I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a
ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that
it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials
which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest.

Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers
interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial
system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a
ARX-2B?

What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both.

Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this

Kevin VE9-XYZ

"Kevin Hastings" wrote in message
...
I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a
ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized
that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3
radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest.

Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers
interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial
system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into
a ARX-2B?

What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both.

Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this

Kevin VE9-XYZ



----------------


I have used the ARX2B with and without the decoupling stubs and didn't
notice any real difference. Theoretically, the decoupling stubs flatten the
radiation doughnut which provides better signal toward the horizon. I guess
I didn't operate many stations that were out there far enough to notice any
improvement in range. How high the antenna is mounted also plays into the
range. Mounting it low would probably remove any advantage provided by the
coax and decoupling stubs.

Ed, NM2K

I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a
ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that
it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials
which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest.

Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers
interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial
system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a
ARX-2B?

What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both.

My understanding is that the original Ringo design doesn't do a good
job of decoupling the feedline (and mast, if conductive) from the
antenna. There can be a significant amount of RF current flow on the
outside of the feedline, below the impedance-matching loop/ring. This
radiates RF which combines with that of the radiating section,
altering the antenna's pattern to some extent (I think I've heard
people say that it can cause the antenna to "squint", with its main
radiation lobe pointing above or below the horizon). Because feedline
RF depends on the length of the feedline and its grounding
configuration, feedline-RF issue makes the original Ringo somewhat
sensitive to the specific conditions under which it's installed -
works great for some people, poorly for others.

Ordinary copper-pipe J-poles can suffer from the same problem, but as
they're a lower-gain antenna with an inherently-broader vertical
pattern I suspect that the problem is less noticeable.

The coax harness and radials (which you can probably replace with
quarter-wave sections of aluminum rod-stock, suitably threaded) act as
a decoupling section, isolating the feedline from the antenna and
making it less sensitive to the conditions of installation.

You might be able to achieve a similar effect by simply rolling up a
couple of feed of the top of the feedline into a coil 4-5" in
diameter, just below the feedpoint, and insulating the antenna from
the mast itself.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Sep 22, 2:01 pm, "Ed Cregger" wrote:
"Kevin Hastings" wrote in message

...





I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a
ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized
that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3
radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest.

Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers
interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial
system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into
a ARX-2B?

What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both.

Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this

Kevin VE9-XYZ


----------------

I have used the ARX2B with and without the decoupling stubs and didn't
notice any real difference. Theoretically, the decoupling stubs flatten the
radiation doughnut which provides better signal toward the horizon. I guess
I didn't operate many stations that were out there far enough to notice any
improvement in range. How high the antenna is mounted also plays into the
range. Mounting it low would probably remove any advantage provided by the
coax and decoupling stubs.

Ed, NM2K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even better, you can throw away the top section and run it as an
AR2!!!

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 22, 2:01 pm, "Ed Cregger" wrote:
"Kevin Hastings" wrote in message

...





I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was
a
ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized
that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the
3
radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest.

Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers
interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial
system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing
into
a ARX-2B?

What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both.

Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this

Kevin VE9-XYZ


----------------

I have used the ARX2B with and without the decoupling stubs and didn't
notice any real difference. Theoretically, the decoupling stubs flatten
the
radiation doughnut which provides better signal toward the horizon. I
guess
I didn't operate many stations that were out there far enough to notice
any
improvement in range. How high the antenna is mounted also plays into the
range. Mounting it low would probably remove any advantage provided by
the
coax and decoupling stubs.

Ed, NM2K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even better, you can throw away the top section and run it as an
AR2!!!



-----------------


Don't laugh, I have done that too. Then I did notice a difference in range.

Ed, NM2K

"Kevin Hastings" wrote in message
...
I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a
ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized
that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3
radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest.

Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers
interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial
system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into
a ARX-2B?

What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both.

Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this

Kevin VE9-XYZ



You can also order those missing parts directly from Cushcraft.
I would suggest -- before the snow flies -- if you want it up and operating
before winter.

gb

On Sep 22, 10:28 am, "Kevin Hastings"
wrote:
I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a
ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized that
it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3 radials
which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest.

Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers
interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial
system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing into a
ARX-2B?

Absolutely.

What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both.

Yep, I had a ARX-2 which I converted to a 2B. I did tests to see
the difference. It was large.
What the deal is... That extra section is mainly a decoupling device.
This decouples the antenna from the feedline, which can skew the
pattern upwards off the horizon. Gain is useless if it's pointing
towards Jupiter...
You don't need any more mast per say. The radial set clamps
to the existing mast you are using now. The 50 inch coax
section connects from the feedpoint to that radial set.
I made all the parts to convert mine myself but I imagine you
can order them from cushcraft.
MK

On Sep 22, 3:41 pm, "Ed Cregger" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...





On Sep 22, 2:01 pm, "Ed Cregger" wrote:
"Kevin Hastings" wrote in message

. ..

I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was
a
ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized
that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the
3
radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest.

Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers
interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial
system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing
into
a ARX-2B?

What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both.

Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this

Kevin VE9-XYZ


----------------

I have used the ARX2B with and without the decoupling stubs and didn't
notice any real difference. Theoretically, the decoupling stubs flatten
the
radiation doughnut which provides better signal toward the horizon. I
guess
I didn't operate many stations that were out there far enough to notice
any
improvement in range. How high the antenna is mounted also plays into the
range. Mounting it low would probably remove any advantage provided by
the
coax and decoupling stubs.

Ed, NM2K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even better, you can throw away the top section and run it as an
AR2!!!

-----------------

Don't laugh, I have done that too. Then I did notice a difference in range.

Ed, NM2K-

I was given an Arx2 on Guam. Looked as if it had gone through
numerous typhoons, and was missing the hairpin match. Not having a
manual or anything (and pre-internet), I fiddled with a piece of
copper wire until I got tired of it. So I gave it to a fellow ham,
who unscrewed the top section and threw it away. It matched just fine
with only the ring at the bottom.

"Jimmie D" wrote in message
...

"Ed Cregger" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Hastings" wrote in message
...
I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was
a ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized
that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3
radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest.

Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers
interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial
system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing
into a ARX-2B?

What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both.

Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this

Kevin VE9-XYZ



----------------


I have used the ARX2B with and without the decoupling stubs and didn't
notice any real difference. Theoretically, the decoupling stubs flatten
the radiation doughnut which provides better signal toward the horizon. I
guess I didn't operate many stations that were out there far enough to
notice any improvement in range. How high the antenna is mounted also
plays into the range. Mounting it low would probably remove any advantage
provided by the coax and decoupling stubs.

Ed, NM2K


Apparently there is a big difference from istallation to installation
without the decoupling mod the 2B provides. Ive heard many varied reports
on how well the -2 performs and what you should do to make it perform
well. Some say metal mast, others insulated mast. Some say install it at X
height others at Y, use a choke in the coax, other say thats the worst
thing you can do. Some praise the antenna others curse it. You should get
the idea by now.

For those who went to the 2B some say its better some say its worse thn
the -2, go figure.

Jimmie


---------------


Of all of the 2 meter non mobile verticals I have used over the last couple
of decades, the ARX2B is my favorite, in spite of my previous comments.

Ed, NM2K

Kevin (and others) What the deal is- that the original ARX-2 (not
De-coupled) allows rf to go on the outside sheath of the coax, allowing
it to become part of the antenna system. The decoupleing stub- with
1/4 wave ground plane radials, forces the rf off the coax below
the radials, allowing 2 features- 1) minimizes rf feedback towards the
rig (eliminates rf burns, in high power, and 2) makes the antenna
radiate simetrically (when the coax shield radiates, it distorts the
antenna pattern, both in recieve, and transmit.) Realistically, it
probably makes little difference, overall, but was a sales pitch,
started by AEA, on its Isopole antenna. Was demonstrated at Seattle
ARRL convention side by side- The coax from the (original) ARX-2
would light a lamp on a RF sniffer, held next to the coax-- the ISOPOLE
didn't! Cushcrafts response was the ARX-2B (and a mod kit for the
ARX-2), that eliminated this coax radiation! You can easily duplicate
the effect with 3- 19 inch pieces of aluminium wire, to the mast , held
on with a hose clamp! (dont forget to also attach that coax shield, at
that point! ) Jim NN7K


...
I bought one of these at a hamfest from a SK's estate and thought it was a
ARX-2 and then noticed the 52" coax harness attached to it and realized
that it was probably a ARX-2B which seems to be the same except for the 3
radials which I guess didn't get sent to the hamfest.

Reviews of these 2 antennas seem to almost use the 2 model numbers
interchangeably so the question is... Is it worth making up a radial
system and taking another 5 feet of mast to re-manufacture this thing
into a ARX-2B?

What would be the advantage? Maybe somebody's used both.

Thanks,- I was sure somebody out there knew this

Kevin VE9-XYZ