrote:

Well maybe as far as the standard Ringo, which is a half wave.
But the Ringo Ranger was a dual 5/8 collinear. Seems to me that
design was used more to get more gain vs the shorter antennas,
rather than trying to avoid radials.

When it first came out, decoupling from the feed line was not
given too much consideration, at least for lower cost amateur
antennas.. And most that used it, thought it did OK. Likely
because they had nothing better to compare to, or the feed line
lengths, mounting, did not skew that pattern as bad in some
cases, as it did others. The amount of skewing will vary some
in each installation. It was pretty bad in my case.

But then the Isopole came out.. And the roof caved in. lol..
The Isopole was so much better performing than the regular
Ringo Ranger, that Cushcraft had no choice but to add some
method of decoupling to their antenna, if they wanted to
continue to sell many of them.
So they added the lower 50 inches of coax, and a set of
1/4 wave radials at the bottom of that length of coax, which
was grounded at that point, to the mast supporting the antenna.

The decoupling section helped greatly, and saved Cushcraft
from certain VHF vertical sales ruination.
It was still slightly inferior to the method the Isopole
used, but close enough to keep them in the game.
Many preferred the RR2 because it was a bit less ugly than
the Isopole. And maybe a bit cheaper, but I can't remember
how they were priced at the time.

I have a Cushcraft engineering connection from that era. I will seen
what I can learn.

tom
K0TAR

Thanks for the information TOM

On 2/13/2013 9:50 PM, tom wrote:
On 2/12/2013 10:15 PM, wrote:

I have a Cushcraft engineering connection from that era. I will see
what I can learn.

tom
K0TAR

Well I called this evening and he's contesting all weekend. I'll call
him back Monday. It's very likely he was around when it was designed.
Some may know who he was - "Joe" should be identification enough for
those who are familiar the Cushcraft designers.

tom
K0TAR

On 2/13/2013 9:50 PM, tom wrote:
On 2/12/2013 10:15 PM, wrote:

Well maybe as far as the standard Ringo, which is a half wave.
But the Ringo Ranger was a dual 5/8 collinear. Seems to me that
design was used more to get more gain vs the shorter antennas,
rather than trying to avoid radials.

When it first came out, decoupling from the feed line was not
given too much consideration, at least for lower cost amateur
antennas.. And most that used it, thought it did OK. Likely
because they had nothing better to compare to, or the feed line
lengths, mounting, did not skew that pattern as bad in some
cases, as it did others. The amount of skewing will vary some
in each installation. It was pretty bad in my case.

But then the Isopole came out.. And the roof caved in. lol..
The Isopole was so much better performing than the regular
Ringo Ranger, that Cushcraft had no choice but to add some
method of decoupling to their antenna, if they wanted to
continue to sell many of them.
So they added the lower 50 inches of coax, and a set of
1/4 wave radials at the bottom of that length of coax, which
was grounded at that point, to the mast supporting the antenna.

The decoupling section helped greatly, and saved Cushcraft
from certain VHF vertical sales ruination.
It was still slightly inferior to the method the Isopole
used, but close enough to keep them in the game.
Many preferred the RR2 because it was a bit less ugly than
the Isopole. And maybe a bit cheaper, but I can't remember
how they were priced at the time.

I have a Cushcraft engineering connection from that era. I will seen
what I can learn.

tom
K0TAR




Spent a while on the phone with Joe. Most was about other things for an
hour and a half.

Story as I know it -

Dateline was mid 70's. A local ham (unknown) designed a CB antenna that
was the original Ranger. It was copied by Lester Cushman.

It was redone as antennas for 6 and 2. And it had decoupling issues.

And Dave Olean (still well known) was assigned to handle the decoupling
issues.

And that's what we know.

tom
K0TAR

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

If you are building a repeater - you use a Station Master - commercial grade antenna, not a cheap vertical like the Diamond X 50.
http://www.wadsworthsales.com/Pages/celwave.aspx