Quados antenna online calculator

hi
is there any high quality picture from wire connection to antenna?
wire must be connected to the reflector?

can i use thicker wire?

The diagram is missing some important information: are the measurements from the core of the wire, or from the inside or outside wrt the other measurement point? I tried laying out a 6 square for 850 MHz, and E seems to be core-core, while D was outside-outside. If I laid out D as core-core, then F was wrong. Since this is inconsistent, I don't know what A, B, or C are supposed to be measured between.

In that case, I need to report either a program bug or human error, because the numbers do not work out. When I lay out an end square for 850 MHz, if E is center of wire to center of wire, then D from center of wire makes F far too short. If E is inner edge to inner edge, and D is center of wire to center of wire, then F is correct. So,the problem seems to be the measurement for E. I'm guessing that someone entered the wrong measurement for E. I don't know if there's a problem with A, B or C, since an error wouldn't show up in layout the way the square does. I've laid it out several times, so I'm pretty sure I'm not making the error.

That image makes the end squares look not-square, but the photos of the ends of the actual antennas make them look square. The image above might have been generated according to the calculations, which may be incorrect. If the squares are supposed to be not perfectly square, it's odd that they would be off by exactly the diameter of the wire. To me that looks more like human error in choosing the wrong spreadsheet value. It would be easy to shrug off the small off-squareness for 2.1 GHz or higher ("Just sloppy bending"), but it's quite noticeable for 850 MHz.

I'm partway through cutting mine out of sheet aluminum (corrected for the assumed error). I know that changes things, but even 1/4" copper tubing would be too heavy for my needs. I expect it will work. I really need a few dB more than my present biquad.

I don't see why changing the resonant frequency of the end squares would be "simplifying". If I'd designed the antenna, and found that shrinking the outer dimensions made a big improvement, I'm pretty sure I'd mention that in the article. This just seems like the kind of mistake commonly made: taking the wrong measurement point. Maybe he'd done earlier calculations using 0 radius lines, then switched to wire, but made a simple error on those outer lines.

My antenna is cut out of Al siding, the width the same as the recommended wire (5.8 mm). I've never found anything about strips having to be wider than round wire, and I doubt that it will make too big of a difference. Another option would be 1/4" wooden dowel, glued together and covered in foil. This isn't an expensive experiment. The reflector is angle Al, with .1 mm wire spaced 2 mm apart, for low wind resistance. It's for WCDMA 850(v). The LTE setting is less reliable. I'll post when I get it connected.

I finally finished the antenna (with the end squares as 90 degree squares) and mounted it. My RSSI went from -99 to -90. I'm quite happy with that. The thin-wire reflector offers low wind resistance.

For connecting the coax to the flat aluminum, I drilled holes and made some small rivets from copper wire. Easy to solder to. Screws would work too.

As for the 50 degree angle, try changing E to E + diameter. I still think the easiest error that fits would be taking the wrong measuring point (outer edge rather than core). Maybe he did some earlier equations with one method, then changed but forgot one measurement.

Still happy with the improvement over the biquad. Bigger improvement than I expected.