Expedient SATCOM Antenna

[Electron]

I've created an antenna that is growing in popularity very quickly. It is a field-expedient SATCOM antenna that weighs less than a pound and could fold up small enough to fit into a sandwich baggie. Since it is a high-angle satellite in that area, the antenna could plug directly into the PSC-5. It only takes about 10-15 minutes to make and will work when hand-held, tossed on the ground, mounted on a vehicle or a rooftop. It is flexible and durable and could replace the bulky "X" wing in a pinch. The Team Sergeant has posted the plans in the SF Only forum. Tests recently done have determined the actual gain to be somewhere around 2.6 dB.

[glebo]

I'm gonna PM you and give you my soc email. I'm the 18E training developer up here in SWC. If ya don't mind, showing/instructing the new E's on how to build that would be great for them. We teach them now how to build an expedient sat ant (three element yagi) with tinker toy sticks or pieces of wood, but if yours is different, hey another tool for the bag.

thanks

[Electron]

If anyone is interested, here's how: 1005 divided by the frequency in MHz will give you the length in feet. Multiply by 12 to get the length in inches. For example: a TX freq of 265 MHZ would require a 45 1/2 inch long wire. An RX freq of 250 MHz would require a wire 48 1/4 inches long. The RX freq is almost always lower than the TX freq, so the RX antenna would be slightly longer. (the closer you get to the exact length, the better your gain will be) Use the solid core 12-3 electrician wire that is normally used to wire household electrical sockets and stuff.

Use a BNC plug-to-two BNC jack Tee connector and two BNC plug-to-red and black binding post connectors. Connect the binding post connectors to the tee connector, ensuring that as you look at it, the same color posts are diagonal from each other. ADD 1 inch to the length of each of your wires to compensate for a stripped 1/2 inch, 90 degree bend at each end of the wire that will be inserted into the binding posts. Form each wire into a loop, insert the stripped end into the binding post and cinch down tightly. The RX loop must be on the bottom and the TX loop on top.

Connect to your radio and it's game-on.

[Swamp]

Electron, sent you a e-mail....Regards

[Electron]

Your antenna should look similar to this...

[Dealer]

PM Sent, E.

[Electron]

The NSN for the BNC to Binding Post connector is
5935-01-371-4140

The NSN for the BNC Plug to two BNC Jack is
5935-01-496-4794

The NSN for the 3-Piece BNC crimp connector is
5935-00-071-7477

Another useful NSN is for a connector adapter set:
5935-01-373-6505

[HeavyDrop]

I successfully made comms with higher during an air assault. I noted higher gain than the AV-2055 and it fit in my cargo pocket. Electron also adapted this idea for vehicle use. We rolled with it successfully for more than 2 months on GMV and RG31! Credit where credit is due!

[KillerCommo]

Sound alot better than what I'm working w/ now. I'd like some more info Electron. Thanks.

[Akinci]

PM sent

[Team Sergeant]

I successfully made comms with higher during an air assault. I noted higher gain than the AV-2055 and it fit in my cargo pocket. Electron also adapted this idea for vehicle use. We rolled with it successfully for more than 2 months on GMV and RG31! Credit where credit is due!

If and when you get the time get rid of the connectors. By looking at your set up you are losing quite a bit of gain with all those connectors.

What do you think Electron?

TS

[Chris Cram]

I successfully made comms with higher during an air assault. I noted higher gain than the AV-2055 and it fit in my cargo pocket. Electron also adapted this idea for vehicle use. We rolled with it successfully for more than 2 months on GMV and RG31! Credit where credit is due!

It looks like a plug-and-play from the parts box, circumventing the shorts issues. (clever)

As per TS's comment... By looking at your set up you are losing quite a bit of gain with all those connectors.

Could you prefab a PVC version using a single BNC mount, 4 Binding Posts and enough hot glue to keep clean, dry and intact?
Or are you trying to have a unit that you can put together and maintain with field parts?

Simplicity is a very good thing. :munchin

[HeavyDrop]

Getting rid of the connectors would help for sure. But the gain was adequate and using the connectors made it more durable and replaceable for use in the field. The versions that we constructed with the soldering iron were not as durable and needed to be encased in foam and wrapped in 100mph tape for use on the vehicles.

[charlietwo]

An Echo adding equipment to the team that doesn't weigh anything -- quite the concept! :p
Kudos, Electron! Can't beat ingenuity!

C2

[Electron]

I would recommend getting rid of the connectors if you can. Make all your measurements, add them up and try to make it from one continuous piece of wire. The one I have pictured above is made from one continuous piece with only one solder joint to connect the ends together. The other solder joint is to connect the RG-58 shield-to-ground. The connectors might affect the gain, but with the connectors, you can have a variety of wire lengths for a better frequency range, so there would be a trade-off from performance. Even the antenna using the connectors gets average gain.

[Chris Cram]

good morning Elec

In the photo above (antenna on hood), does/could the hood itself increase the efficiency of the antenna?

[Team Sergeant]

good morning Elec

In the photo above (antenna on hood), does/could the hood itself increase the efficiency of the antenna?

Depending on what it's made of, the hood should act as a bit of a reflector.

[The Reaper]

Depending on what it's made of, the hood should act as a bit of a reflector.

I believe that it is fiberglass.

TR

[Electron]

The effect of the earth ground, vehicles, building roofs, etc.. do not seem to have any effect on the performance of the antenna. You could even hold it in your hand. The bottom loop is the ground plane, so it doesn't matter where you place the anenna as long as it can see the sky and is pointed in the general direction of the satellite.

[Chris Cram]

I wish my homebrews worked as well.

Simple, tuff and efficient… So who holds the patent? :D :munchin

[Electron]

I got the basic idea from the AARL Antenna Handbook. I made numerous antennae that didn't work before I made one that does. Open source. See the instructions in the SF Only section.

[69harley]

Gents,

My favorite antenna guru had this to say about the dual loop antenna posted in this thread.

We might have an opportunity to play with this in the coming months, thanks for bringing it to our attention. It's an interesting structure.

Begin forwarded message:

We have two loops separated by 7 inches or so and fed 180 degrees out of phase.

Whatever the impedance of the loops at the operating freq. (240-320 MHz), the coaxial cable "sees" 1/2 that. Thus if the input impedance to each loop is 100 ohms, the coax connector will see 50 ohm load.

The spacing of the loops is 7 inches or so, and the wavelength is (lets say 280 MHz -- mid-band) approx 42 inches. Thus the spacing is 7/42 wavelengths = 0.17 wavelengths. This is too small to form a "beam" antenna. But; note that the loops have horizontal polarization along the horizon (if held with the plane of the loop horizontal) (it behaves as a magnetic dipole oriented vertically). The loops also have a polarization null directly overhead. And, since they are fed 180 deg. out of phase, they have a null at the horizon. The final pattern is a broad lobe at 30 to 60 degrees or so from vertical and nulls overhead and at the horizon. The polarization is "horizontal" from the point of view of a satellite near 45 degrees from user overhead.

So, we have a donut pattern.

Caution, there is also a downward mirror image pattern. Its reflection from the ground is messy.

Knowing the pattern can we estimate the gain? Not off the top of my head. I will go out on a limb and guess the gain is near 4 dBi minus losses due to the impedance mismatch.
-End of quote.

We built an antenna like the one in the pictures and will run it through testing in the test chamber in the next couple of months.

I will post the test results when they are completed. Not to discount any of the claims here, but claiming a gain above 10db for this antenna is ridiculous and irresponsible. Especially in this forum.

This in no way implies that RF engineers and their antenna modeling software programs are always right. According to most of them my 113 foot long piece of wire laying on the ground should never work, but it does.

I will post the formal results when they are completed.

[glebo]

I agree that the DB rating is a bit overated somewhat. Like mentioned by 69 harley, it's pretty much two full loops (one up-link, the other down link)...well not a quad, because that would be four elements, but two full wave loops somewhat in-phase (I believe). I "assume" the DB readings were taken off the display off the PSC-5, they are not the actual DB readings of the radiation off the antenna (you'd have to put that in an anochoic chamber, or input into some high speed program). I have talked to folks and they say it does work very well in that particular environment (CENTCOM). I would like some of the PACOM/SOUTHCOM commo guys try it out. It may have different characteristics in those areas due to the inherent ground characteristics. You can figure that out just by the AO's they are in.

We will start showing/building this antenna in the 18E course, just another thing to put in their "tool box" we t show them now to build an expedient three element yagi, (for VHF/UHF) amongst a couple of others, but that takes some pieces of wood or whatever for stability and spacing. This one kinda holds its own per se.

Anyway, I wish the 18E's would dive into the ARRL antenna handbook, no telling what may show up as a great expedient antenna, or whatever else they can come up with.

cheers.

[smitty]

I've created an antenna that is growing in popularity very quickly. It is a field-expedient SATCOM antenna that weighs less than a pound and could fold up small enough to fit into a sandwich baggie. Some teams reported gain readings from 38dB up to 44 dB while deployed to Afghanistan. Since it is a high-angle satellite in that area, the antenna could plug directly into the PSC-5. It only takes about 10-15 minutes to make and will work when hand-held, tossed on the ground, mounted on a vehicle or a rooftop. It is flexible and durable and could replace the bulky "X" wing. If anyone is interested, let me know.

Send me the info and I will put it to the test...

regards,
smitty

[69harley]

Gents,

My favorite antenna guru had this to say about the dual loop antenna posted in this thread.

We might have an opportunity to play with this in the coming months, thanks for bringing it to our attention. It's an interesting structure.

Begin forwarded message:

We have two loops separated by 7 inches or so and fed 180 degrees out of phase.

Whatever the impedance of the loops at the operating freq. (240-320 MHz), the coaxial cable "sees" 1/2 that. Thus if the input impedance to each loop is 100 ohms, the coax connector will see 50 ohm load.

The spacing of the loops is 7 inches or so, and the wavelength is (lets say 280 MHz -- mid-band) approx 42 inches. Thus the spacing is 7/42 wavelengths = 0.17 wavelengths. This is too small to form a "beam" antenna. But; note that the loops have horizontal polarization along the horizon (if held with the plane of the loop horizontal) (it behaves as a magnetic dipole oriented vertically). The loops also have a polarization null directly overhead. And, since they are fed 180 deg. out of phase, they have a null at the horizon. The final pattern is a broad lobe at 30 to 60 degrees or so from vertical and nulls overhead and at the horizon. The polarization is "horizontal" from the point of view of a satellite near 45 degrees from user overhead.

So, we have a donut pattern.

Caution, there is also a downward mirror image pattern. Its reflection from the ground is messy.

Knowing the pattern can we estimate the gain? Not off the top of my head. I will go out on a limb and guess the gain is near 4 dBi minus losses due to the impedance mismatch.
-End of quote.

We built an antenna like the one in the pictures and will run it through testing in the test chamber in the next couple of months.

I will post the test results when they are completed. Not to discount any of the claims here, but claiming a gain above 10db for this antenna is ridiculous and irresponsible. Especially in this forum.

This in no way implies that RF engineers and their antenna modeling software programs are always right. According to most of them my 113 foot long piece of wire laying on the ground should never work, but it does.

I will post the formal results when they are completed.

We have this antenna scheduled to go into the test chamber next week. I think the 44 db gain claim is way off and is borderline silly to claim in this forum.

We built one of these, and were able to close the loop on a good SC 25K bird. We did some preliminary testing using a PSC-5D and a 117F in manpack mode, with and external 25 watt amplifier (RAMP-25) and an external 100 watt amplifier (TSE-AM-SAT-100). In all three modes we did side by side testing with the experimental antenna, an AV-2055 without extenders and an AV-2011.

The 117F and PSC-5D were able to max all loopback tests with the 2011, regardless of amplifiers used or not used. With the 2055, loopback test were consistently in the 80 percent range. The experimental antenna averaged 65 percent.

The 20011 has 15 db of gain, the 2055 without extenders is 5 db, we guess the experimental to be around 4 db of gain.

This antenna works, but nowhere near the 44 db claimed.

Like I said, next week it will go into the RF test chamber, the results will be posted here.

[SF_BHT]

We have this antenna scheduled to go into the test chamber next week. I think the 44 db gain claim is way off and is borderline silly to claim in this forum.

We built one of these, and were able to close the loop on a good SC 25K bird. We did some preliminary testing using a PSC-5D and a 117F in manpack mode, with and external 25 watt amplifier (RAMP-25) and an external 100 watt amplifier (TSE-AM-SAT-100). In all three modes we did side by side testing with the experimental antenna, an AV-2055 without extenders and an AV-2011.

The 117F and PSC-5D were able to max all loopback tests with the 2011, regardless of amplifiers used or not used. With the 2055, loopback test were consistently in the 80 percent range. The experimental antenna averaged 65 percent.

The 20011 has 15 db of gain, the 2055 without extenders is 5 db, we guess the experimental to be around 4 db of gain.

This antenna works, but nowhere near the 44 db claimed.

Like I said, next week it will go into the RF test chamber, the results will be posted here.

Like Glebo said before they are taking reading of of their radios. They do not have access to the equipment you must have and you have to give them credit for trying to reduce the load and make a item that will work in their environment. Please do not stifle their creativeness with High Tech Lab critiques. I work with a lot of Electronics Engineers that are smarter than all of us. They can build a lot of stuff in a Lab but it does not make the grade out side. We all know that the db readings are not right but this antenna does work. I have built 2 (soldered/Connecters) and have used them in SA in the last week. Not as good as the factory ones but it is not intended to totally replace them. You can put it in your pouch and get up and running, if your factory one breaks/blown up/etc you now know how to make a field expedient one.

I applaud Electron for thinking outside the box and it looks like 18E's are and have been using them with success. Looking forward to the bench test next week. Never hurts to have an extra antenna. Remenber 1 is none, 2 is 1.

[glebo]

I concur with what SF_BHT had to say. My hats off to electron for figuring this thing out and getting it out to the 18E and commo community. As far as 69 Harley wanting to test the antenna, that is a good idea so we really know what its capabilities and characteristics are. I don't think (and I am speaking for myself) we are trying to denegrate that antenna. Just trying to get the correct facts out, after all we are supposed to be the "experts".

I think its another great tool for the E toolbox, anything to help out the Joe's is great.

Anyway, my .02 worth.

keep the shiny side up!

[Roger_Out]

Anyone able to shoot me the specs so we can give it a try out our way? Be nice to have for the air insertions we are doing on a regular basis right now, for use with the 148 to report up the chain. Using the 2055 right now, but if it can save some setup time and make moving around on the ground with it available for use, that would be great. We've been pulling out the 2055 when we hit the ground and just walking around with it setup, but when you're on the ground 2 hours being tethered to that thing can get to be kind of an annoyance. Thanks guys.

[69harley]

There are two non-Trivec antennas that I have used and really like.

One is made by RF Concepts and marketed exclusively by TSE Inc, has a quick draw holster, a solid 6db of gain and is very light. My wife can un-stow it, make comms and holster it in under 30 seconds. My wife has never been in the military, I just use her to test stuff.

9943


The other antenna is made by Syntonics, very light weight and incredibly rugged, not impossible to break, but much more durable than anything made by Trivec. This antenna includes a true reflector and provides 5 or 8db of gain, depending on if the gain extender is used.

9944

Unlike anything made by Trivec, both of these antennas are available from TSE in less than 30 days.

[Electron]

The gain reading of 40+ was taken from the display from the PSC-5D with the antenna on the roof of an RG-31 while deployed with the satellite at a high angle at mid-afternoon and the gain reading of 34 was taken from the PSC-5D front panel with the antenna resting on the ground (again deployed, late afternoon with a high-angle satellite).

I look forward to test results from "the chamber" to get some actual scientific data and true gain readings. I am not claiming this to be the greatest thing since the pyramids, but it is useful as a field-expedient antenna if your X-wing or AV-2040 is out of commission.

I fully support and recommend putting this through the gambit of tests. One word to the personnel testing the antenna, try connecting a trimmer capacitor (6-70 pF) and connect it between the (+) and the (-). This may help with tuning.

[69harley]

The RF test chamber is located in the Quantico area. If you are in the know then you know where I am referring to.

Our engineers have several tweaks to apply to this antenna. The trim capacitor being one of them.

We will try to do as many different tests as possible, however, our paid reason for being in the chamber is a different project. I am going to work this antenna in as much as possible, but we only have the test chamber for a certain amount of time.

At the very least we will measure the antenna gain, front to back ratio, and radiation lobes.

[steelcobra]

I'm currently working with a variant designed from electron's specs he gave me using the materials readily available that we have in our commo shop. Using RG213 as the radiators, it gets solid VSWR for an improvised antenna, but I'm having issues correcting the impedance. When connected directly to a PSC-5, it gets a crystal clear transmit, with light static receive.

I tried using a sleeve balun (non-radiating model constructed from a 1/4 wavelength copper tube around the cable, then electrically connected to the sleeve opposite the connector, worked for a UHF dipole) but though it improved the VSWR, it still didn't function through the cable. I'm thinking of trying a choke balun next, but stuck trying to figure out the diameter/coil length.

[69harley]

We had the field expediant in the test chamber for a couple of tests today. The customer is paying for other stuff, but we had some setup time in between the 'paid tests' that were able to use.

BLUF - 2.6 -2.9 db of gain over the entire UFH SATCOM range. The radiation pattern that comes off this antenna is not as focused as say a 2055 or 2040. On the chart it looks more like funnel than beam. It may be able to be fine tuned by adjusting all of the variables, but without dedicated chamber time it would be almost like finding a needle in a haystack.

Maybe someone out there has a bunch of EOY money left over and would like to buy some test chamber time?

Anyway, 2.5-2.7 db of gain on a homemade array is not bad at all.

K

[Electron]

Thank you for the effort to get the info on the antenna. The data you provided will be valuable to those in the field.

[glebo]

We had the field expediant in the test chamber for a couple of tests today. The customer is paying for other stuff, but we had some setup time in between the 'paid tests' that were able to use.

BLUF - 2.6 -2.9 db of gain over the entire UFH SATCOM range. The radiation pattern that comes off this antenna is not as focused as say a 2055 or 2040. On the chart it looks more like funnel than beam. It may be able to be fine tuned by adjusting all of the variables, but without dedicated chamber time it would be almost like finding a needle in a haystack.

Maybe someone out there has a bunch of EOY money left over and would like to buy some test chamber time?

Anyway, 2.5-2.7 db of gain on a homemade array is not bad at all.

K
is that dbi or dbd?? If it's dbi, thats only about equivelent to a 1/2 wave doublet. A doublet has 2.14 db's over isotropic.

But, hey as they say, what's the best antenna?.......the one that works!

[Electron]

...been getting some good feedback on the antenna... This is an e-mail I received the other day. I've omitted the name, number and unit information.

<<Electron>>,
We tested your antenna today with excellent results. We were running data thru FTP on a DAMA channel, antenna cut to freq for the channel and had 40 – 50 RSI. Had it tilted on a ruck…was ok, had it tilted by hand and of course it worked much better since the birds on the horizon. Thought I’d share this with you, many thanks.
r/
<<Name Omitted>>

XXXXXXXXXXXX
Training Instructor, Communications
Co _, __ BN, ________ (A)
(XXX) XXX-XXXX, DSN-XXX-XXXX

[glebo]

Good news, one of the committee guys (SATCOM Inst.) said he was gonna build one and test it. Also the guys out at Robin Sage. Hope it works out well for them. Thanks for making it available Electron.

[L-10]

what is the 1500 in the formula?

1500/ MHZ = L L * 12= ----inches

[The Reaper]

what is the 1500 in the formula?

1500/ MHZ = L L * 12= ----inches


Better question, who are you and why did you not comply with your registration message or the stickies before jumping into a discussion?

TR

[L-10]

Hey Reaper my bad for posting on here first.

[Electron]

The fomula is 1005 divided by the frequency in MHz, then multiplied by 12 to get the length in inches. If you divide by 1500, your antenna length will be way off and you will probably experience the standing wave phenomenon.

[L-10]

What is 1005 supposed to be is what I'm asking?

[SF_BHT]

What is 1005 supposed to be is what I'm asking?

Young man go to the 3rd post in this thread and read it carefully. It is very simple and all the info is there.

[Razor]

What is 1005 supposed to be is what I'm asking?

Do you mean, what does the value 1005 (or 234 for a 1/4 wave, or 468 for a 1/2 wave antenna) represent in the equation? Where did that number come from, right?

[L-10]

What does the value 1005 represent?

[Electron]

1005 is the number you must use to obtain a full wave antenna (no other fraction will work other than full wave). An RF engineer probably came up with 1005's use in the fomula. I didn't come up with that number, I just trust the fomula to be true. For further reading, obtain a copy of the ARRL Antenna book or the ARRL Handbood for RF engineering reference. This is not the appropriate forum to get into detailed arithmetic lessons.

[Razor]

This is not the appropriate forum to get into detailed arithmetic lessons.

Um...says who?

Its ok if you don't know the answer to a question, but be careful about belittling a person asking a question simply because you can't explain it.

[The Reaper]

I believe that 1005 is a constant.

TR

[Razor]

I believe that 1005 is a constant.

I'm sure you're correct. In the interest of trivia, it would be interesting to understand from where it was derived. You can take the boy out of engineering, but... :)

[Electron]

My aploogies to anyone offended. I don't know where the 1005 came from, but the formula seems to work.

[greg700]

The 1005 is an approximate number for a full wavelength loop antenna. It is derived from the speed at which electrons will travel along a conducting wire, so that the 'waves' of energy that are being transmitted from the radio through the wire will reinforce each other, thus forcing the emission of radiation.

To get back on topic:

Could this antenna be produced with some sort of spring-steel wire so it can be balled up in a pocket and then just 'spring' back to shape whenever it is removed? You could leave a small slider attachment at one end of each wire to allow for frequency tweeks. I am a lazy echo, and if I can just whip something out of my pocket and start talking, I am sold.

[Electron]

I was looking in the ARRL Antenna Book and they have similar antennae in a triangular pattern with each leg at 1/3 wavelength and in a square/diamond pattern with each leg at 1/4 wavelength. I suppose using that idea, spring loaded elements could work. If you have the resources and the time, perhaps the spring loaded idea could be experemented with. As it is, the loops can be folded and shoved into a small stowage pouch.

[Razor]

The 1005 is an approximate number for a full wavelength loop antenna. It is derived from the speed at which electrons will travel along a conducting wire, so that the 'waves' of energy that are being transmitted from the radio through the wire will reinforce each other, thus forcing the emission of radiation.

Interesting stuff...thanks!

[HardRoad]

The 1005 is an approximate number for a full wavelength loop antenna. It is derived from the speed at which electrons will travel along a conducting wire, so that the 'waves' of energy that are being transmitted from the radio through the wire will reinforce each other, thus forcing the emission of radiation.


To "amplify" this: to be efficient, an antenna needs to resonate at the frequency of the radio broadcast - sort of like a tuning fork. An antenna that is a full wavelength long for the frequency being broadcast is one of the resonant lengths an antenna can have.

Frequency and wavelength are related to each other by the constant c, the speed of light propagating in vacuum.

(Because, for an electromagnetic wave to travel at the speed of light, it has to move 300,000 km / 186,000 miles every second - the shorter the length of the individual wave - the wavelength - the more times the wave has to repeat - the frequency - to make it that far every second. That's why Echoes use to love 20MHz and higher, and dread the 5MHz shots. The antenna got shorter at higher frequencies and thus easier to get up in a tree)

Since light moves at 300,000 km / sec, which equals 300 Mm /sec, dividing the frequency in MHz by the speed of light in Mega-meters (300 Mm) gives you the wavelength in meters. Convert the 300 for feet gives you 984, so the formula for a full wavelength is frequency in Mhz / 984 = wavelength in feet.

So, an infinitely thin wire in a vacuum would be resonant using 984. The 1005 comes from the difference in physical length and electrical length of a physical antenna. The sum of capacitive and inductive effects in a real world antenna make it seem longer to the radio transmitter (its electrical length) than it actually is (its physical length.) So, the 1005 is an empirical number that gives good results in real world antennae.

[Electron]

I'm back "over there" and have been sharing the knowledge. The antenna is accepted well; within the first month, I made and distributed 15 antennas and taught about 20 people how to build them. An 18B who made one plugged it in to his PSC-5 and got a squelch reading (on the PSC-5 display) of -33 on his first try. Good to have if the X-wing or egg beater breaks or to replace the AV 2055-3 strapped to the hood.

Oh by the way, I've turned a few dudes on to this web site as well...

[Bones25U]

This design is one I used in Afghanistan in 2005. I was the commo SGT for an MP company out of Vicenza, IT at the time and our unit was conducting missions outside of LOS range IVO Bagram. We needed "X-wings" but at the time they were few and far between. I heard a rumor that there was a "reserve" commo guy there on BAF who had developed a homemade satcom antenna and was willing to show us how it was built. After some searching, I was able to find him, a crusty old SSG who had probably forgotten more about comms than I will ever learn. He showed me and my troop how to make them, and we created four working models. The copper was run through PVC, and we mounted them onto the back of our gun-trucks using ratchet straps.

I don't remember that SSG's name, only that he was more than willing to share some knowledge with a rookie who needed his help.

I've included a pic that shows it mounted on my CDR's truck.

[flash_gordon]

Can you provide some details how it was made then?

[The Reaper]

Can you provide some details how it was made then?

I don't know, can you read the rules and stickies on this board and comply before posting further?

TR

[Electron]

I'm not surprised that there are variations of the antenna out there. It would be conceited to think I was the only one to think of something like this. He probably read the ARRL antenna book too (or helped write it). I met a pretty knowledgeable guy a few years back. He had a 1/2 mile antenna strung over his property, receiving transmissions from all over the world.

[Bones25U]

I'm not surprised that there are variations of the antenna out there. It would be conceited to think I was the only one to think of something like this. He probably read the ARRL antenna book too (or helped write it). I met a pretty knowledgeable guy a few years back. He had a 1/2 mile antenna strung over his property, receiving transmissions from all over the world.


Sounds like my kind of guy. If I'm ever in NC, I'll look you guys up for a beer or two.

[Electron]

Since I got here in January 2009, I made over 100 antennas and showed over 30 people how to make them. I told them all about this site and asked them to voice their opinion...good or bad...about the antenna. Some said it works great for them and others said it is marginal. We will see if anyone downrange has any honest assessments about this antenna. I have a thick skin, if you have any negativity or any comments on room for improvement, this is the forum to say so. I will build some more models and work on the tuning and refine it some more...PLEASE give me some FEEDBACK!!!!

[BBCommo]

Electron, I have been looking into your antenna and I am working on one myself. I am going off of your picture from the earlier pages, I think I shouldn't have a problem refabricating one to test myself. I'm pretty excited about this. I will give an update once it is complete.

[Bechorg]

Good backup antenna Mike. Used it on a mountainside the other day smack dab in the armpit of the world- worked fine. I did however have to point it at the satellite and it would not work while on the ground facing up. Interesting propagation. Will be giving you a call next BAF trip.

Matt

[Amato]

Is there anything that can be used in place of the BNC plug-to-red and black binding post connectors? I am having a hell of a time finding them in my current location.

[BBCommo]

Is there anything that can be used in place of the BNC plug-to-red and black binding post connectors? I am having a hell of a time finding them in my current location.


i don't know if this helps or not, but my commo shop calls them "copperheads", and your commo shop should have them, or they have the ability to order them. I hope this helps.

[Amato]

Have a picture of what it may look like? As of right now I cannot order shit because I am in the SouthCom AOR.

[HeavyDrop]

Just completed another OEF rotation. Antenna performed great - again. Lightweight, easily replaceable. Worked dismounted and mounted. I just sent two more brand new 18Es over to find Mike for help with this antenna. The word is spreading.

This antenna was also used to lower the profile of our Non-tactical vehicles (i.e. Landrovers). Nothing says "ambush this truck" like a giant X-wing antenna.

Nothing against sexy, (pricey) antennas. But just try to put one of those expensive SAT antennas on your DSOR - it will be denied (unless you work in the CIF or someplace like that).

[Electron]

Here is a link to an electronics supplier with a picture of the connector you wanted.

http://www.mouser.com/Interconnects/RF-Connectors/_/N-2eu93?P=1yzxo27&Keyword=connectors&FS=True

[BMT (RIP)]

http://skycraftsurplus.com/

I got my binding post here, cost was $2.00 a piece.

BMT

[Electron]

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19986

There's also an NSN for it. This is a link to an earlier post.

[USMCRonin]

I'm gonna try my hand at constructing one of these this evening, and see how it works out. I'll let you guys know. Here is a picture of the "Copperhead" in question as well.

[fitz0306]

This sounds a lot like the Hathaway antenna? Any replies?

[The Reaper]

This sounds a lot like the Hathaway antenna? Any replies?

Yes.

Reread the board rules and stickies and comply before posting again.

That would include posting a proper intro and filling out your profile.

TR

[Electron]

Fitz, yes it is that antenna.

I am working on a flat version of a SATCOM antenna, still in the experimental stage using various gauges of wire 30 AWG magnet wire, 26, 24, etc. When and if I make comms, I will post the success/failure here.

Someone told me about anoter expedient satcom antenna that looks like an ant's antennae. Has anyone else heard about this one? Does it work okay?

[Fatum Me Ducat]

Someone told me about anoter expedient satcom antenna that looks like an ant's antennae. Has anyone else heard about this one? Does it work okay?

i was talking to a signal chief just a few minutes ago and he mentioned that a sigdet guy in iraq was making making what he described as "rabbit ears". He said the guy was using some type of t connectors and heavy duty, rigid bare copper wire. said they werent very long either but they worked really well as a field expedient antenna. probably the same antenna as you've heard about by the way he described them.

I also did a preliminary test on your antenna today. i had to finger bang it a bit but i think it might work. instead of using any connectors at the end of the feed line into the antenna i soldered the thing together and taped it. i didn't have any rigid wire so i used the insulated core from the coax to actually make the antenna itself. i didn't attempt an actual voice comms check because the net was a little busy. i was reading around an idle -12 squelch on the display which bothered me a bit and had an average loopback rss of 130. i'm not sure if its just the pacom bird/channel we're on or something else but with a 2055, un-amplified i'm only getting a -20ish non tx/rx squlech with a loopback of 105. but, we're pushing data/voice with no problems so i guess i can live with that. anyway, i'm going to try and send some data and voice tomorrow and if that is successful i am going to try some tacsat on the move.

[Electron]

I'm not surprised there are other people making this antenna. I've shown dozens of ppl how to make them. For the plans to filter to Iraq only makes sense. Remember, you will get better gain if your antenna is made out of Romex solid core 12 AWG wire, not a stranded type of wire. Plus, you might want to flatten it out a little bit so the standoff is about 5-6 inches.

[allester666]

Electron or any SME on this topic,

Can you advise me on how exactly to make this antenna without connectors? I can's readily get the connectors right now, and this antenna fits the profile as far as what i need for a few reasons. Thanks to anyone who can help...

[Electron]

As you can see by the picture, the inner conductor of the RG-58 or RG-174 is connected to the small (TX) top loop at the solder connection. The shield to ground is connected to the large (RX) loop directly south of it. Both connections should be as close to the bend as you can. Hope this helps. If you have any other guidance please let me know. Also, let us all know how it works out for you...

[allester666]

Thanks for the close up pictures, they help greatly! I still have a couple questions for you;

1) When using one continuous wire, do you add additional wire to both the TX/RX loops in order to form the "X"? Or do you subtract the 5 inches of wire needed to form the "X" from the TX/RX loops?

2) Has anyone experienced damages to their radio's when using this antenna? By the nature of its design, it seems that this antenna would be creating a short circuit...Just curious if any SME's are finding that their MBITR's or PSC-5's are getting damaged. Thanks for the help!

[Electron]

When using a continuous piece of wire, I calculate the full wave length for the uplink frequency, the full wave length for the downlink frequency, then add 10 inches (5 inches for each leg of the "X" and another 1/4 inch for the overlap of the solder joint.

As for the performance of this antenna, read this thread. One of our members put it to the test in an RF chamber at Quantico (Pages 2 and 3 of this thread). Plus the feedback from the Soldiers who made them and used them.

[allester666]

Thanks to all who helped me in construction of this antenna...it has proved to be useful and effective for my team. One of our team trucks had an X-wing antenna that worked well when it was oriented in the right direction, but was not a 100 percent solution...

So I mounted a HALO expedient SATCOM antenna to the head (Xwing on the back) and can switch between the two depending on the direction of travel/parking. Using a RAMP, I hook the expedient antenna to the LOS side, and it works wonderfully. My base station said I was coming in very clear. Paired up with my SILYNX comms switch, I can easily drive while sending traffic. My other team truck wears two expedient antenna's, so that my Team Sergeant can have SATCOMs as well. Thanks again for all the help Electron and everyone else!

[69harley]

Using a RAMP, I hook the expedient antenna to the LOS side, and it works wonderfully.

By RAMP do you mean the RAMP-25 amplifier made by TSE? Or is this a different piece of equipment?

[allester666]

69Harley,

Yes, the RAMP from TSE is the one we use.

[Radio Guy]

I'm confused, I thought the RAMP-25 and RAMP-75 were designed and mfd by Tricom Research and only distributed by TSE. Can anyone confirm this?
Radio Guy

69Harley,

Yes, the RAMP from TSE is the one we use.

[69harley]

The JITC website tells no lies. According to JITC, TSE Inc certified the RAMP-25 and RAMP-75 several years before Tricom came out with what looks like a knockoff of the TSE products.

I have personally used several of the knock off units made by Tricom and everyone of them failed miserably. Even had the engineer/designer/owner of Tricom slam his amp on the bench to get it to work.

The guys at TSE Inc are from this community and build great stuff. Just makes sense that some fly-by-night company would copy them.

[Surgicalcric]

I'm confused, I thought...

RG:

You need to re/read the welcome email you received when you registered and follow the instructions contained therein.

Welcome to PS.com.

Crip

[olegsher]

Being a Communications/DSP/Electronics Officer/Engineer/Consultant I took a challenge to find the best design for the antenna and did some Modeling/optimization to get:
a. max wideband within Satcom frequency range
b. maximum gain

One thing that should be added to the antenna - polarizer. The military satellites are using righht-hand circular polarization (RHCP), and we need to add the piece of wire to the TOP LEFT post, about 8 inches. That gives us additional 3dB of gain.

Attached are the files from NEC4 simulation software. The optimum dimensions are:
Top loop - 40", strip 1" on each end, bend 0.5" into the post.
Bottom Loop - 50", strip insulation 1" at the each end, bend 0.5" into the post.
Polarizer wire - 8", strip 0.5" wrap around the LEFT post.

Addidionally, here is the photo of "Pizza Hut" version - worked great!!!

I hope that will be useful to all.

[glebo]

Being a Communications/DSP/Electronics Officer/Engineer/Consultant I took a challenge to find the best design for the antenna and did some Modeling/optimization to get:
a. max wideband within Satcom frequency range
b. maximum gain

One thing that should be added to the antenna - polarizer. The military satellites are using righht-hand circular polarization (RHCP), and we need to add the piece of wire to the TOP LEFT post, about 8 inches. That gives us additional 3dB of gain.

Attached are the files from NEC4 simulation software. The optimum dimensions are:
Top loop - 40", strip 1" on each end, bend 0.5" into the post.
Bottom Loop - 50", strip insulation 1" at the each end, bend 0.5" into the post.
Polarizer wire - 8", strip 0.5" wrap around the LEFT post.

Addidionally, here is the photo of "Pizza Hut" version - worked great!!!

I hope that will be useful to all.

Nice to see pics...for us knuckle draggers it puts it into perspective.

Are the patterns from a program or a chamber???

[olegsher]

Nice to see pics...for us knuckle draggers it puts it into perspective.

Are the patterns from a program or a chamber???

The patterns are from a simulation program. I expect that the chamber tests will be within 1-2 dB. NEC4 is usually pretty good at that.

I will be teaching this antenna design to 25 soldiers during next pre-deployment training.

[Paragrouper]

Being a Communications/DSP/Electronics Officer/Engineer/Consultant I took a challenge to find the best design for the antenna and did some Modeling/optimization to get:
a. max wideband within Satcom frequency range
b. maximum gain

One thing that should be added to the antenna - polarizer. The military satellites are using righht-hand circular polarization (RHCP), and we need to add the piece of wire to the TOP LEFT post, about 8 inches. That gives us additional 3dB of gain.

Attached are the files from NEC4 simulation software. The optimum dimensions are:
Top loop - 40", strip 1" on each end, bend 0.5" into the post.
Bottom Loop - 50", strip insulation 1" at the each end, bend 0.5" into the post.
Polarizer wire - 8", strip 0.5" wrap around the LEFT post.

Addidionally, here is the photo of "Pizza Hut" version - worked great!!!

I hope that will be useful to all.

I noticed that you had a fairly significant variance in your SWR and reflection coefficient in the portion of the band below 260 MHz. As this includes a large chunk of the 243-270 MHz receive (downlink) band, do you think it would be possible to improve the SWR performance across this portion of the band by modifying the design? Perhaps trade some the gain performance in the TX (uplink) band? Did you run a model on the gain in the receive band?

[olegsher]

Really good point!!
But this was done on purpose - the SATCOM system is asymmetrical - the Satellite Vehicle Platforms (Satellites) are more powerful (150W) than ground stations (5-20-50W). Additionally, SWR is much more important on the transmit side - we can pull out the signal lost on the receive side with som LNA (Low Noise Amplifier), but you cannot do anything with the transmit power lost due to the impedance mismatch.
Ground Stations Rx frequencies are 240-270Mhz, Tx Frequencies 270-320Mhz.
The optimization on SWR was favoring Tx portion of the band with the ratio of 4:1 over the SWR on Rx side.
Quite opposite was done for the Gain - the geometry was optimized to get the maximum gain on Rx portion of the SATCOM band.
The final optimization was to find the best balance between those two contradicting requirements.

[Paragrouper]

Really good point!!
But this was done on purpose - the SATCOM system is asymmetrical - the Satellite Vehicle Platforms (Satellites) are more powerful (150W) than ground stations (5-20-50W). Additionally, SWR is much more important on the transmit side - we can pull out the signal lost on the receive side with som LNA (Low Noise Amplifier), but you cannot do anything with the transmit power lost due to the impedance mismatch.
Ground Stations Rx frequencies are 240-270Mhz, Tx Frequencies 270-320Mhz.
The optimization on SWR was favoring Tx portion of the band with the ratio of 4:1 over the SWR on Rx side.
Quite opposite was done for the Gain - the geometry was optimized to get the maximum gain on Rx portion of the SATCOM band.
The final optimization was to find the best balance between those two contradicting requirements.

I read your response with some interest and I will offer you a few things to consider.

When I said you had a “significant variance” well, that was an understatement. Because of the sensitivity of TACSAT receivers TACSAT antennas designs try to stay below 2:1. The entire premise that you optimize the uplink band is incorrect, as you are only comparing power transmitted without considering the receiver portion of the link. Unlike the ground terminals, the satellite has an array of high efficiency antennas, sensitive receivers and a clean electromagnetic environment. The ground terminals, on the other hand, have a lower sensitivity and are very susceptible to harmful interference from other emitters. They are further handicapped by scintillation effects as well as ground effects (diffraction, super and sub refraction, etc…) in certain environments. LNA’s will often exacerbate the noise issue, as they themselves may only generate a small amount of noise, but they will happily amplify any environmental noise or other interference in the receive path. All of these effects degrade the receive sensitivity and require more signal in order to achieve link—something the satellite cannot compensate for. They also have to accommodate the loss of power from the satellite transponders as they age.

You stated that you optimized the gain of the RX side (and I still would like to see your plots), but your model significantly degrades the efficiency of the downlink band from barely acceptable at 259 MHz to atrocious at 240 MHz via the SWR indicated. I was also troubled by your plots, as they indicate gain at zenith (dBic) to be 6.3 and your 3dB beamwidth to be ~110 degrees. Assuming an Omni-directional radiation pattern your gain at peak of beam should be closer to 0dBic. Either you have an error in your chart, or the model does not exhibit a 360 degree radiation pattern.

The antenna in this thread has been around for a while and is generally accepted to work. I recommend you review your model more before you make further suggestions to change it. A couple of links that provide background:

Combating Low UHF-SATOM Downlink Margin—a White paper prepared by Raytheon E-Systems
http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/TaCom/papers/38-03.pdf

MIL-STD-188-181A Interoperability Standard for Single Access 5 KHz and 25 KHz UHF SATCOM Channels (also available on AKO)
http://rodolfo.ips.es/HTML/06radio/Satelites/SATCOM/VARIOS/m188181a.pdf

Interference on UHF SATCOM Channels, Barrie Strachan, SPAWAR, San Diego
http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/TaCom/papers99/36_6.pdf

Multi-Service Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for UHF TACSAT and DAMA Operations, FM 6-02.9 (available on AKO)
http://www.uhf-satcom.com/uhf/r3403g.pdf

[olegsher]

Thank you for keeping good and interesting discussion.
I have all documents that you mentioned, except SPAWAR one, in my library, but SPAWAR is a real good read - thanks again.
My argument will be - if you look at the distribution of the Rx frequencies on majority of the 25KHz channels, all of them start at 252MHz and up. The 244-252 MHz band is used for narrowband 5KHz channels, and usually they are allocated for ANDVT traffic. In all our requests for SATCOM we were always given 25KHz channels, both for DAMA and dedicated. That's why I decided to assign a lesser weight to that 244-252 Mhz band.
Second, the SWR is much more critical to Tx side - in HF radios (PRC-138, PRC-150 ALE for example), the SWR minimization tuning is only done on Tx, but not Rx side. And there is a valid reson for that - if you have bad SWR on transmit, then in all radios ALC (Automatic Level Control) kicks in when the SWR is usually more than 1:1.5, and as the result, the output power is immediately reduced, hitting you with the double wammy. That also prevents the output cascades of the power amp from frying when your antenna is not connected or is short circuited (SWR is really bad then). On the other hand, the receive side SWR is not that important. Basically it boils down to "You can receive with any piece of wire, but you cannot transmit into any piece of wire".
And that brings us to your good point about directivity (beamforming) of the antenna. This is what important on receiving, when it is necessary to properly filter useful signal from the environmental noise (as the article you suggested points). And for this antenna by its design, without additional reflectors (like in AV 2055-3) there is no way to get any serious suppression of the sidelobes.

Again, the point of computer simulation and optimization was to create an antenna that will behave nicely in a wide frequency range, without the need to recalculate and retune.
To convert the dimensions that I provided to the L = 1005/F formula, the equivalent sizes are: FTX = 318MHz, FRX = 251MHz, so this is not a big change from the original design. The most important thing that I would like to stress is the addition of the polarizer - the 8" wire that gives you extra 3dB of gain for RHCP relative to a isotropic antenna.

[olegsher]

I forgot to answer the question on the gain.
Usually you can either normalize the gain, or have it graphed relative to isotropic radiator. I used the later.
Just for comparison - here are calculations for the Avant-Trivec 2055-3, and as you can see the results are pretty dead on what they claim:
Frequency 240-318MHz
VSWR 1.5:1
Polarization Right Hand Circular
Gain +10.5 dBi, 244-318 MHz
Power Handling 200 Watts CW
Axial Ratio 3 dB at half power points
Weight 3.1 pounds
Connector BNC Female

You can see that the attached charts give the same result.

[allester666]

I would just like to add some notes to this discussion. The expedient SATCOM antenna has worked for my element with great success. I would like to point out to anyone using this design using a R-AMP from TSE something stated in the manual...The R-AMP is a low noise amplifier. This is a feature that doesn't match up perfectly when using an MBITR for VX SATCOM through the SATCOM port. Hook up your radio/antenna to the LOS adapter on the R-AMP to get the best results, which I have had great ones using an MBITR through a R-AMP. Best of luck, and thank you for this discussion

[69harley]

To clarify, the RAMP-25 provides 10db of gain on it's dedicated SATCOM port. The amplifier is also able to operate on SATCOM frequencies while in the LOS mode. The LOS port operates on the entire 30-512 MHz range but does not provide any receive amplification. The RAMP-25 provides 18-40 watts Rf output depending on input DC voltage and RF input.

The commo gods at TSE Inc have recently come out with their new MB50 amplifier. I saw Ed get 50 watts out of the MB50 while connected to a single BA-5590. The new amp has a better form factor, increased power output, added waveforms and improved output connectors. The LOS connector is now the same as the big radios, which allows us to connect the same whip and donkey dick antennas we use not he big radios.

[Electron]

Try filter tuning your PSC-5 with the antenna. This might help with a BIT fault you might get. See thread link below.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19022&highlight=Chicken+Soup+PSC-5

[Radio Guy]

FYI, I did some checking into the Tricom/TSE amplifier debate and Tricom originally designed and made the RAMP-25, RAMP-75 and several other amplifiers where TSE was a reseller of these items but apparently got a trademark on the "RAMP-XYZ" name.

TSE and Tricom eventually had a falling out and TSE had another company design and manufacture a look alike amp to the Tricom units which is what they now market.

The Tricom made RAMP-25 was JTIC certified in late '07 and the Tricom made RAMP-75 was certified in late '06, both were sold through TSE and other vendors.

The newer TSE RAMP-25 and 75 designed and made by a third party for TSE came out in early '09 and were later certified.

Bottom line is, Tricom is not a fly by night company, they are the originators of this series of amps and TSE was a reseller of their products.

I'm not trying to trash TSE in any way, just pointing out some facts.

Respectfully,
Radio Guy




The JITC website tells no lies. According to JITC, TSE Inc certified the RAMP-25 and RAMP-75 several years before Tricom came out with what looks like a knockoff of the TSE products.

I have personally used several of the knock off units made by Tricom and everyone of them failed miserably. Even had the engineer/designer/owner of Tricom slam his amp on the bench to get it to work.

The guys at TSE Inc are from this community and build great stuff. Just makes sense that some fly-by-night company would copy them.

[69harley]

That does not make sense. JITC is where MANUFACTURERS have their products certified. Funny that not a single other 'reseller' had an amplifier certified. EVERYONE with equipment listed on the JITC website is a manufacturer. Tricom didn't come on the scene until several years after TSE. Looks like Tricom copied a product designed, manufactured and cretified by the good people at TSE, most of which happen to be Quite Proffessionals. Your information is skewed.

[Radio Guy]

I own two RAMP-75 and two AM-SAT-50 amps and have first hand knowledge of the two companies, no skewed info here.

I purchased the two TSE labeled RAMP-75 amplifiers from an asset recovery company (lost UPS shipment stuff) and they appeared NIB but had problems. I contacted Ed at TSE who was very gracious in getting me info and suggestions on troubleshooting the units but in the end they were well beyond user repair.

Ed at TSE finally put me in contact with the designer and manufacturer of these amplifiers which was Tricom Research, I still have the emails from Ed on this.

Tricom is not far from my location and after some conversations Tricom agreed to waive the usual checkout fee for an out of warranty unit and I was at their front door at 8am the next morning with one of the amps.

I toured the Tricom factory, met some of the design, assembly and test team and I can tell you with my past career at Hughes Aircraft designing and building microwave and RF equipment I can say the operation is first class.

Tricom found my units had been shipped to an end user, were defective and were lost in the return mail back to TSE or the factory. The guys at Tricom proceeded to replace a defective board supplied by another vendor while I waited. They ran it through final QC and handed me the repaired amp and a printout of its performance at no cost. Tricom later repaired the second defective unit at no charge to me. How is that for service?

Ed at TSE did his best to help but in the end the unit was out of warranty with his company and TSE did not appear to have on site manufacturing or repair capabilities to handle a repair like this.

I also inquired about the Tricom/TSE connection and received info and timelines of who designed what and who sold what for who. These amps have model #s assigned by Tricom but TSE trademarked the "RAMP" designation for these products which they sold. If you look at any of the amps made before around 2009 they can have the TSE RAMP sticker and the original Tricom part # on the same unit.

A Google search also find the info on lawsuits between the two companies, and timelines where you can see Tricom made and supplied these amps and other equipment to TSE and other resellers.

With Google searches you will also find its very clear that after the Tricom/TSE split, TSE had a third party company design and manufacture a new line of amplifiers with similar looks and footprint to the Tricom products and TSE continues to sell them under the "RAMP" trademark. The new line of TSE amps had to be re-certified after their release in early '09 even though they have the same or similar part #.

Just trying to clear up some misinformation that was posted here, my dealings with TSE are very positive and Ed is a very knowledgeable and experienced commo guy. I will speculate on some of the confusion with JITC certification which could be from TSE owning the "RAMP" trademark and the early Tricom amps were submitted under the RAMP designation. Maybe Ed can chime in on this.

On the other hand Tricom is not a fly by night copy cat company, they are the real deal in amplifier design and manufacturing. I regularly use my RAMP-75 amp with a neutered MBITR and other handlelds in support of USCG comms and in testing of prototype antenna products.

Radio Guy



That does not make sense. JITC is where MANUFACTURERS have their products certified. Funny that not a single other 'reseller' had an amplifier certified. EVERYONE with equipment listed on the JITC website is a manufacturer. Tricom didn't come on the scene until several years after TSE. Looks like Tricom copied a product designed, manufactured and cretified by the good people at TSE, most of which happen to be Quite Proffessionals. Your information is skewed.

[rubberducky]

So I tested this in country and I made a few tweaks to it. But seriously great job and thanks for posting this. I used WD-1 and it made the rating a bit better as well as a few expedient cobra heads. I have it strapped to my flak for a better constant asset. Thanks again guys if you want ill post a picture of how I built it. Also I built a few with some pop cans. By the way, standard 550 cord is great not only as an insulator but to put whatever cabling you have inside of it to protect it a little more. Thanks again,

Rubberducky

[rwt_bkk]

always good to have an update with pics if you have them...

[SoreFeetBen]

The most field expedient satcom antenna I’ve ever built. Haven’t tested the gain, but it works. Pings at 40% in AFG. Came in loud and clear and can come apart for easy freq/antenna switching. Also, works well in both satcom burst mode off and on.

[JJ_BPK]

The most...


Your 1st post should be in the intro thread,,
After you fill in your Profile..

If you think you did an intro in the past, it's not there, Pls re-intro yourself.

Do not post again until you have accomplished the above.

:munchin