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