[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas - Horrible Performers
Clint, What do you have against the anritsu equipment I used to counter the 2.65dB claim? I found UHF to be about a half dB and VHF to be better than that and when I checked the calibration it was within a tenth of a dB. Charles Clint Bradford wrote: ... from what I have read, a 2.65db loss of signal using Arrow's crappy duplexer ... Unless an Arrow Antenna performance report beings with, My Motorola test equipment - certified within the last year - indicates ... [such- and-such performance characteristics] ... - this that post is worthless to me. And should be worthless to anyone demanding the best-available information. And such mis-information shouldn't be passed on to anyone else. And messagegroup moderators should delete such undocumented tripe. Needless to say, I haven't read much of the recent Arrow Performance threads. Just aren't worth my time. Just my opinion, of course. I have been wrong. I couldn't ask for - nor imagine - better performance from my Arrow Antennas than what I am enjoying now. They prove themselves pass after pass, demo after demo Clint Bradford West coast curmudgeon http://www.work-sat.com ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas - Horrible Performers
... What do you have against the Anritsu equipment ... Absolutely nothing. They make excellent test and measurement equipment. ... I used to counter the 2.65dB claim? Excuse me for missing your post! ... I found UHF to be about a half dB and VHF to be better than that and when I checked the calibration it was within a tenth of a dB ... THAT is much closer to reality. And THANK YOU for adding sanity and measured results to this conversation. Charles - I had a customer return an Arrow antenna, ranting and raving that it wasn't working. What I discovered was that he accidentally sent about 100W into the duplexer, burning out its first inductor. VHF performance was miserable ... UHF seemed OK. But the Arrow - in HIS mind - failed. And so it goes Clint, K6LCS http://www.work-sat.com ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas
Does Arrow antenna needs more endoresement than these two??? I personally like Elk for its less bulky design but Arrow is definetely a winner 73 Rafael Valdez Jr. XE2RV @ DM41mh 10-10 52716 VUCC Sat #164 http://sat-xe.blogspot.com EX-XE2PWF P Before printing, please think about your responsibility and commitment with the ENVIRONMENT. Antes de Imprimir, piensa entu responsabilidad y compromiso con el MEDIO AMBIENTE To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:12:19 -0800 From: k...@juno.com Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas AMEN ! I have used my Arrow right out of the box (bag), with a store-bought duplexer and it works great! No mods necessary. Thousands of QSO's on my trips around the country on AO-27, UO-14, SO-50, etc. I note that many of the messages I see on this subject are from people I've never heard on any satellite. Strange. 73 John K6YK SAT VUCC #10, 800+ grids confirmed SAT WAS #200 - Forwarded message -- From: RONALD CADE w6zq_ To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:28:43 -0700 Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas Gentlemen, If you want to see some improvement from the Arrow antenna, leave it's physical dimensions alone and remove the diplexer in the handle, throw it away and replace it with one of my designs. I won't get into any of the design details however having a device with adjustable capacitors and wire wound inductors makes a world of difference. I have been using this antenna since it arrived on the market with great success. Most of my activity has been in California, Arizona and the Hawaiian Islands. I would not take any other antenna with me on my trips away from home. As Clint mentioned, there is a significant difference in the signal strength from the sats as I have to rotate my antenna at least 45 degrees during a pass. Ron, W6ZQ SAT VUCC #99, 500+ grids confirmed SAT WAS Arrow + Icom ICw32 Click here for fast, safe, easy money transfers. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOTyad2VyE2lm1KsWbeHeiRwMj2JA6FRJ2GAi9gzyFTTktD1juRSA/ ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _ ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas
Rafael and all, I wasn't going to go here because I have before - and there's no need for a handheld antenna conflict here on the BB. However, I have to add that as someone who used an Arrow out of the box extensively - including to earn Satellite VUCC all handheld - I will add to your statement that my Elk antenna hears better than my Arrow ever did - nominally 4 degrees lower than the Arrow at AOS and LOS for any satellite I work. When I got the Elk, my testing included eliminating the Arrow duplexer altogether and using equally short runs of coax to my transmit radio and receive radio because I don't own a full-duplex-capable radio. I routinely run a 2-radio full-duplex operation here. The Elk still heard satellites at AOS sooner, provided equivalent receive quality through the pass and heard satellites longer at LOS than the Arrow (either with or without the duplexer). I'll echo the sentiments expressed here. The Arrow does work, and work well. My experiences with it, however, suggest that the Elk works better - especially on the receive side, which is the most critical side of satellite communications. My work on AO-7 into Europe, Africa and Alaska would not have been possible with the Arrow because the elevation angles involved were lower than I was ever able to hear any satellite with it. I should note that I am using the same radios and coax with the Elk (i.e., the same as I used with the Arrow), but include a Diamond duplexer because of my need to connect two radios to the Elk, which is a dual-band antenna with a single feed point. I also know operators who have not shared my experiences with the Elk. Ray at Elk and Allen at Arrow will have to forgive me for this, but I suppose that antenna manufacturing is like virtually every other form of manufacturing - for whatever the reasons, with all processes and materials appearing to be identical - there are some really good examples and some not-so-good examples that come off the line. Maybe I got a good Elk and used it to replace and Arrow that wasn't so good as others. I can only speak to my experiences with the two antennas and use examples of my own personal operation with each, which I'll share with anyone who cares to email me off the BB. Like I said - there's no need for a handheld antenna conflict here. I would, howeveer, like to see the Elk get the credit due it for being an outstanding antenna that is less expensive than the Arrow, smaller than the Arrow (and so even easier to pack and transport - I know because I've done it with both antennas) and nominally rated for higher power. 73 to all, Tim - N3TL Athens, Ga. - EM84ha From: Rafael Valdez G. rafaval...@hotmail.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 3:30:28 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas Does Arrow antenna needs more endoresement than these two??? I personally like Elk for its less bulky design but Arrow is definetely a winner 73 Rafael Valdez Jr. XE2RV @ DM41mh 10-10 52716 VUCC Sat #164 http://sat-xe.blogspot.com EX-XE2PWF P Before printing, please think about your responsibility and commitment with the ENVIRONMENT. Antes de Imprimir, piensa entu responsabilidad y compromiso con el MEDIO AMBIENTE To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:12:19 -0800 From: k...@juno.com Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas AMEN ! I have used my Arrow right out of the box (bag), with a store-bought duplexer and it works great! No mods necessary. Thousands of QSO's on my trips around the country on AO-27, UO-14, SO-50, etc. I note that many of the messages I see on this subject are from people I've never heard on any satellite. Strange. 73 John K6YK SAT VUCC #10, 800+ grids confirmed SAT WAS #200 - Forwarded message -- From: RONALD CADE w6zq_ To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:28:43 -0700 Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas Gentlemen, If you want to see some improvement from the Arrow antenna, leave it's physical dimensions alone and remove the diplexer in the handle, throw it away and replace it with one of my designs. I won't get into any of the design details however having a device with adjustable capacitors and wire wound inductors makes a world of difference. I have been using this antenna since it arrived on the market with great success. Most of my activity has been in California, Arizona and the Hawaiian Islands. I would not take any other antenna with me on my trips away from home. As Clint mentioned, there is a significant difference in the signal strength from the sats as I have to rotate my antenna at least 45 degrees during a pass. Ron, W6ZQ SAT VUCC #99, 500+ grids confirmed SAT WAS Arrow + Icom ICw32 Click here for fast, safe, easy money transfers. http
[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas
... Why are we modifying the Arrow? ... Because someone's analysis says the element length is all wrong ... So Al Lowe's software program which he used to design these is all wrong? Sorry to get defensive on Al's behalf. This thread just feels like a re-hash of an engineer's view vs. real world results argument. Like when I was told here - by engineers - that it mattered how I twisted my Arrow while working the sats. Ya gotta take polarization into account, Clint - there's a 22db difference when you turn your antenna 90 degrees - a tremendous performance hit if you don't take this into account ... Yet in the real world of demonstrating workin' the birds, there's no such performance degradation. I have hundreds of witnesses to this fact: Capture SO-50 and AO-51 with the Arrow and operate TX and RX while twisting the antenna in different angles doesn't change the great reception and transmission quality. If you are in the market for an Arrow, I simply suggest that you use it as offered to you. You will be pleased with its 2M and 440 amateur bands performance. And leave the modding of the elements w-a-y on the bottom of your things to do lists. Clint Bradford -- Clint Bradford, K6LCS http://www.clintbradford.com ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas
Oh, I agree that it works acceptably well right out of the box, and I've made contacts with it. I've also noticed little to no difference changing the polarization by rotating it. I wonder if the proximity to the ground, and the person holding it, is why the polarization doesn't seem to matter too much. I know for a fact that polarization *does* matter if you're using a Yagi up on a tower. I get better signal strength from my omni on 2 meters than from my 9-element horizontally polarized M2 Yagi when pointed at the same repeater. And at a previous job, one of my responsibilities was to aim satellite antennas, and peak and cross-pole them. I've seen well over 20dB difference from being on the wrong polarization. Theoretically, it's infinite, but due to how the feeds are made, and other factors, it's never infinite. As for Al's software program being wrong, it might not be the software, but how it was used. I'm not knocking Al; he's provided a great, unique product for the Amateur community. If I were better versed in the use of antenna-modeling programs, I'd measure out the antenna and check it for myself, but I'm not, so I go by what other antenna experts that I respect have said. I suppose an easy way to get a rough idea on this would be to see where the SWR is lowest in the 70cm band. My antenna analyzer doesn't go that high in frequency, so I can't do that. Britain's article was in the Summer 2006 issue of CQ VHF, where he states that the antenna has been measured at several conferences, and has showed gains of around 4dBi at 435MHz, well short of what 7 elements should give. For example, an M2 6-element, end-mounted 70cm antenna is rated at 11dBi, and a Gulf Alpha 8-element, end-mounted 70cm is rated at 13dBi. His NEC evaluation based on the element length and spacing showed forward gain *should* peak at around 457 MHz, and that his NEC model suggested the boom correction factor for insulated vs directly mounted elements was not applied, and that the elements appeared to be about 1/2 short. And as the Arrow Antenna website states, This Antenna has not been tested for gain. No need, it works. Can't argue with that! For the small cost of a box of 1/4 threaded spacers, I think it's worth making the elements longer. Jim KQ6EA --- On Sun, 8/16/09, Clint Bradford clintbra...@earthlink.net wrote: From: Clint Bradford clintbra...@earthlink.net Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas To: amsat-bb@amsat.org, amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Sunday, August 16, 2009, 1:19 PM ... Why are we modifying the Arrow? ... Because someone's analysis says the element length is all wrong ... So Al Lowe's software program which he used to design these is all wrong? Sorry to get defensive on Al's behalf. This thread just feels like a re-hash of an engineer's view vs. real world results argument. Like when I was told here - by engineers - that it mattered how I twisted my Arrow while working the sats. Ya gotta take polarization into account, Clint - there's a 22db difference when you turn your antenna 90 degrees - a tremendous performance hit if you don't take this into account ... Yet in the real world of demonstrating workin' the birds, there's no such performance degradation. I have hundreds of witnesses to this fact: Capture SO-50 and AO-51 with the Arrow and operate TX and RX while twisting the antenna in different angles doesn't change the great reception and transmission quality. If you are in the market for an Arrow, I simply suggest that you use it as offered to you. You will be pleased with its 2M and 440 amateur bands performance. And leave the modding of the elements w-a-y on the bottom of your things to do lists. Clint Bradford -- Clint Bradford, K6LCS http://www.clintbradford.com ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas
I will say that I can improve my 437 reception by rotating the beam...I also have gotten better signals by aiming the beam at a point on the ground 100 feet away... Why criticize? Everyone else can do anything they want to their antennas without me getting upset...afterall, it's not MY antenna. Now if someone wants to point me toward scientific theory, antenna modeling programs, propagation theory...then I can stand up and listen...until then, my best signal is most important to me. Roger WA1KAT Roger WA1KAT - Original Message - From: Clint Bradford clintbra...@earthlink.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 4:19 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas ... Why are we modifying the Arrow? ... Because someone's analysis says the element length is all wrong ... So Al Lowe's software program which he used to design these is all wrong? Sorry to get defensive on Al's behalf. This thread just feels like a re-hash of an engineer's view vs. real world results argument. Like when I was told here - by engineers - that it mattered how I twisted my Arrow while working the sats. Ya gotta take polarization into account, Clint - there's a 22db difference when you turn your antenna 90 degrees - a tremendous performance hit if you don't take this into account ... Yet in the real world of demonstrating workin' the birds, there's no such performance degradation. I have hundreds of witnesses to this fact: Capture SO-50 and AO-51 with the Arrow and operate TX and RX while twisting the antenna in different angles doesn't change the great reception and transmission quality. If you are in the market for an Arrow, I simply suggest that you use it as offered to you. You will be pleased with its 2M and 440 amateur bands performance. And leave the modding of the elements w-a-y on the bottom of your things to do lists. Clint Bradford -- Clint Bradford, K6LCS http://www.clintbradford.com ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas
I will say that I can improve my 437 reception by rotating the beam...I also have gotten better signals by aiming the beam at a point on the ground 100 feet away... Why criticize? Everyone else can do anything they want to their antennas without me getting upset...afterall, it's not MY antenna. Now if someone wants to point me toward scientific theory, antenna modeling programs, propagation theory...then I can stand up and listen...until then, my best signal is most important to me. Roger WA1KAT Roger WA1KAT - Original Message - From: Clint Bradford clintbra...@earthlink.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 4:19 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas ... Why are we modifying the Arrow? ... Because someone's analysis says the element length is all wrong ... So Al Lowe's software program which he used to design these is all wrong? Sorry to get defensive on Al's behalf. This thread just feels like a re-hash of an engineer's view vs. real world results argument. Like when I was told here - by engineers - that it mattered how I twisted my Arrow while working the sats. Ya gotta take polarization into account, Clint - there's a 22db difference when you turn your antenna 90 degrees - a tremendous performance hit if you don't take this into account ... Yet in the real world of demonstrating workin' the birds, there's no such performance degradation. I have hundreds of witnesses to this fact: Capture SO-50 and AO-51 with the Arrow and operate TX and RX while twisting the antenna in different angles doesn't change the great reception and transmission quality. If you are in the market for an Arrow, I simply suggest that you use it as offered to you. You will be pleased with its 2M and 440 amateur bands performance. And leave the modding of the elements w-a-y on the bottom of your things to do lists. Clint Bradford -- Clint Bradford, K6LCS http://www.clintbradford.com ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas twist or not
Hi all, I think we need some clarification. Which satellite(s)are we talking about, when receiving with the ARROWS antenna ? The ARROW antenna are linearly polarised. What latitude is your QTH ? Regarding satellites - some have linear polarisation - some have circular polarisation. AO-51 has Right Hand Circular Polarisation on the normal repeater downlink (435.300 MHz), SO-50 has linear polarisation - the same applies to AO-27. The satellites attitude are stabilised with permanet magnets. This may give different results depending upon where you are. Here in Copenhagen it is a great advantage to twist the ARROWS antenna to improve the downlink signal from AO-27. We are close to the North Pole (hi) Everyone may be right :-) 73 OZ1MY Ib - Original Message - From: Roger Kolakowski rogerk...@aol.com To: Clint Bradford clintbra...@earthlink.net; amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:34 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas I will say that I can improve my 437 reception by rotating the beam...I also have gotten better signals by aiming the beam at a point on the ground 100 feet away... Why criticize? Everyone else can do anything they want to their antennas without me getting upset...afterall, it's not MY antenna. Now if someone wants to point me toward scientific theory, antenna modeling programs, propagation theory...then I can stand up and listen...until then, my best signal is most important to me. Roger WA1KAT Roger WA1KAT - Original Message - From: Clint Bradford clintbra...@earthlink.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 4:19 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas ... Why are we modifying the Arrow? ... Because someone's analysis says the element length is all wrong ... So Al Lowe's software program which he used to design these is all wrong? Sorry to get defensive on Al's behalf. This thread just feels like a re-hash of an engineer's view vs. real world results argument. Like when I was told here - by engineers - that it mattered how I twisted my Arrow while working the sats. Ya gotta take polarization into account, Clint - there's a 22db difference when you turn your antenna 90 degrees - a tremendous performance hit if you don't take this into account ... Yet in the real world of demonstrating workin' the birds, there's no such performance degradation. I have hundreds of witnesses to this fact: Capture SO-50 and AO-51 with the Arrow and operate TX and RX while twisting the antenna in different angles doesn't change the great reception and transmission quality. If you are in the market for an Arrow, I simply suggest that you use it as offered to you. You will be pleased with its 2M and 440 amateur bands performance. And leave the modding of the elements w-a-y on the bottom of your things to do lists. Clint Bradford -- Clint Bradford, K6LCS http://www.clintbradford.com ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas
Gentlemen, If you want to see some improvement from the Arrow antenna, leave it's physical dimensions alone and remove the diplexer in the handle, throw it away and replace it with one of my designs. I won't get into any of the design details however having a device with adjustable capacitors and wire wound inductors makes a world of difference. I have been using this antenna since it arrived on the market with great success. Most of my activity has been in California, Arizona and the Hawaiian Islands. I would not take any other antenna with me on my trips away from home. As Clint mentioned, there is a significant difference in the signal strength from the sats as I have to rotate my antenna at least 45 degrees during a pass. Ron, W6ZQ SAT VUCC #99, 500+ grids confirmed SAT WAS Arrow + Icom ICw32 - Original Message - From: Clint Bradfordmailto:clintbra...@earthlink.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.orgmailto:amsat-bb@amsat.org ; amsat-bb@amsat.orgmailto:amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:19 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas ... Why are we modifying the Arrow? ... Because someone's analysis says the element length is all wrong ... So Al Lowe's software program which he used to design these is all wrong? Sorry to get defensive on Al's behalf. This thread just feels like a re-hash of an engineer's view vs. real world results argument. Like when I was told here - by engineers - that it mattered how I twisted my Arrow while working the sats. Ya gotta take polarization into account, Clint - there's a 22db difference when you turn your antenna 90 degrees - a tremendous performance hit if you don't take this into account ... Yet in the real world of demonstrating workin' the birds, there's no such performance degradation. I have hundreds of witnesses to this fact: Capture SO-50 and AO-51 with the Arrow and operate TX and RX while twisting the antenna in different angles doesn't change the great reception and transmission quality. If you are in the market for an Arrow, I simply suggest that you use it as offered to you. You will be pleased with its 2M and 440 amateur bands performance. And leave the modding of the elements w-a-y on the bottom of your things to do lists. Clint Bradford -- Clint Bradford, K6LCS http://www.clintbradford.comhttp://www.clintbradford.com/ ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.orgmailto:AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bbhttp://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
