best antenna

[SpaxmoidJAm]

your last two images the 1/4 wavelength (section nearest the can) look massively different in length even considering the slight difference in images sizes .

i measured on screen the width of the cans about a 10% difference (left can is 10% bigger) but the first sections are are about 40% different. i know measuring on screen is going to be rubbish but that some difference.

Can you confirm the the quarter wave sections are the same.

[ccz]

good to see you weren't put off from trying it. Experimenting is half the fun.

No way, i am already gathering brass parts to make one from scratch, no coax in this one, elements will be empty on the inside adding only some small 3D printed spacers.

[...] but i did have most success with even numbers especially if you go to eight elements.

From my reading until now and from abcd567' simulations 8-10 elements give better results because they will get the coco closer to 75ohms.

I can only hope that the brass collinear i will be building will prove a bigger success. Current one is on par with cantenna so something must be wrong (too few elements and no balun plus bad wire and no soldering on it).

[abcd567]

your last two images the 1/4 wavelength (section nearest the can) look massively different in length even considering the slight difference in images sizes .

i measured on screen the width of the cans about a 10% difference (left can is 10% bigger) but the first sections are are about 40% different. i know measuring on screen is going to be rubbish but that some difference.

Can you confirm the the quarter wave sections are the same.

The bottom sections in the two antennas are NOT equal.

The standard cantenna's whip is 1/4 wavelength = 69mm.

The collinear whip is dimensioned as follows (from bottom to top):

102mm + 22mm dia coil 1 turn + 187 mm

The simulation as well as test antenna use these dimensions.

The wire used is core wire of RG6, which has 1mm dia

[abcd567]

Moved to next page.

[abcd567]

Another Wire Collinear on internet.
The Million dollar question: Has any one COMPARED it with an antenna of known performance like 1/4 wavelength groundplane (Spider/Cantenna)?

Is any of this forum's members ready to make this one (or the other 2 drawings posted in my previous post) and run a comparison test with a 1/4 wavelength groundplane antenna?

Without comparison (like I have done with my wire collinear), claims of high gain are NOT acceptable, even if supported by simulation results.

http://www.qsl.net/py4zbz/adsb.htm

The site is in Portuguese language. A translation in English gives following details:

"The upright elements 3 is 136, 205 and 183 mm in length respectively (from the connector). The 4 ground plane of the rods is 69 mm each. As this antenna has 75 ohms radiation resistance, I used a RGC-06 cable (60%) with 12 meters to the E4000, whose input impedance is also 75 ohms.
Detail of one of the two coils 1/4 wave perimeter (69 mm) and 22 mm in diameter:"


ANT1.jpg ant3.jpg sa3.gif sa2.gifsa4.gif

[Rooster]

I think the reason you are finding better results with a 1/4 wave is that the radiation pattern is raised in comparison to a colinear or any other loaded antennae.

Building a "high gain" antenna means you are compromising SOMETHING !
In amateur radio we build antennae that offer a low angle of radiation because we know the other station is on the ground ;-)
You never get anything for nothing in this game, and by making antennae bigger than 1/4 you are gaining distance at the expense of height - and therefore loosing range overhead.

[abcd567]

Another Wire Colliear design on web:
G7RGQ Omni

http://wiki.modesbeast.com/Accessori...ctiona_Antenna

ADS-B-antenna-drawing.gif

[abcd567]

Another wire collinear

http://www.sprut.de/electronic/pic/p...n.html#antenne

Sprut collinear.gif

[SpaxmoidJAm]

that last one i have actually built and it was OK, think i still have the results somewhere ( have formatted once or twice since then)

@abcd567 I'm glad they are different lengths i thought my eyes were playing tricks.
@ccz i have often thought about doing it like but wandered how to support the elements let me know how it works out with printed spacers

[abcd567]

One more....

http://www.it9ybg.altervista.org/ind...s/progetti.htm

it9ybg 1090-1.jpg it9ybg 1090-2.jpg

[abcd567]

Found one more...

https://adsb.alle.bg/antenna/collinear/

adsb.alle.bg 1090.gif

[abcd567]

Below is a photo of some of the collinear whips I have tried. Many others are not in this photo as those ended up in trash can.

All these whips were optimized by simulation, which showed Gain much greater than, and SWR much less than the 1/4 wavelength groundplane (Cantenna).

However when I replaced the 1/4 whip of Cantenna by these whips, the performance dropped drastically.

All the antenna designs I have come across on web have same approach. After making their antenna, they connect it to DBV-T, and aicrafts popup on their screen. They then claim it as very good antenna. No one has ever presented a quantitative comparison with a benchmark antenna. Their attitude is like a person who runs alone in a race, and at the end of race declares himself the winner.

Note:
The button like thing on left side of the top-most whip is an adjustable capacitor (trimmer/padder) 2 to 7 pf.
I inserted it to nullify the inductive component of antenna impedance to improve SWR.

[ccz]

Another Wire Collinear on internet.
The Million dollar question: Has any one COMPARED it with an antenna of known performance like 1/4 wavelength groundplane (Spider/Cantenna)?

Is any of this forum's members ready to make this one (or the other 2 drawings posted in my previous post) and run a comparison test with a 1/4 wavelength groundplane antenna?

I have tried them before but I can't say comparisons were very thorough. My results were worse for these wire collinears but only based on momentarily observations.
I have now a known good cantenna with a few days range plot that I can compare it to.

Just built the one from this post and will put it up in a few minutes. Will make range plot and report it after 24-48h.
Antenna details were respected exactly, like you wrote them. Wire used is same as cantenna to eliminate this difference too.

The site is in Portuguese language. A translation in English gives following details:

"The upright elements 3 is 136, 205 and 183 mm in length respectively (from the connector). The 4 ground plane of the rods is 69 mm each. As this antenna has 75 ohms radiation resistance, I used a RGC-06 cable (60%) with 12 meters to the E4000, whose input impedance is also 75 ohms.
Detail of one of the two coils 1/4 wave perimeter (69 mm) and 22 mm in diameter:"


[ATTACH=CONFIG]7821[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]7822[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]7823[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]7824[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]7825[/ATTACH]

Please follow link in original post is interested, I still can post links.

[ccz]

I stopped the experiment. I picked up almost nothing. I can't believe that I am so bad at bending a simple wire.
Totally can't understand the results I'm getting.
Even the simple pushed-in coco I did performed like the cantenna. I am at a loss here.


Attached are plots for the following:

- wire collinear 2h, run for the last 2 hours
- reference cantenna (48h plot)
- cantenna 2min, run for 2 minutes after changing back from wire collinear

Edit: circles are 50nm each

[ccz]

Not giving up!
I'm not yet dismissing the previous experiment. One explanation could be that the dongle was overwhelmed by the new signal, hence the poor performance. So I tested with all gain settings and it still performs the same. Putting a 68.8mm wire brings back the good reception.


Will also try next to build the following antennas as I didn't find any mentioning of them here:

Slim Jim - http://jeroen.steeman.org/Antenna/Sl...nna-Calculator
PCB antenna - http://f5ann.pagesperso-orange.fr/An...MHz/index.html
PCB colinear - http://f5ann.pagesperso-orange.fr/An...MHz/index.html