Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

541 - 560 of 583 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
From now until stable weather returns come winter is a challenging time to do over the air reception tests. Signal levels and SNR are constantly changing.
I'm very impressed with all the antenna work you have accomplished!
Yes, signals increased 10db overnight. But, I did most of my testing back to back within a few minutes. Then I'll do them again back to back and compare the scans.

So, for what it's worth, I don't compare scans that are hours apart. I feel guilty when I can't keep my scans within 10 minutes apart. I know signal strength can change quickly with the weather or even sunrise and sunset.

Thank you for taking notice of my project. The UHF was much easier than the VHF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Just coming back to say I had a chance to retest my 163XG versus a brand-new 91XG.
I overall it's been consistent. I'll leave this alone but I'll sure hope somebody else will share their hacks.
11469
11470
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
So, has anybody built a repack version of the AD 91XG or the Extreme Antenna HDB91X / Stellar Labs 30-2370 ?

I'm told everything needs to be 29% larger. Does anybody have any info on that? It seems that the proper design would have the most gain at somewhere between RF 25 and RF36..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts


I'm not sure why this forum doesn't really get the traffic that it should anymore? Is it because the real enthusiasts have given up or moved on ?

Anyhow, I've got some help over on AVS. I've decided to start my 91XG repack antenna. I decided to start with the elements since that will be the hardest part.

11943


I also created a jig for fitting the extensions on to my X elements.

11944
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,032 Posts
Did you try to recale and evaluate the model holl_ands worked on here?
or did you just go with the aforementioned 129% you alluded to?
I think that would basically amount to shifting 780MHz to 605 MHz.
To rescale any antenna, modify all dimensions by the ratio of oldfreq/newfreq.
Choice of oldfreq/newfreq is kind of up to you, depending on what your looking for.
Start by analysing that model, and see where you'd like to move it from and to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,032 Posts
This is what I got when shifting holl_ands model by a factor of 700/600, or roughly 17 %
Not sure if that is what your looking for.

Code:
         --- Gain ---              -- Ratios -- -- Impedance --          
   Freq    Raw    Net   SWR BeamW    F/R    F/B    Real    Imag  AGT  corr
==========================================================================
  470.0  13.22  13.19  1.18  37.7  24.07  28.32  343.23  -32.15 1.01  0.05
  476.0  13.37  13.35  1.15  37.0  24.60  27.39  322.75  -38.49 1.01  0.05
  482.0  13.52  13.50  1.14  36.4  25.23  27.38  301.99  -40.16 1.01  0.05
  488.0  13.66  13.64  1.15  35.8  25.65  28.32  282.88  -37.59 1.01  0.06
  494.0  13.82  13.79  1.18  35.3  25.75  30.27  266.82  -32.76 1.01  0.06
  500.0  13.98  13.94  1.22  34.7  26.05  33.72  253.39  -27.14 1.01  0.06
  506.0  14.15  14.09  1.26  34.2  26.69  37.61  241.66  -22.04 1.01  0.06
  512.0  14.32  14.24  1.31  33.7  26.95  36.09  230.07  -17.44 1.01  0.06
  518.0  14.49  14.37  1.38  33.2  27.32  32.54  217.63  -12.21 1.01  0.06
  524.0  14.65  14.49  1.47  32.6  27.58  30.40  204.86   -4.81 1.02  0.07
  530.0  14.81  14.60  1.55  32.2  27.78  29.55  193.11    5.33 1.02  0.07
  536.0  14.96  14.70  1.64  31.8  28.07  29.77  183.85   17.33 1.02  0.07
  542.0  15.12  14.81  1.71  31.3  28.32  31.15  177.78   30.67 1.02  0.08
  548.0  15.29  14.94  1.77  30.9  28.41  33.55  174.99   43.07 1.02  0.08
  554.0  15.41  15.01  1.84  30.6  26.84  33.96  172.71   59.58 1.02  0.08
  560.0  15.64  15.26  1.83  30.2  29.50  35.71  174.21   60.68 1.02  0.09
  566.0  15.82  15.41  1.86  29.6  30.11  33.28  172.73   66.58 1.02  0.09
  572.0  16.00  15.55  1.92  29.0  31.49  31.62  169.50   72.63 1.02  0.09
  578.0  16.17  15.66  1.99  28.4  31.16  31.16  165.66   80.13 1.02  0.09
  584.0  16.34  15.78  2.07  27.8  31.89  31.89  162.68   89.18 1.02  0.09
  590.0  16.50  15.89  2.13  27.3  33.33  33.69  161.43   98.56 1.02  0.09
  596.0  16.65  16.01  2.17  26.8  34.43  35.13  161.51  106.91 1.02  0.10
  602.0  16.81  16.14  2.21  26.3  33.41  33.41  161.32  113.78 1.02  0.10
  608.0  16.95  16.23  2.28  25.8  30.50  30.50  159.40  120.32 1.02  0.10
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
This is what I got when shifting holl_ands model by a factor of 700/600, or roughly 17 %
Not sure if that is what your looking for.
Thanks Tom I'll have to look at that. Here is what rabbit came up with as far as director spacing. I know it took him some effort to do this.


11945
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Holl_ands went from stock 91XG to 14-36 in two steps.
UHF 91XG Corner-FD-Yagi
RevF: UHF Raw Gain = 11.3 dbi (470 MHz) to 16.6 dBi (698 MHz) to 17.5 dbi (758 MHz), F/R & F/B Ratio Min = 19.8 dB (Excellent) and SWR (300-ohms) Under 2.3 (Excellent).
Gain curve RevF
UHF 91XG Corner-FD-Yagi

91XG Stock RevF Gain Curve_1.jpg


UHF 91XG - Wider Bowties, Better Ch14-51

91XG Wider Directors MAX 698 Gain Curve_1.jpg


91XG Wider Bowties  MAX 626_1.jpg


Stock 91XG has MAX gain at 758 MHz.

Wider bowties for 14-51 has MAX gain at 698 MHz.
758/698 = 1.09 (109%)

Even wider bowties for 14-36 has MAX gain at 626 MHz.
758/626 = 1.21 (121%)

The problem is the image of the director in the model doesn't look like the actual director, so the math from the scale drawing gives 131%. And the resonant frequency of the director is wrong.

Using holl_ands figures for the extension from center line:

Stock: MAX at 758: 6.2 inches

MAX at 698: 6.83 inches
6.83/6.2 = 1.10 (110%)

MAX at 626: 7.65 inches
7.65/6.2 = 1.23 (123%)

I have more confidence in 123% than in 131%. I wish I had a stock director and an extended director so that I could try to measure their resonant frequencies. I'm not certain how I would do that. The used grid dip meters usually don't go to UHF. In a simple 3-element Yagi, the director is tuned to 5% higher in frequency; reflector 5% lower.

If the directors are too large, they will become reflectors and block the incoming signals; not good.

I am willing to redo the boom locations for the directors at 123% if necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Well I'm glad I just did one prototype. I figure my new director is maybe even a tad bit larger than 131%. Here are the measurements on the stock 91xg reflector.

I extended each Wing 1.5 "
11949


I'm also a little bit confused now, I may hold off on this till we get it figured out. I wonder if everything was scaled up to 131% and the correct scaling is 121%, where would this antenna peak at?...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,032 Posts
One thing to recall about 4nec2 is that the gain plots don't take in to account the mismatch loss from vswr. I don't know how much it will really matter though as the real antenna uses a balun box to transform to 75 ohms, while the NEC2 model doesn't.
If it was me, I'd probably try to concentrate on moving the Min Vswr to where I wanted it, not paying attention so much to the raw gain characteristic.

Here is the AD Rev F model holl_ands made that I was playing with yesterday, as found.
Rev F Model
Rev F Chart
Rev F Pattern
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Well I'm glad I just did one prototype. I figure my new director is maybe even a tad bit larger than 131%. Here are the measurements on the stock 91xg reflector.

I extended each Wing 1.5 "
View attachment 11949

I'm also a little bit confused now, I may hold off on this till we get it figured out. I wonder if everything was scaled up to 131% and the correct scaling is 121%, where would this antenna peak at?...
I'm a bit confused too. According to majortom at 117% it peaks at 608 MHz. Is that what you want, or do you want a little more Net Gain at the 470 end with less at 608?

91XG majortom at 17percent_1.jpg


There are two factors involved when rescaling: the size of the directors and the element spacing on the boom.

You can run a test now with the long extensions and stock element spacing.

I wonder if I can use a nanoVNA to measure the resonant frequency of the directors?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,032 Posts
yeah, neither of my posts were meant to be critical at all. Rather encouraging, just to try and nudge a guy, to analyze the existing and think about what they really want, before committing to something. From the pictures, it looks like he is using rivets, and is hacking what would have otherwise been a perfectly good antenna to pieces to extend his directors? Seems quite wasteful to me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
yeah, neither of my posts were meant to be critical at all. Just to try and nudge a guy, to analyze the existing and think about what they really want, before committing to something.
No offense taken; we appreciate your help. With 300ohm and holl_ands gone, there aren't many modelers left.

Your estimate of 17% is very close to my initial estimate of 18% that I did on Apr 9:
91XG REPACK HACK

AD 91XG Gain vs Freq2_1.jpg


The original 91XG antenna was designed for the 14 to 69 UHF TV Band. Usually, the design frequency for a design is the midpoint of the desired band.

14-69 Band
470 to 800 MHz, midpoint = 635 MHz

14-51 Band
470 to 692 MHz, midpoint = 581 MHz
635/581 = 1.09
The dimensions for the change from the 14-69 band design to the 14-51 band would have to be increased 9%.

14-36 Band
470 to 602 MHz, midpoint = 536 MHz
635/536 = 1.18
The dimensions for the change from the 14-69 band design to the 14-36 band would have to be increased 18%. I would probably go to 20% if my important channels were at the low end of UHF.

These calculation are only a first approximation. More exact dimensions would require computer modeling, which I don't do; it's too tedious for me. I would rather do proof of performance measurements.

Later, I doubted my estimate because of the dimensions of the directors on the model diagrams and this from Jeff Kitz:

Chiwaukee said
Today I started the planning of the project. I also talked with Jeff Kitz about it and he felt that 33.3% was the correct figure for expanding the measurements.
I found this chart by Calaveras to be helpful:

91XG Models by Calaveras_1.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,032 Posts
Original RevF
Code:
         --- Gain ---              -- Ratios -- -- Impedance --          
   Freq    Raw    Net   SWR BeamW    F/R    F/B    Real    Imag  AGT  corr
==========================================================================
  470.0  11.51  10.91  2.13  44.4  19.79  24.44  467.24  235.92 0.99 -0.02
  482.0  11.77  11.32  1.92  43.3  20.57  24.52  488.29  171.77 0.99 -0.02
  494.0  12.02  11.70  1.74  42.3  21.36  24.63  484.77  106.02 0.99 -0.02
  506.0  12.27  12.05  1.57  41.4  21.67  26.10  459.78   54.36 0.99 -0.02
  518.0  12.53  12.39  1.43  40.5  22.04  29.84  427.91   22.05 0.99 -0.02
  530.0  12.81  12.72  1.34  39.4  22.81  33.16  400.54    0.34 0.99 -0.02
  542.0  13.08  13.03  1.25  38.3  23.57  29.52  373.13  -19.86 0.99 -0.02
  554.0  13.33  13.31  1.18  37.1  24.40  27.12  338.66  -34.75 1.00 -0.00
  566.0  13.59  13.58  1.13  36.1  25.49  27.32  302.38  -36.63 1.00 -0.00
  578.0  13.86  13.84  1.15  35.1  25.70  30.39  272.98  -28.78 1.00 -0.00
  590.0  14.14  14.10  1.21  34.2  26.59  36.31  251.10  -19.51 1.00 -0.00
  602.0  14.43  14.36  1.31  33.3  27.15  33.12  230.03  -11.21 1.00 -0.00
  614.0  14.71  14.57  1.45  32.5  27.57  29.54  207.56    1.91 1.00 -0.00
  626.0  14.98  14.75  1.59  31.7  28.20  29.39  189.87   22.37 1.00 -0.00
  638.0  15.26  14.95  1.71  31.0  28.34  32.53  181.76   44.99 1.00  0.01
  650.0  15.47  15.08  1.84  30.4  28.94  35.09  174.53   64.49 1.00  0.01
  662.0  15.88  15.49  1.83  29.5  30.38  33.33  178.05   72.87 1.00  0.01
  674.0  16.18  15.71  1.95  28.4  31.40  31.40  171.53   84.94 1.00  0.01
  686.0  16.47  15.91  2.07  27.5  33.08  33.18  167.13  100.96 1.00  0.01
  698.0  16.74  16.11  2.16  26.6  35.24  35.24  166.94  115.41 1.00  0.01
  710.0  17.00  16.30  2.26  25.7  30.52  30.52  164.22  126.87 1.00  0.01
  722.0  17.18  16.33  2.46  24.9  27.77  27.77  158.01  144.20 1.01  0.05
  734.0  17.36  16.38  2.64  24.2  28.44  28.44  158.65  168.86 1.01  0.05
  746.0  17.52  16.50  2.69  23.5  32.42  33.76  168.47  190.53 1.01  0.05
  758.0  17.62  16.55  2.76  22.9  32.12  35.06  175.84  208.98 1.01  0.05
  770.0  17.64  16.45  2.92  22.2  28.78  28.78  187.37  241.38 1.01  0.05
  782.0  17.64  16.55  2.78  21.7  27.85  27.85  233.94  275.24 1.01  0.05
  794.0  17.64  16.92  2.28  21.1  28.06  28.06  294.30  251.98 1.01  0.05
  806.0  17.34  16.68  2.21  20.5  23.81  23.81  291.01  240.13 1.01  0.05
RevF rescale @ 133% (rescale reference taken from the top end)
higest gain, skinniest Beamwidth, worst VSWR. All factors a guy has to consider.

Code:
         --- Gain ---              -- Ratios -- -- Impedance --          
   Freq    Raw    Net   SWR BeamW    F/R    F/B    Real    Imag  AGT  corr
==========================================================================
  470.0  14.96  14.68  1.66  31.7  28.17  29.81  184.08   34.40 0.99 -0.03
  476.0  15.15  14.81  1.76  31.2  28.50  31.10  177.28   49.25 0.99 -0.03
  482.0  15.35  14.96  1.83  30.8  28.78  34.12  175.51   64.70 0.99 -0.03
  488.0  15.56  15.14  1.87  30.3  29.66  36.00  175.46   76.00 0.99 -0.03
  494.0  15.77  15.32  1.91  29.8  29.85  34.05  174.69   84.34 0.99 -0.03
  500.0  15.98  15.49  1.98  29.1  30.96  31.86  171.79   91.85 0.99 -0.03
  506.0  16.14  15.58  2.07  28.4  31.10  31.10  167.52  100.93 1.00  0.01
  512.0  16.33  15.70  2.17  27.8  31.89  31.89  164.15  112.20 1.00  0.01
  518.0  16.52  15.83  2.25  27.2  33.68  34.09  163.11  124.02 1.00  0.01
  524.0  16.70  15.96  2.31  26.6  34.01  35.18  163.60  134.35 1.00  0.01
  530.0  16.88  16.09  2.38  26.0  32.20  32.20  163.11  142.99 1.00  0.01
  536.0  17.04  16.17  2.49  25.4  29.23  29.23  160.11  152.51 1.00  0.01
  542.0  17.13  16.14  2.65  24.9  27.72  27.72  156.47  166.04 1.01  0.06
  548.0  17.25  16.14  2.81  24.4  27.69  27.69  155.93  183.58 1.01  0.06
  554.0  17.36  16.18  2.91  24.0  29.15  29.36  160.55  201.95 1.01  0.06
  560.0  17.45  16.25  2.94  23.5  28.29  33.46  168.82  217.74 1.01  0.06
  566.0  17.52  16.30  2.96  23.1  27.50  38.36  176.29  231.31 1.01  0.06
  572.0  17.54  16.24  3.06  22.6  26.62  32.92  181.79  248.58 1.01  0.06
  578.0  17.50  16.12  3.19  22.2  25.82  29.19  192.85  274.38 1.02  0.08
  584.0  17.47  16.10  3.17  21.8  25.53  27.93  220.79  303.81 1.02  0.08
  590.0  17.47  16.28  2.92  21.5  25.61  28.12  270.60  318.60 1.02  0.08
  596.0  17.44  16.54  2.53  21.1  25.50  27.64  317.94  297.16 1.02  0.08
  602.0  17.23  16.47  2.35  20.6  24.12  24.97  325.91  273.56 1.02  0.08
  608.0  16.77  15.93  2.45  20.2  22.03  22.32  339.84  293.50 1.02  0.08
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Usually, the design frequency for a design is the midpoint of the desired band.
Yagi "design frequency" is upper operating frequency
If you have NN...800 MHz Yagi and want NN..600 MHz, rescale factor is 800/600. It is not dependent what arbitrary number was chosen by marketing department as "lowest claimed frequency"


I will make example using another real Uda-Yagi antenna (not have 91XG drawing in HFSS yet).





This antenna has design frequency 740 MHz. It is marketed as 470-750 MHz product.
470 MHz number is random historical number. If real UHF TV spectrum was 400-800 MHz or 500-800 MHz, the very same antenna would be marketed as 400-750 MHz or 500-850 MHz.
This 470 number has nothing to do with microwave theory, Uda-Yagi properties.

A few MHz above design frequency any Yagi antenna break. Director length become lambda/2 and they change their operation from "directors" to "reflectors". This happens very fast, reactance increase very fast and forward directivity decline very fast.
Due to manufacturing intolerances, this can happen a few MHz earlier (even inside CLAIMED operating band).
Under tight quality control (e.g. military uses) you wouldn't be able to market this antenna as 470-750 MHz, as you will have high risks of bad operation in 730-750 MHz range.
If you cannot take such risks, you will choose 760 MHz design frequency for antenna to be marketed as NN...750 MHz.

Now imagine we need to rescale this design for 470-620 MHz

If we rescale 740/620 = 119% we will be on the safe side. At 630 MHz Yagi will break travelling wave mode with unpredictable results.

If we consider initial design as (470+750)/2 = 610 MHz design frequency
and rescale to (470+620)/2 = 545 MHz then we increase 610/545=112%

Rescaled antenna will have maximum gain ~660 MHz and will break normal operation at 670 MHz
At 620 MHz it will underperform (still 40 MHz to best gain)

Furthemore, there are 2 approaches to evaluate TV antenna perfomance.
In Northern America, people value constant directivity antennas, which DECREASE effective aperture with frequency. This is due to broadcasters increase TX power with frequency to work best with constant-dBi user equipment.
In other parts of the world, broadcasters use constant TX power. This require constant effective aperture, hence increase in directivity (Friis formula).

Antenna from my example peaks effective aperture @ 700 MHz (0.38 square meters)
From 700 to 740 MHz aperture decreases (to keep it constant you need further increase in directivity/gain)

This antenna underperform >700 MHz, still marketed as <750 MHz product.

If you need product which best suits your need - you should look either on effective aperture curve (if you have Gain values from 4NEC2 you can draw Aperture graph in Excel using simple algebraic formula from Friis equation), or on gain curve. Depending on signal strength in your particular area.

BTW, here is Uda-Yagi from my example, rescaled to new US band 470-620 MHz

It's much cheaper to manufacture it (we sell them for less than $10) and they are rock-solid durable, extremely lightweight and have low air-resistance.

for easier DIY here is alu-strip version:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
RevF rescale @ 133% (rescale reference taken from the top end)
higest gain, skinniest Beamwidth, worst VSWR. All factors a guy has to consider.
Thank you for the rescale.

Rescale @ 133% looks terrible. Obviously, Jeff Kitz is wrong.

holl_ands said
RevF: UHF Raw Gain = 11.3 dbi (470 MHz) to 16.6 dBi (698 MHz) to 17.5 dbi (758 MHz), F/R & F/B Ratio Min = 19.8 dB (Excellent) and SWR (300-ohms) Under 2.3 (Excellent).
To Widen the Bowties in the 4nec2 Model, THREE new Wires were added to each of the four tips on ALL 22 Bowties. Outer Width-to-Centerline parameter "Ymax = 3*Zmax = 3*2.55 = 7.65" (+/- 0.05-in) was adjusted to find the "best" combination of Raw Gain, F/B & F/R Ratios and SWR, which resulted in Max Gain falling on 626 MHz.
758/626 = 1.21

So, 121% is as high as you would want to go. Since that doesn't allow for errors, I'm comfortable with 117 to 119%.

My next question is: would increasing the element spacing by that same factor give additional gain?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Yagi "design frequency" is upper operating frequency.....
A few MHz above design frequency any Yagi antenna break. Director length become lambda/2 and they change their operation from "directors" to "reflectors". This happens very fast, reactance increase very fast and forward directivity decline very fast.
Very good comments; thank you, Yurii.
Furthemore, there are 2 approaches to evaluate TV antenna perfomance.
In Northern America, people value constant directivity antennas, which DECREASE effective aperture with frequency. This is due to broadcasters increase TX power with frequency to work best with constant-dBi user equipment.
In other parts of the world, broadcasters use constant TX power. This require constant effective aperture, hence increase in directivity (Friis formula).
Very interesting.
BTW, here is Uda-Yagi from my example, rescaled to new US band 470-620 MHz

It's much cheaper to manufacture it (we sell them for less than $10) and they are rock-solid durable, extremely lightweight and have low air-resistance.

for easier DIY here is alu-strip version:
The director strips make a very simple design.

The 91XG uses a pair of directors at each director location on the boom and a DE that looks like a folded dipole, but is actually a fullwave (λ) dipole that has two current loops to match the dual directors.

91XG DE by ChiwaukeeOTA_1.jpg


91XG DE tballester_1.jpg


91XG nikiml viewer DE3_1.jpg


fullwave dipole current distribution_1.jpg


Does that more complicated design really give more gain than a single director at each director location and a halfwave (λ/2) folded dipole for the DE for the same boom length?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Does that more complicated design really give more gain than a single director at each director location and a halfwave (λ/2) folded dipole for the DE for the same boom length?
Dipole type/design has zero influence on radiation pattern (Directivity/Gain).
Only if it is part of Yagi it can influence (like loop-feed array design, on LPDA dual-driven dipole etc). If it has zero dimension in boom-axis, it cannot influence radiation pattern.

Different dipoles are only about matching (VSWR).

Full-wave split-dipole alone, is more wide band than folded half-wave dipole alone:
VSWR<2: 444 .... 864 MHz vs 510 .... 671 MHz

Whether it will provide any better VSWR in Uda-Yagi I cannot say. I didn't model in HFSS and didn't measure with VNA antennas with full-wave dipole.

I can model 91XG in HFSS if there is still interest in this overpriced antenna.
But this VSWR simulation will not have practical value.
91XG use 800 MHz lambda/2 PCB-loop for matching



At frequencies other-than-800 MHz it has no common mode blockage resistance, and transformation ratio is not 4:1

Virtually any antenna still sold at AliExpress has this PCB hoax balun. I measured some of them with VNA and they are very ugly. I replaced with proper Guanella 4:1 balun and SWR become good.

I haven't ever seen Yagi which cover 470-862 (21-69) with VSWR<2 and even VSWR<3.
With refarmed spectrum 470-700 MHz VSWR<2 is not problem

Here is 470-660 MHz with VSWR<1.40 (!!) with classical folded dipole

Here is 480-710 MHz with VSWR<1.40 (!!) with classical folded dipole and VSWR<1.7 in 470-480 MHz

I think that main reason for full-wave dipole in 91XG is the fact, that yagi directors structure is also full-wave directors, not classical half-wave directors.
I doubt that half-wave dipole can fully excite this structure. Maybe yes, maybe no. Didn't check this. But I have strong doubt it can. I expect underperfomance and stronger first side lobe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
yeah, neither of my posts were meant to be critical at all. Rather encouraging, just to try and nudge a guy, to analyze the existing and think about what they really want, before committing to something. From the pictures, it looks like he is using rivets, and is hacking what would have otherwise been a perfectly good antenna to pieces to extend his directors? Seems quite wasteful to me.
I'm seriously not offended either Major Tom. Because you may not understand how I got to this point, you may not know where all the parts are coming from. I'm not cannibalizing two perfectly good antennas anymore. I had two perfectly good 91XGs on my mast:

11960


Then came "The gales of November." That and a error in turnbuckle choice for my guy wires resulted in disaster. The storm went on for hours and finally in the morning I could see my Mast bent into the oak tree which literally deboned 1 91XG completely, and pretty badly damaged the other along with two 30 - 2476s with broken backs:
11964


11961


So, there are lots of spare parts. Turns out though I only have 15 complete Unbroken X element directors out of 22 that I need! I'm sure I can get a bag of directors from Antennas Direct. I also have a brand new unassembled 91XG in my garage that I could steal the directors from:

11962


So you see Major Tom, everything is not good at Ground Control! :cool: So, in order to make lemonade out of lemons it takes a little work. And I think this is a perfect place to start.

11963


As far as giving me a nudge? I appreciate it, if you mean do I have the motivation? Well, you can read my other posts and see some of my hacks.

If you mean do I need to know what I'm actually doing? Not really. I've stopped my project and I'm of asking for the group's help here. Yes, I think I would like to see peak gain at RF36 608 mHz. I would like to get RG36 out of Milwaukee better. I've also tried for RF 36 out of Rockford Illinois but I don't think that's really ever going to happen.


So I appreciate all your input and keep it coming if you can and I will keep this group updated of my results.
 

Attachments

541 - 560 of 583 Posts
Top