• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.

The Avanti Astro Beam explained - 1970 article re-printed

Status
Not open for further replies.

FPR1981

Active Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
597
(article transcribed from CB Radio Magazine – August, 1970 – pages 12 & 13)



HOW TO MAKE AN OMNI INTO A BEAM!

The Development Story Behind Avanti’s Wild New Astro Beam




By JOHN D. MARTINO
VP, Avanti Research & Development


A three-element beam usually consists of three half-wave dipoles. One is used as the driven element into which the power is fed. The other two are parasitic elements which are placed in front and in back of this driven element and used as a director and reflector. Theoretically in an assembly of this sort, the elements can either be spaced for maximum gain or maximum rejection, but not for both at once.

Well, a few years ago, one of the engineers at AVANTI came across with a brilliant idea. He reasoned that if a three-element beam was made with an ASTRO-PLANE antenna as a driven element, rather than a simple half-wave unity gain dipole, better results might be expected. After all, if you start with more power you must be better off than if you started with less power. The ASTRO PLANE proved uniquely suited for this purpose – no radials to interfere with the other elements, 4.46 db gain, and the ability to radiated from the top made it a natural choice.

However, there are a few more objectives to be considered. One of these was balance. Not only does an antenna need to be balanced as far as weight is concerned, but also as far as wind loading. Again the ASTRO-PLANE worked out well.

Because its design allowed it to be fit over the support mast, it would allow optimum spacing for gain as well as perfect balance on both counts.

By using a matching transformer which consists of a ¼-wave 35-ohm harness, Avanti not only eliminated the need for any exposed matching devices, but allowed the antenna to handle as much power as can be put through your coax. Incidentally, for those with eagle eyes, this phasing harness, due to the slower speed of propagation in the coax, only needs to be six-feet long.

After the company got the antenna up and with a little bit of tinkering, an unexpected benefit was discovered. Remember how we told you earlier that a three element beam was designed for maximum gain or maximum rejection? Well the 3-element Astro Beam using the ASTRO-PLANE as the driver, not only had more gain than the best 3-element beam, but also over 40 db front-to-back rejection!

The engineers working on this antenna didn’t know why (although they didn’t want to admit it), and set out to find why this phenomenon was occurring. As things developed, it was discovered that the coupling between the ASTRO-PLANE and the parasitic elements caused this unexpected effect. Coupling in this case refers to the efficiency with which one antenna element can be used to induce power into another.

Research & development insisted that models had to be constructed and subjected to at least one year of testing before they could be put on the market. Many times an antenna manufacturer will design and test a C.B. antenna on a higher frequency because the antenna is smaller and more convenient to handle. This method has its flaws however, because sometimes the scaling down will have an effect on the testing and an antenna that worked well on about 150 MHz will suffer at 47 MHz. Wishing to avoid this pitfall, Avanti designed and tested the first ASTRO-BEAM (as they have named it) at 27 MHz.

As far as mechanical construction, the elements are made from aircraft-quality drawn seamless aluminum tubing, so is the boom, while the hubs are molded of high-strength weather –resistant Cycolac. These molded hubs feature a pin lock design, which aligns the element. This feature also keeps the elements from twisting once they are up in the air – a problem so often encountered with many beams. The weight of this antenna is only 14 pounds, so it can easily be rotated by an inexpensive TV rotor, without going to more costly models.

We feel this antenna is going to be a winner. The CB’er needs an antenna capable of shutting off the unwanted noise and signals, especially in crowded areas where skip is prevalent. How great it would be to talk quietly and clearly for a change without being hammered by the confusion.



SPECIFICATIONS:


Rejection – 40db signal drop front to back
Forward gain – 11 db over an isotropic source
Impedance – 50 ohms nominal
V.S.W.R. – 1.3:1 or less
Wind survival – 80 MPH
Boom length – 10.5 feet
Weight – 14 pounds
Mode – Vertical beam
Turning radius – 63 inches
Material – Aluminum and Cycolac
Price - $59.95

TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THE SPECIFICATION

A 40db+ rejection
means that if a signal is coming at a certain strength and the ASTRO BEAM is turned around so that the back is toward the signal, the signal will drop 40 db or more (see Polar Plot Graph).

Forward gain of 11 db over an isotropic source is a means of rating the antenna’s ability to increase receive and transmit signals. The point here is that the ASTRO-BEAM has about 1db more than the best 3-element beam currently on the market. The gain has the equivalent of multiplying about 12.5 times your power.

Impedance of 50 ohm nominal simply means that the antenna is of an impedance that allows it to match RG/8U or RG/58U cable used for C.B.

V.S.W.R. of 1.3:1 means that this antenna when built and installed correctly will have a standing wave of 1.3:1 or less. Most ASTRO-BEAMS will probably tune to 1.1:1 or 1.2:1. Anything below 1.5:1 is considered acceptable in professional fields, and to go below 1.3:1 will result in diminishing returns.




 

FPR1981

Active Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
597
I think it's obvious by reading this article and another article authored by Avanti R&D and an engineer that much thought and much testing went into the creation of the Astroplane and the Astro Beam. Do we still easily call BS on their claims of gain and rejection?
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
15,366
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
Yes. There is free space gain, which is what the industry uses or should use. Then there is gain from height above ground or at the edge of a downward sloping hill that pulls down the pattern, etc. Shakespeare is notorious for taking a unity gain marine antenna and sticking it at the top of an empty fiberglass radome and claiming some gain due to overcoming the curvature of the earth from the extra height. The Astro Beam has about 3dB more gain than some of the best designed and respected modern 3 element Yagi's out there. If it was real gain the design would still be used today. But its not.

The Astro Beam front to back ratio is not believable. All gain type antennas will have lots of little gain lobes and nulls somewhere. They could have found some extremely narrow and deep null thats a fraction of a degree wide and they are calling that the front to back ratio when its something the user would never be able to make use of. Front to back ratio should be over a useable area like 30-45 degrees wide and not a thin useless slice.

I think it's obvious by reading this article and another article authored by Avanti R&D and an engineer that much thought and much testing went into the creation of the Astroplane and the Astro Beam. Do we still easily call BS on their claims of gain and rejection?
 

FPR1981

Active Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
597
Could Shakespeare's claims be as outlandish as Solarcon's claim of the A99 being 8dbi?

Regarding the Astro Beam - If you had to take your best guess, where would you put the actual gain and rejection figures? While 40db may not be an accurate figure for rejection, you still find that about every single person who ran a set said there was never a 3-element beam with a back door quite like it. I'll soon find out, because the Astro Beam is on my restoration list before the end of the year.

Actual users seemed to like their performance also. Here in town, we had a guy who worked for the city. He went by the handle of "City Farmer." He had an Astro Beam on the house and an Astro Plane on his workshop out back. Neither one was particularly high. The beam was maybe 25 feet if you're lucky. He was always loud and had no issues with distance.

It could be a case, once again, where the science doesn't look all that impressive, but application tells a different story. That phenomenon occurs all the time in the sciences.

I think the major issue with this antenna, besides being misunderstood, was durability. Most all of them that you find are missing elements. They didn't hold up in the weather worth a damn.
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
15,366
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
There have been some major advances in antenna modeling software since the 1960s when the Astro things were designed and companies can now squeeze more out of a modern design. With that you have to ask why the Astro Beam claims a good 3dB more gain than some of the best modern designed 3 element Yagi's out there? That would be like modern supercharged nitromethane burning funny cars have around 8,000 horsepower but some guy from the late 1960s claims he has one with the same cubic inches that does 12,000 horse power. That would make you question things, especially with all the advances in engine design over the last 40 years.

I'm not that good at running EZNEC but it would be interesting to model the Astro Beam then model a 3 element Yagi from M2 or other well respected company and see how they play on paper.

Could Shakespeare's claims be as outlandish as Solarcon's claim of the A99 being 8dbi?

Regarding the Astro Beam - If you had to take your best guess, where would you put the actual gain and rejection figures? While 40db may not be an accurate figure for rejection, you still find that about every single person who ran a set said there was never a 3-element beam with a back door quite like it. I'll soon find out, because the Astro Beam is on my restoration list before the end of the year.

Actual users seemed to like their performance also. Here in town, we had a guy who worked for the city. He went by the handle of "City Farmer." He had an Astro Beam on the house and an Astro Plane on his workshop out back. Neither one was particularly high. The beam was maybe 25 feet if you're lucky. He was always loud and had no issues with distance.

It could be a case, once again, where the science doesn't look all that impressive, but application tells a different story. That phenomenon occurs all the time in the sciences.

I think the major issue with this antenna, besides being misunderstood, was durability. Most all of them that you find are missing elements. They didn't hold up in the weather worth a damn.
 

FPR1981

Active Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
597
What information would be needed to accurately model an Astro Beam?
 

FPR1981

Active Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
597
You would need an actual antenna to measure precise dimensions to enter into EZNEC or another program. Everything including tubing diameter, angles on bottom hoop, top hat size and wire diameter, etc.

I will make sure to document all that when I get it
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
15,366
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
Somebody has been there and done that, here is a guy that did an EZNEC study on the Astroplane.
 

KB4MSZ

Billy
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
932
Location
Tampa, Florida
I don't use antenna modeling software. All my designs are in AutoCAD and the waveform & phase plots are measured and displayed graphicly by manual calculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top