Here is a little part 15.219 site design I scribbled out a few days ago. It should comply with the requirements set forth in 15.219 and still be pretty efficient while maintaining a decent audio bandwidth.
It won't break range records compared to a rangemaster (rangemaster has higher antenna q and more narrow audio bandwidth) but should come pretty close to the range of the am1000.
This came about because we are not really allowed anything outdoors mounted to the building or drilling holes for wires. There is a church next door with a large unused field just behind my rental unit. So I came up with this solar power microwave linked self contained site to not have any holes drilled in the walls or building. My back window faces the field so I can sit a 2.4g ism link inside my back window and beam it across the field to my site about 100ft away from building. Nothing outdoors on the landlords property or attached to building.
Should pass muster with the church fcc and landlord. The object is to put a decent signal over about a 700ft radius enough to go from the site to the opposite end of the complex property. It will probably be a littlest costly and take me sometime to gather up all the required parts, but doable. If someone wants to take my design and run with it have at it. Just credit me for the design. Enjoy. The tx used is a sstran amt5000 and processing a schlockwood sw200 and barix / ubiquiti for microwave links.
Oh wow. you're one of the few people who own an AMT5000. I'm curious about that design. I understand that tuning the output of the final in that transmitter can be a bit tricky if you want maximum efficiency. Shame that Phil B is no longer around to help out.
Let us know how it goes!
The eggbeater and cap hat seem redundant. If I had to choose, I'd go with the simpler cap hat spokes. However if pedestrian safety matters in this installation, the eggbeater does seem more safe.
The eggbeater and cap hat seem redundant. If I had to choose, I'd go with the simpler cap hat spokes. However if pedestrian safety matters in this installation, the eggbeater does seem more safe.
Out of curiosity only, Why makes the eggbeater cap to be redundant?
Out of curiosity only, Why makes the eggbeater cap to be redundant?
Both techniques improve capacitance from antenna top to ground, but the lowest one should dominate and much smaller eggbeater. I have a model for LMAM antennas handy so might try each technique and then both to better judge the differences.
Both techniques improve capacitance from antenna top to ground, but the lowest one should dominate and much smaller eggbeater. I have a model for LMAM antennas handy so might try each technique and then both to better judge the differences.
The late R Fry often emphasized the weakest point of radiation is by the time it reaches the top of the antenna.
Still don't get the eggbeater, or top hats for that matter, but when you said it was "redundant", it made me wonder again what it is supposed to do. I'm guessing it relates to Fry's observation.
There always been a question of their compliance though. Top hats and eggs.
Still don't get the eggbeater, or top hats for that matter, but when you said it was "redundant", it made me wonder again what it is supposed to do.
I should have qualified... they (top radials or top eggbeeater) are redundant to each other. Either performs the significant role of greatly increasing and less tapering the current along the vertical radiator... resulting in more field strength.
I have both capacity hat and the egg beater because there used to be a TIS antenna out there with this very design only 15m (49ft) tall instead of 3m.
and well i just thought it looked cool and figured that more capacitance on a shortened vertical can't hurt anything.
so why not?
also in order to get the combined capacitance of the egg beater without it i would need a solid capacity hat and not one with spokes.
i also wasn't able to log in for a while for some reason which is why i didn't respond sooner.