Firekite
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
- Messages
- 471
New Antenna Coming Soon based on Old Favorite.
- Thread starter digitalanalog
- Start date
- Status
digitalanalog
Active Member
After all the threads, comments, and inspections being called out on this antenna by everyone here on just about every aspect of this antenna, I am really amazed that not one person found a major issue with this antenna. It wasn't until very late in the planning and even after the antenna was sent out for testing that I seen the problem, it has since been taken care of but lets see if anyone can spot the problem not that I pointed it out. What's wrong with this picture. (and it's not the transformer in this picture i just hung it there for the photo to show where it goes)
jjlongworth
Member
Besides the stainless hardware which is incompatible with aluminum or is it the missing counterpoise (or filter depending on it's function)
Blackink
Member
How heavy is it?
digitalanalog
Active Member
The Omnix X antenna that has been subject in this thread several times uses stainless steel hardware, serious antenna manufacture Innovantennas
Home - Innovantennas - Home of the Low Noise LFA Yagi - Ham Radio antennas
G0KSC, LFA Yagi, OWL Yal, OWA Yagi, Ham Radio, Ham Radio antennas, Commercial Antennas, Yagi designers, Yagi manufacturers
Approx, 9 lbs.
Compared to the original ST-2 there is a missing element between the mast and main radiating element.
digitalanalog
Active Member
Before it's pointed out, I am aware this portion of my reply is Not applicable since the stainless set screw is going into stainless tubing, so bad comparison on my part.
On the original ST-2, what hardware was used?
And why is a Discone antenna, which is a completely different antenna, used as a reference? An accurate reference would obviously be the original ST-2, a close second would be an Omni X, etc.
Still looking forward to testing results. If you can refine it to where it is closely comparable to the ST-2, I would consider purchasing one, even though the proposed price is pretty steep. But, I can appreciate quality, and from what I have seen up to now, quality of materials and workmanship is really good.
I'm sure this is a very labor intensive project.
The only magnetic (steel) parts of the original ST-2 are the bracket and u-bolt/nuts. The aluminum elements are mostly riveted with aluminum and the screws for the 300 ohm connection appear to be non-magnetic zinc.
As for the reference antenna, most measurements of gain are based on a quarterwave groundplane for the frequency involved, this is considered a zero point reference. Since this is impractical on a wide bandwidth scanner antenna, the Discone is the next best thing. This gives a fairly good representation of potential improvement over a "zero point" reference. Antenna A provides this measurement, Antenna B presents a different number, these numbers can be compared with each other, the antenna with the higher score over the Discone is better. Also remember that an antenna might perform better or worse on different bands, and may even perform worse than a Discone or Ground Plane reference.
It is also a good idea to test the antenna against it's original forefather ST-2, and if possible, the ST-2 vs. the Discone. Thes comparisions will tell how well this performs over the other. It is all relative, this performs better than that, that performs better than the other. Of course the comparisons mean nothing if all things aren't otherwise equal (position, elevation, coax etc.)
As for the reference antenna, most measurements of gain are based on a quarterwave groundplane for the frequency involved, this is considered a zero point reference. Since this is impractical on a wide bandwidth scanner antenna, the Discone is the next best thing. This gives a fairly good representation of potential improvement over a "zero point" reference. Antenna A provides this measurement, Antenna B presents a different number, these numbers can be compared with each other, the antenna with the higher score over the Discone is better. Also remember that an antenna might perform better or worse on different bands, and may even perform worse than a Discone or Ground Plane reference.
It is also a good idea to test the antenna against it's original forefather ST-2, and if possible, the ST-2 vs. the Discone. Thes comparisions will tell how well this performs over the other. It is all relative, this performs better than that, that performs better than the other. Of course the comparisons mean nothing if all things aren't otherwise equal (position, elevation, coax etc.)
Amen, N9JIG
We're in basic agreement.
(See my #215)
We're in basic agreement.
(See my #215)
A discone is about the most basic antenna you can get. The only benefit they have is they are basically "DC to daylight" (Well, not that open, but you get the gist) Zero gain, but wide RX coverage.
If this antenna is planned to be the replacement to the ST-2 (Which it obviously is) then I would surely think it should be at minimum "as good" as the original. (ST-2 is (was) about as good of a scanner antenna you can get)
If it is better, then hell, I may buy two. This is why I'm glad he is continuing his testing, found an error, and is in the process of correcting it, then hopefully testing again, refining it with improvements, because if he can make this bird really sing, users will report their results on here, youtube, etc., and he should be able to sell at least a hundred off this forum alone.
I would think, aside from a freq. dedicated radio antenna, he very well could have the best current production scanner antenna on the market, if he takes the time to continue to refine it and tune it. We shall see.
If this antenna is planned to be the replacement to the ST-2 (Which it obviously is) then I would surely think it should be at minimum "as good" as the original. (ST-2 is (was) about as good of a scanner antenna you can get)
If it is better, then hell, I may buy two. This is why I'm glad he is continuing his testing, found an error, and is in the process of correcting it, then hopefully testing again, refining it with improvements, because if he can make this bird really sing, users will report their results on here, youtube, etc., and he should be able to sell at least a hundred off this forum alone.
I would think, aside from a freq. dedicated radio antenna, he very well could have the best current production scanner antenna on the market, if he takes the time to continue to refine it and tune it. We shall see.
So are results ready? Seems you have to be granted special privileges to enter the "private" parts of the website that the results are on
digitalanalog
Active Member
If you would have read the update page you would have know it was shut down.So are results ready? Seems you have to be granted special privileges to enter the "private" parts of the website that the results are on
digitalanalog
Active Member
Does anyone know of any manufacturers documented testing results posted ANY place on the web for the ST2 antenna?
No but if you have a new old stock ST2 and run the same test as you do on your antenna that should tell you what you need to know.
digitalanalog
Active Member
I totaly disagree
digitalanalog
Active Member
While it is a design copy of the ST2 it is NOT an ST2.
Not sure how you come up with that but from my old days in electronics class a valid test run on each antenna would show the results.
Now I am not sure if I am still interested. From my days of putting up commercial antennas and using antennas to achieve desired coverage patterns I was looking forward to having a better built ST2 that would work the same but be built like a tank.
Now I am not sure if I am still interested. From my days of putting up commercial antennas and using antennas to achieve desired coverage patterns I was looking forward to having a better built ST2 that would work the same but be built like a tank.
Last edited:
digitalanalog
Active Member
There
There are no such test results for the ST2, so why is it SO VITAL that I produce test results against something the original manufacture did not produce publicly?
- Status
