homemade copper antenna

[RocketMan1]

I was just fiddling around this weekend and decided to slap together some old copper I had laying around to see what type of antenna I could make, here is what I came up with : It looks just like an old T.V antenna, but smaller, the total length is 32" (not including the mast) it has a total of 11, 1/4" rods starting at a length of 10" and going up at intervals of 2" ending at 30" all spaced 3" apart, the copper pipe all the rods are soldered to is 1/2", 32" long, the mast it will be attached to is also copper 3/4 to 1" thick, I'm not sure of the length yet, I will be attaching this to the peak of my roof, so the length will probably be fairly short (few feet), I will also be connecting an RG6 cable about 30 to 50' in length. SO :!: The big question is: What type of reception should I expect, if any, from this monstrosity :?: I live in a rural area, no trunk. I wont be mounting this until sometime next weekend, if the weather holds, but when I do I will let everyone know how it worked, (if it did). If you folks think it won't work and I just wasted my time I'll scrap it and go on to the next project. either way I plan on experimenting with all sorts of designs and material, not much to do when it's COLD and SNOWY, BRRRRRR! Thanks :!:

 

[trimmerj]

I've had very good luck with copper homebrew antennas. I Use 1/4 copper tubing mounted on a PVC Form.

 

[N_Jay]

I was just fiddling around this weekend and decided to slap together some old copper I had laying around to see what type of antenna I could make, here is what I came up with : It looks just like an old T.V antenna, but smaller, the total length is 32" (not including the mast) it has a total of 11, 1/4" rods starting at a length of 10" and going up at intervals of 2" ending at 30" all spaced 3" apart, the copper pipe all the rods are soldered to is 1/2", 32" long, the mast it will be attached to is also copper 3/4 to 1" thick, I'm not sure of the length yet, I will be attaching this to the peak of my roof, so the length will probably be fairly short (few feet), I will also be connecting an RG6 cable about 30 to 50' in length. SO :!: The big question is: What type of reception should I expect, if any, from this monstrosity :?: I live in a rural area, no trunk. I wont be mounting this until sometime next weekend, if the weather holds, but when I do I will let everyone know how it worked, (if it did). If you folks think it won't work and I just wasted my time I'll scrap it and go on to the next project. either way I plan on experimenting with all sorts of designs and material, not much to do when it's COLD and SNOWY, BRRRRRR! Thanks :!:

You REALY NEED to get a book an antennas so you can put all this excess energy to good use. :wink:

There are specific calculations you need to make to determin the length and spacing of elements on an antenna.

Its like you are trying to build a car by randomly bolting together parts from a junk yard!!! :twisted:

Once you learn just a little bit you will be MUCH better able to select the materials and design for your next creation!

 

[RocketMan1]

N_Jay, I agree with the book idea, I haven't had much luck so far just going by what I find online.

My wife is always yelling at me to pull out and follow the directions for just about everything :lol:

Its like you are trying to build a car by randomly bolting together parts from a junk yard!!!

I think I may have done that in my younger years :lol:

 

[N_Jay]

Its like you are trying to build a car by randomly bolting together parts from a junk yard!!!

I think I may have done that in my younger years :lol:

Did it run?

(If it did at all, you know FAR more about automotives than you do about antennas!) :wink:

Realy, this stuff is fun and fairly easy once you get a few things under your belt.

Untill you do it will seem like magic instead of science!

 

[WileECoyote]

I'd go ahead and at least try it. After all, you went through the trouble to build it, you never know till you actually hook it up and try it. You might find it actually works. Why waste your energy and not follow through with your original plan. At the least, even if it doesn't work, the birds will love it!

 

[N_Jay]

I'd go ahead and at least try it. After all, you went through the trouble to build it, you never know till you actually hook it up and try it. You might find it actually works. Why waste your energy and not follow through with your original plan. At the least, even if it doesn't work, the birds will love it!

LOL, well with no baseline any test is a succcess!!

1. Find a weak signal on each band.
2. try to determine an OBJECTIVE measure for the strength of that signal.
3. test the new configuration for improvement or degradation.
4. Have fun!

 

[doctordave]

RocketMan,

There are some great antenna design websites....do a google search and see what you come up with.....I've built quite a few monster antennas in my attic, based on what I've garnered from some hams nice enough to put specs & related info on the web....and the antennas perform beautifully as compared to various commercial scanner antennas. You'll love it.

Dave

 

[WileECoyote]

I'd go ahead and at least try it. After all, you went through the trouble to build it, you never know till you actually hook it up and try it. You might find it actually works. Why waste your energy and not follow through with your original plan. At the least, even if it doesn't work, the birds will love it!

LOL, well with no baseline any test is a succcess!!

1. Find a weak signal on each band.
2. try to determine an OBJECTIVE measure for the strength of that signal.
3. test the new configuration for improvement or degradation.
4. Have fun!

Well that's the whole point, #4, Have fun!
Years ago no one knew about all this technical mumbo jumbo about tuning and length of antenna (the bigger the better used to be the rule). For a good number of years, guys would buy a radio, take it home, stick an antenna up, (sometimes the antenna was just couple of wires held up on mama's clothes pole) and transmit away and never care about "tuning or vswr's". Of course we are talking about receiving here and not transmitting for the most part. Of course this type of practice probably resulted in more than a few blown finals. Luckily, with receiving, you don't have to worry about blowing the finals out of your scanner so in all reality, a wire will work. So if a guy has time, and the materials, and energy to try something new, why not? Where would we be today had many a experimenter not experimented? I say go for it and let us know the results. If you can hear things you couldn't before and still hear what you did, but only clearer, then the antenna is a success. I applaude Rocketman for not only trying, but for posting it here as well. So remember rule #4, HAVE FUN!

 

[N_Jay]

Years ago no one knew about all this technical mumbo jumbo about tuning and length of antenna (the bigger the better used to be the rule). For a good number of years, guys would buy a radio, take it home, stick an antenna up, (sometimes the antenna was just couple of wires held up on mama's clothes pole) and transmit away and never care about "tuning or vswr's". Of course we are talking about receiving here and not transmitting for the most part. Of course this type of practice probably resulted in more than a few blown finals. Luckily, with receiving, you don't have to worry about blowing the finals out of your scanner so in all reality, a wire will work. So if a guy has time, and the materials, and energy to try something new, why not? Where would we be today had many a experimenter not experimented? I say go for it and let us know the results. If you can hear things you couldn't before and still hear what you did, but only clearer, then the antenna is a success. I applaude Rocketman for not only trying, but for posting it here as well. So remember rule #4, HAVE FUN!

BULL Sh-t. The SCIENCE of antenna design goes WAY back. :x

You, I, nor anyone alive remembers the days, you recall so fondly! :roll:

The fact that YOU THOUGHT it was only MUMBO JUMBO is due to your lack of understanding and lack of interest in learning!. :roll: :evil:

I can NOT remember a day, when a person interested in ANY type of radio did not get himself a copy of the ARRL HANDBOOK!

How many of you, self-proclaimed 'experimenters' have a copy? Or have even seen a copy? :wink: :wink:

I applauded Rocketman for his energy and ambition.

I abhor those who don't take the time to educate themselves when the information is so easily obtained. :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

[RocketMan1]

RocketMan,

There are some great antenna design websites....do a google search and see what you come up with.....I've built quite a few monster antennas in my attic, based on what I've garnered from some hams nice enough to put specs & related info on the web....and the antennas perform beautifully as compared to various commercial scanner antennas. You'll love it.

Dave

Thats what I did, thats where I got the design for the 16 element discone, the copper antenna was just something I came up with out of boredom while fiddling around and cleaning my garage.

Of course we are talking about receiving here and not transmitting for the most part. Of course this type of practice probably resulted in more than a few blown finals. Luckily, with receiving, you don't have to worry about blowing the finals out of your scanner so in all reality, a wire will work.

some web sites actually do mention just using a wire, among other things and designs, the one that comes to mind is a "design" where you just run AS MUCH wire as you can from rafter to rafter throughout your attic, he states the more the better.

I am still thinking about getting the book N_Jay mentioned, but it seems most I come across are geared more towards the "Ham" aspect of the hobby. An excample of what I've come accross was, if I wanted to build my own antenna (don't remember which one, I think Yagi) and wanted to hear 33.9600 according to this one web site I would need an antenna 20-30 feet long. Bulls**t, I have a RS antenna 2-3 feet long mounted on my roof, and I can pick up stuff throughout the whole band spectrum of my pro-2044, I've even picked up stuff over 40-50 miles away (Chicago PD).

Should I just leave well enough alone? maybe. But if I can pick up stuff with a little $20.00 antenna, what could I pick up with a $69.00 antenna I built myself with just under $20.00 worth of supplies, Heck I could have got all the supplies I needed from work and not pay a cent, so doing what I'm doing is only costing me my time, so if something doesn't work no big deal, throw it away and move on to the next.

I applauded Rocketman for his energy and ambition.

I abhor those who don't take the time to educate themselves when the information is so easily obtained.

Thanks for the applause, as for the other:

Don't take things so seriously, you'll have a heart attack. Also I really don't want to get into a debate over this (meds aint working well) alot of our greatest inventions came without the aid of a book, and information was not readily availiable, it was simply "This is what I want to TRY and acomplish so lets try this and see what happens" and it either worked or it didn't.
Is information readily availiable in this day and age? sure, and I have been using what I can find online.
But who knows, somebody doing just what I'm doing (slap something together and see what happens) might come up with something that works better than anything on the market. You don't know unless you try. People used to laugh, and still do, at that Ronco guy with the "set it and forget it" invention, and the pocket fisherman, etc...

What I'm doing should not bother anybody, if it does YOU/THEY have too much time on YOUR/THEIR hands. I do what I'm doing solely for my entertainment, and health, I only post because good people like WileECoyote, DoctorDave, trimmerj, and others are interested.

one of 2 things are going to happen.

1. I'll build something that works as good or better than whats on the market. Or at the very least help relieve what ails me.

OR:

2. You heard of the 2 drunk rednecks sitting by the fire with a gun? Famous last words...Drunk redneck #2 pulls out the gun and says to Drunk redneck#1 "watch this".

So, for those of you that ARE interested, I'll keep you informed.

P.S I will still look for a book on the subject, as well as continue to search the web.

Everyone have a great day!

 

[N_Jay]

1) antenna efficiency is not measured in $ its measured in dB.

I have nothing against building cheap antennas. Many work very well when they follow sound principles.

2) if you don't know how to measure your results you will not know when you have made improvements.

Good luck, but random actions, even those that are "successful" build superstitions, rather than knowledge.

The Native Americans were VERY SURE rain dances worked!

And why does it bother me so?

BECAUSE, all to often, I have to stand up in front of the City or County Council meeting and EXPLAIN why the assitant Council Secratairy's brother-in-law's freind who knows "all about radio" is WRONG!!

 

[DaveH]

Instead of throwing something together, why not build something a bit more "deterministic" like a copper-pipe J antenna
(improperly referred to as a J-pole, which is a variant of the J). It consists of several feet of 1/2" copper pipe, two fittings
(right-angle and T) plus end caps if you want. Very cheap, plus:

-needs no radials or other ground (it's an end-fed 1/2-wave antenna).
-low angle of radiation and modest gain; good bandwidth.
-dc-grounded for low noise.
-can be made to look sleek, and may be easier to disguise, if necessary.

The plans should be easy to find somewhere out there.

Dave

 

[N_Jay]

Instead of throwing something together, why not build something a bit more "deterministic" like a copper-pipe J antenna
(improperly referred to as a J-pole, which is a variant of the J). It consists of several feet of 1/2" copper pipe, two fittings
(right-angle and T) plus end caps if you want. Very cheap, plus:

-needs no radials or other ground (it's an end-fed 1/2-wave antenna).
-low angle of radiation and modest gain; good bandwidth.
-dc-grounded for low noise.
-can be made to look sleek, and may be easier to disguise, if necessary.

The plans should be easy to find somewhere out there.

Dave

What a great idea.

But with that, how will the next great "accidental invention" in antenna design happen? :wink: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :twisted: :roll:

 

[WileECoyote]

Years ago no one knew about all this technical mumbo jumbo about tuning and length of antenna (the bigger the better used to be the rule). For a good number of years, guys would buy a radio, take it home, stick an antenna up, (sometimes the antenna was just couple of wires held up on mama's clothes pole) and transmit away and never care about "tuning or vswr's". Of course we are talking about receiving here and not transmitting for the most part. Of course this type of practice probably resulted in more than a few blown finals. Luckily, with receiving, you don't have to worry about blowing the finals out of your scanner so in all reality, a wire will work. So if a guy has time, and the materials, and energy to try something new, why not? Where would we be today had many a experimenter not experimented? I say go for it and let us know the results. If you can hear things you couldn't before and still hear what you did, but only clearer, then the antenna is a success. I applaude Rocketman for not only trying, but for posting it here as well. So remember rule #4, HAVE FUN!

BULL Sh-t. The SCIENCE of antenna design goes WAY back. :x

You, I, nor anyone alive remembers the days, you recall so fondly! :roll:

The fact that YOU THOUGHT it was only MUMBO JUMBO is due to your lack of understanding and lack of interest in learning!. :roll: :evil:

I can NOT remember a day, when a person interested in ANY type of radio did not get himself a copy of the ARRL HANDBOOK!

How many of you, self-proclaimed 'experimenters' have a copy? Or have even seen a copy? :wink: :wink:

I applauded Rocketman for his energy and ambition.

I abhor those who don't take the time to educate themselves when the information is so easily obtained. :evil: :evil: :evil:

Ah.. But that is where you are wrong professor. I have studied every page I can find on the internet pertaining to antenna's. Calculations for designing beam antennas, di-poles, omnidirectionals, ground planes, all of which are for TRANSCEIVING. I do more transmitting than receiving and therefore need to know a little bit about antenna principal's. Everything in your ARRL bible that you enjoy thumping, can be found on the net today in one place or another. Your 400 dollar RECEIVER doesn't know the difference between a 4 inch "DUCKY" attached to the radio or a 75 Foot Tower, it receives what it can depending on the height of its antenna. It doesn't care, its a RECEIVER. How can you say that antenna principal and design matter for receiving when all these glorified receivers that cover a multitude of bands uses ONLY A 4 INCH RUBBER ANTENNA and does JUST FINE! IT DOES NOT MATTER, ITS A RECEIVER. All that principal pertains to TRANSMITTING. Antenna's HAVE to be matched and tuned to certain frequencies to TRANSMIT. You could have a wire shoved up your butt and if the signal got through the radio would receive it. But don't try transmitting with that same wire, you will probably burn the finals out of the radio and burn your sphincter in the process.I have read pages from eHam and quite a few individuals where they talk about the day's when MOST people operating on 11meter band's did not even know what ARRL was. The only ones that knew about ARRL were the HAM operators because it was part of obtaining their LICENSE. Citizen Band operators bought the radio and MAYBE an antenna if they could afford it, a lot of them couldn't in those days and were lucky to have saved enough money for the radio, and took the TRANSMITTERS home and put up what they could and talked all they wanted and never cared once about the design and principals behind TRANSMITTER antenna's at first. A lot of them went on later to obtain their Ham ticket and then the principals behind it mattered. So, how can YOU say I have no lack of interest in learning? YOU do not even know me or that I have been using, both RECEIVING and even more so TRANSMITTING with Radios for more than 30 years. NO, I don't claim to know everything, and even YOU, professor know it all, may know more than I, BUT, does that give you the right to dis me? NO. Try come'n down off your high horse and do a little READING of some of the hundreds of pages found on this great thing we call the NET. Read some of the things from seasoned radio veterans about how it used to be. Put down the ARRL bible and listen to what people that have done it talk about from experience. Yes, they all probabaly make mention of the ARRL handbook. If you don't use a transmitter, try it and see how much you know, it doesen't take a whole lot of knowledge to listen to a scanner and THINK you know it all. The ARRL is an excellent source of knowledge, but EXPERIENCE and READING what others have EXPERIENCED may actually enlighten you. So don't tell me I have no desire to learn. Yes, antenna principal goes back to the days of the first antenna and transmitter, but, MOST people didn't even know what ARRL was when they first started. Why even you probably didn't have a clue what ARRL was till you stumbled across it on the NET. Maybe MUMBO JUMBO was a bad choice of words, but to many that started that's exactly what it is at first. EXPERIENCE is the true teacher.

Notice my lack of using foul language and cutsie clickable emoticons.
But for you, just one. Take care and rember rule #4, and maybe try to be a little more tolerant of other's in the future.

Have a good day.

 

[WileECoyote]

Instead of throwing something together, why not build something a bit more "deterministic" like a copper-pipe J antenna
(improperly referred to as a J-pole, which is a variant of the J). It consists of several feet of 1/2" copper pipe, two fittings
(right-angle and T) plus end caps if you want. Very cheap, plus:

-needs no radials or other ground (it's an end-fed 1/2-wave antenna).
-low angle of radiation and modest gain; good bandwidth.
-dc-grounded for low noise.
-can be made to look sleek, and may be easier to disguise, if necessary.

The plans should be easy to find somewhere out there.

Dave

What a great idea.

But with that, how will the next great "accidental invention" in antenna design happen? :wink: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :twisted: :roll:

But once again, the J pole design is for TRANSMITTING! Sure it works fine as a RECEIVING antenna but was designed to be used with a TRANSMITTER. A RECEIVER does not need an antenna with ground plane or low angles of radiation, these are TRANSMITTING principals. And yes, there are MANY pages for this antenna with complete insturctions on how to build it.

 

[WileECoyote]

1) antenna efficiency is not measured in $ its measured in dB.

I have nothing against building cheap antennas. Many work very well when they follow sound principles.

2) if you don't know how to measure your results you will not know when you have made improvements.

Good luck, but random actions, even those that are "successful" build superstitions, rather than knowledge.

The Native Americans were VERY SURE rain dances worked!

And why does it bother me so?

BECAUSE, all to often, I have to stand up in front of the City or County Council meeting and EXPLAIN why the assitant Council Secratairy's brother-in-law's freind who knows "all about radio" is WRONG!!

dB gain is what you get when you correctly match your transmitter and antenna together and is measured on the receiving transmitter's/receiver's meter.

Knowledge comes not only from a book but by experience and NOT being afraid to try something new that maybe only the individual has thought of.

Results can be measured in many number of way's. If you make what you hope to be an improvement, and you try it, and you notice a difference for the better, then its an improvement.

Seems like you have more of a problem with other people's opinion's than I first thought. Maybe you need to take all this up with the Assistant Council Secretary's brother-in-law's friend instead of on these post's.


Have a good day. I need not repeat the "be tolerant of other's opinions", point do I? oh.. im sorry.. I just did.

 

[N_Jay]

Ah.. But that is where you are wrong professor. I have studied every page I can find on the internet pertaining to antenna's. Calculations for designing beam antennas, di-poles, omnidirectionals, ground planes, all of which are for TRANSCEIVING. I do more transmitting than receiving and therefore need to know a little bit about antenna principal's.

There is a common missconception that teh design principles for receiving are different than for transmitting.

With ethe exception of teh effect of a mismatch on the trasmitter, the principles are all the same.
Impeadance matching is important ANY time you transfer power from one medium to another. You loose just as much signal on receive as you do on transmit. The difference is your system con tollerate the loss better, that is all.

Everything in your ARRL bible that you enjoy thumping, can be found on the net today in one place or another.

Yep, and so can a lot of missinformation. I have found that sending inexperianced people to the web CAN be an issue since they MAY have trouble sorting the good information from the bad.

The ARRL is not the only source, but it is a convient one for those who need the infromation in an easy to understand form.

Your 400 dollar RECEIVER doesn't know the difference between a 4 inch "DUCKY" attached to the radio or a 75 Foot Tower, it receives what it can depending on the height of its antenna. It doesn't care, its a RECEIVER.

Again you seem to be of the misconception that impeadance match and resonant design have no effect on receive antennas.

Using your logic, why not just load the tower and have a 75 foot tall antenna? Or why not put the ducky up 75 feet?

Why not use 300 ohm open transmission line? (it has less loss! Look it up!) (on the web OR in a book)

All that principal pertains to TRANSMITTING. Antenna's HAVE to be matched and tuned to certain frequencies to TRANSMIT.

You can say it 20 more time and it will not make it true.

You can match and load anything. Resonant design is still important.

You could have a wire shoved up your butt and if the signal got through the radio would receive it. But don't try transmitting with that same wire, you will probably burn the finals out of the radio and burn your sphincter in the process.

Well OK, you first!
I would not burn out any finals, bucause all the equipment I use has a circulator in the output to shunt the reflected signal to a dummy load.

Of course, that is a difference between proper design and "just trying anything".

You seem to be implying that all that matters is the receiver and not the antenna?
Is it just the receiver?
Is it just the height of the antenna?
Design has "Nothing" to do with performance?

I am feeling a bit lost.

I have read pages from eHam and quite a few individuals where they talk about the day's when MOST people operating on 11meter band's did not even know what ARRL was. The only ones that knew about ARRL were the HAM operators because it was part of obtaining their LICENSE. Citizen Band operators bought the radio and MAYBE an antenna if they could afford it, a lot of them couldn't in those days and were lucky to have saved enough money for the radio, and took the TRANSMITTERS home and put up what they could and talked all they wanted and never cared once about the design and principals behind TRANSMITTER antenna's at first.

1) 11meter is CB not amature radio
2) Why shoudl they know about the ARRL, it is not a CB support organization.
3) Amature licenses are issued by the FCC, I do not think the ARRL is anywhere in the process (other that trying to educate people)
4) lots of CB'ers could not afford decent antennas because they werte spending too much on the latest amplified microphone, or "Tweeter Box".
5) Lots of things "work", but the goal its to get to something "works well"

I'mm a bit lost as to what the last section was intended to say, other than "things that don't work well, may still work.

But I think we agree on that point.

A lot of them went on later to obtain their Ham ticket and then the principals behind it mattered.

So the principles don't matter on CB, but do on other bands?

The point is lost on me I guess?

So, how can YOU say I have no lack of interest in learning? YOU do not even know me or that I have been using, both RECEIVING and even more so TRANSMITTING with Radios for more than 30 years. NO, I don't claim to know everything, and even YOU, professor know it all, may know more than I, BUT, does that give you the right to dis me?

Well I appoplogize for "dissing" you.

I did not know that you had 30 years of experiance. Your use of Mumbo Jumbo, your insistance that antenna design for receiving and transmitting used different principles, and your implication that much of this was new ("Years ago no one knew about all this technical mumbo jumbo about tuning and length of antenna . . ") had me confused.

it doesen't take a whole lot of knowledge to listen to a scanner and THINK you know it all.

Now there is a quote! Sorry, just had to. (I would use a smiley to show it is a joke, but you seem to have an adversion to them)

The ARRL is an excellent source of knowledge, but EXPERIENCE and READING what others have EXPERIENCED may actually enlighten you. So don't tell me I have no desire to learn. Yes, antenna principal goes back to the days of the first antenna and transmitter, but, MOST people didn't even know what ARRL was when they first started. Why even you probably didn't have a clue what ARRL was till you stumbled across it on the NET.

Yes, and reading GOOD sources is very important.
When you are just starting to study something you have the LEAST ability to soort good information from bad.
Starting with a lot of the stuff on the web can be a significant negative.

As for the ARRL, I think I got a copy in about 1973, just a few years before getting my commercail license, and more than a decade before my amature license.

Hmm, I don't recall if I could have found the information on the WEB back then? (Now can I use a smiley?)

Maybe MUMBO JUMBO was a bad choice of words, but to many that started that's exactly what it is at first. EXPERIENCE is the true teacher.

Notice my lack of using foul language and cutsie clickable emoticons.
But for you, just one. Take care and rember rule #4, and maybe try to be a little more tolerant of other's in the future.

Have a good day.

I guess you missed my point.

EDUCATION and EXPERIANCE go hand in hand.

Don't shun EDUCATION just for experiance.
Especially in an field where it is easy to create missconceptions that get in the way of your learning more.

And as always have FUN!

 

[ripperq2]

Rocketman, keep on doing what you want and stick to number 4, having fun. That is why ALL of us are into,scanning,hamradio's,cb's,etc....I thought this was a no flaming board and maybe someone would have stepped in and said "stop the flaming" but anyways, keep on doing what your doing and I wish you the best of luck. This goes for everybody out there, keep it all fun guys

 

[N_Jay]

But once again, the J pole design is for TRANSMITTING! Sure it works fine as a RECEIVING antenna but was designed to be used with a TRANSMITTER. A RECEIVER does not need an antenna with ground plane or low angles of radiation, these are TRANSMITTING principals. And yes, there are MANY pages for this antenna with complete insturctions on how to build it.

This is wrong information.

Anyone who wants ato know more can PM me.