Ringo Ranger II
 

Howdy Y'all:
Chushcraft says that the Ringo Ranger II is the latest design featuring
three 5/8 wave radiating elements and an adjustable 1/8 wave phasing stub.
My question is why a 1/8 phasing stub? Should it be more like 3/8 or
somthing, and why only
one phasing stub, should there not be 2? And is the outside of the coax that
comes from the ground plane a radiating
element? This antenna has me scratching my head, any ideas?

Harbin

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:25:12 -0800, "Harbin"
wrote:

Howdy Y'all:
Chushcraft says that the Ringo Ranger II is the latest design featuring
three 5/8 wave radiating elements and an adjustable 1/8 wave phasing stub.
My question is why a 1/8 phasing stub? Should it be more like 3/8 or
somthing, and why only
one phasing stub, should there not be 2? And is the outside of the coax that
comes from the ground plane a radiating
element? This antenna has me scratching my head, any ideas?

Harbin

Sounds like marketing in action; I'd call it a two element colinear
with a decoupling section at the bottom. Just for giggles, what gain
does Witchcraft claim?
Howard

Cushcraft claims 7 dbi gain. True or not, it was the best omni directional 2
meter antenna I've ever used. A wayward tree limb turned it into pieces of
aluminum tubing, but it WAS 25 years old and had been struck by lighting
once. I got my $35 worth out of it. I now use a Diamond X50, not quite as
good, but not bad.


"Howard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:25:12 -0800, "Harbin"
wrote:

Howdy Y'all:
Chushcraft says that the Ringo Ranger II is the latest design featuring
three 5/8 wave radiating elements and an adjustable 1/8 wave phasing stub.
My question is why a 1/8 phasing stub? Should it be more like 3/8 or
somthing, and why only
one phasing stub, should there not be 2? And is the outside of the coax
that
comes from the ground plane a radiating
element? This antenna has me scratching my head, any ideas?

Harbin

Sounds like marketing in action; I'd call it a two element colinear
with a decoupling section at the bottom. Just for giggles, what gain
does Witchcraft claim?
Howard

Howard wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:25:12 -0800, "Harbin"
wrote:


Howdy Y'all:
Chushcraft says that the Ringo Ranger II is the latest design featuring
three 5/8 wave radiating elements and an adjustable 1/8 wave phasing stub.
My question is why a 1/8 phasing stub? Should it be more like 3/8 or
somthing, and why only
one phasing stub, should there not be 2? And is the outside of the coax that
comes from the ground plane a radiating
element? This antenna has me scratching my head, any ideas?

Harbin


Sounds like marketing in action; I'd call it a two element colinear
with a decoupling section at the bottom. Just for giggles, what gain
does Witchcraft claim?
Howard

Crunchcraft shows 7 dBi gain-- and b.t.w., the 1/8 wave- DOUBLE it (it is a HAIRPIN)
, wave has to travel 2 X the length (plus the extra 1-1/2 inch width)! Actually 1/4
wave LONG phaseing (for want of a better word) Section. This between 2 aprox.5/8
wavelength verticles Howard is correct!. Jim NN7K


--
To reply, remove the NOSPAM

Sounds like marketing in action; I'd call it a two element colinear
with a decoupling section at the bottom. Just for giggles, what gain
does Witchcraft claim?
Howard

You maximize the gain of a colinear by separating the current loops as far
as possible ( see the graph in the ARRL Antenna Handbook of gain vs current
loop spacing). By making the top element a 5/8, then a 1/4 wave phasing stub
( 1/8 long), the bottom element is realized as an inverted 5/8. This places
the current loops 3/4 wavelength apart. (Compare this to 5/8 separation if
the bottom element were fred as a traditional 5/8- and require a longer
stub) .The bottom of this element is then voltage fed- diminishing the need
for radials.

Dale W4OP

Howard wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:25:12 -0800, "Harbin"
wrote:

Howdy Y'all:
Chushcraft says that the Ringo Ranger II is the latest design featuring
three 5/8 wave radiating elements and an adjustable 1/8 wave phasing stub.
My question is why a 1/8 phasing stub? Should it be more like 3/8 or
somthing, and why only
one phasing stub, should there not be 2? And is the outside of the coax that
comes from the ground plane a radiating
element? This antenna has me scratching my head, any ideas?

Harbin

Sounds like marketing in action; I'd call it a two element colinear
with a decoupling section at the bottom.

It's a decent enough antenna but the real marketing hype lies in the
claim that those three lame whiskers which protrude from the base of
the thing act as "decoupling sections". Which don't work worth a hill
of beans in their advertised role *particularly* with this antenna
which is notorious for tossing RF back into le shack. The way to
actually clean up a Ringo II and get it cooking properly is to install
an RF choke wound, beaded or otherwise near the feedpoint.


Just for giggles, what gain
does Witchcraft claim?
Howard

w3rv

Howard wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:25:12 -0800, "Harbin"
wrote:

Howdy Y'all:
Chushcraft says that the Ringo Ranger II is the latest design featuring
three 5/8 wave radiating elements and an adjustable 1/8 wave phasing stub.
My question is why a 1/8 phasing stub? Should it be more like 3/8 or
somthing, and why only
one phasing stub, should there not be 2? And is the outside of the coax that
comes from the ground plane a radiating
element? This antenna has me scratching my head, any ideas?

Harbin

Sounds like marketing in action; I'd call it a two element colinear
with a decoupling section at the bottom.

So do I...

Just for giggles, what gain
does Witchcraft claim?

I'm sure too much....:/ They always did tend to lean to funky gain
numbers, and references for verticals...In the real world, the RR2 is
considered slightly inferior to the dual 5/8 isopole, which claimed a
fairly realistic 3 dbd if I remember right. And they don't claim the
lower decoupling cone on the isopole is a 3rd element either. Also,
the element lengths on the RR2 are a little off from the normal dual
5/8.. I think thats one reason for the "odd" length of the phasing
stub. It is a fairly decent antenna though for the price. The lower
decoupling section did help the antenna a lot. But I don't really
consider the 50 inch coax section above the radials a 3rd radiating
element. If I'm thinking this right, if that was the case, it would be
out of phase with the lower actual element...?? Or it would
seem..There is no phasing stub between the coax section, and the lower
element. Just the matching device. One tidbit...I found a simple well
decoupled 1/4 wave GP with the tip at the same height as the tip of
the RR2 is nearly equal to the RR2..Pretty close anyway. MK