* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Jan 14 21:54 -0600]:
> At 1/14/2007 17:01, you wrote:
> >* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Jan 14
> >11:33 -0600]:
> >
> > > I also have a 220 Isopole but no data sheet. Never needed it,
> > > though. AFAIK the upper decoupling cone mounts at the top of the mast
> > near
> > > the feedpoint, & the 2nd cone mounts at the bottom of the 1st. Then
> > again,
> > > maybe I'm wrong & that's why that antenna never worked worth a darn.
> >
> >As I recall (been a long time) the upper cone had to be mounted below
> >the feedpoint a distance about equivalent to the length of the stinger.
> >The second cone did indeed mount below the first.
>
> Yes, I see that from the prior posting of the instructions. I guess that's
> why it didn't work well for me. I thought it was supposed to be a dipole
> equivalent so figured the 1st cone goes right at the feedpoint. Now I'd
> like to know the theory behind the correct cone placement.
My recollection of its operation (greatly simplified) is that it was a
center-fed dual 5/8 wave collinear antenna. The cones simply kept the
energy from continuing on down the mast and onto the coax shield. The
result was a very low angle of radiation and a narrow vertical
beamwidth. Trust me, an Isopole does not work well for picking up a
satellite more than a few degrees above the horizon. ;-)
73, de Nate >>
--
Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft
Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998.
http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | "Debian, the choice of
My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @ | a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org
