Rethinking FM Radio Antennas Through an AMS Lens

Rethinking FM Radio Antennas Through an AMS Lens

Pattern cleanliness, boundary conditions, and practical experiments

Why FM is interesting in this context

FM radio (88–108 MHz) is a particularly elegant transmission system. By encoding audio as frequency variation rather than amplitude, it becomes far more resilient to the everyday electrical noise that plagues AM. The trade-off is different: FM is much more sensitive to geometry, reflections, and boundary effects. What most listeners experience as “bad FM” is not noise in the classical sense, but multipath distortion and unstable reception.

This makes FM a good candidate for re-examination through an Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) perspective. Not because FM is broken, but because it is already operating in a regime where interfaces, boundaries, and ordering dominate performance.

This post explores FM antenna design in three layers:

  1. A clear baseline of how FM antennas normally work
  2. Practical, buildable FM antenna designs
  3. AMS-inspired experimental directions that focus on stability and cleanliness, not raw gain

The goal is not to overthrow classical RF theory, but to ask whether some persistent real-world FM issues are better explained—and potentially improved—by paying closer attention to boundary conditions and pattern conversion.

FM reception: a short technical grounding

At ~100 MHz, the wavelength is approximately 3 m. This places FM antennas firmly in the “electrically significant” regime:

  • A half-wave dipole is ~1.5 m tip-to-tip
  • A quarter-wave element is ~75 cm

Unlike AM loops, FM antennas are strongly influenced by electric field coupling, conductor geometry, and feedline behavior.

In practical terms:

  • Small changes in antenna length or environment can noticeably affect reception
  • Feedlines can unintentionally become part of the antenna
  • Nearby objects, walls, and wiring often dominate real-world performance

Most FM reception problems are therefore pattern problems, not signal-strength problems.

Baseline FM antenna designs (known, reliable, and essential)

Before experimenting, a clean reference matters. These are not optional—they are your control group.

1. Half-wave dipole (the honest baseline)

Description:
Two equal conductors fed at the center.

Dimensions (for ~100 MHz):

  • Total length: ~150 cm
  • Each leg: ~75 cm

Feed discipline (critical):

  • Coax center conductor → one leg
  • Coax shield → the other leg
  • Add a common-mode choke at the feedpoint
    • 5–8 turns of coax in a 10–12 cm air coil, or
    • Clip-on ferrites near the feed

Orientation:

  • Try vertical first, then horizontal
  • Indoor multipath often makes “wrong” polarization sound better

This antenna is simple, predictable, and unforgiving of sloppy feedlines—which is exactly why it’s valuable.

2. Quarter-wave ground-plane antenna

Description:
One vertical radiator with 3–4 radials acting as a reference plane.

Dimensions (for ~100 MHz):

  • Vertical element: ~75 cm
  • Radials: ~75 cm, angled downward 30–45°

Feed:

  • Coax center → vertical element
  • Coax shield → radial hub

This design is robust, easy to mount near windows or lofts, and often performs very well for broadcast FM.

Where AMS-inspired thinking becomes useful

Once a baseline antenna is working properly, AMS suggests shifting focus away from “more signal” and toward how patterns are converted and stabilized at boundaries.

In FM, these effects show up as:

  • Stereo hiss stability
  • Sensitivity to movement and nearby objects
  • Multipath distortion character
  • Repeatability of nulls and peaks

These are exactly the areas where classical designs often behave inconsistently indoors.

Experiment 1: Dielectric boundary conditioning

At FM frequencies, the interaction occurs primarily near the conductor surface. Classical theory calls this skin effect; AMS reframes it as boundary-mediated pattern interaction.

The experiment

Build two identical dipoles:

  • Dipole A: bare conductor
  • Dipole B: same conductor with a uniform dielectric sleeve
    • PTFE tube, acrylic tube, or consistent heat-shrink

Trim both for best performance to account for electrical length changes.

What to observe

  • Stability of stereo lock
  • Background hiss on weak stations
  • Sensitivity to hand proximity
  • Sensitivity to nearby objects

The question is not “is it louder?” but “is it calmer?”

Experiment 2: Feedline ordering as pattern discipline

Uncontrolled common-mode currents turn the coax into a random parasitic antenna. In AMS terms, this is pattern leakage.

Test sequence

Using the same antenna:

  1. No choke
  2. Choke at feedpoint
  3. Choke + careful coax routing away from the antenna

Observables

  • Multipath distortion changes
  • Directional consistency
  • Repeatability when returning to the same position

This experiment alone often produces the biggest real-world improvement.

Experiment 3: Segmented capacitive sleeve (FM analogue to segmented AM loops)

Rather than segmenting the main radiator (which becomes lossy and fiddly at VHF), the FM equivalent is to shape the boundary near the feedpoint, where the system is most sensitive.

Concept

Add a short, non-conductive tube around the feedpoint region and place discrete conductive rings around it.

These rings:

  • Are not directly connected end-to-end
  • May be left floating, or
  • May be lightly coupled with small capacitors

Simple build

  • Tube length: 10–20 cm
  • 6–10 copper tape rings around the tube
  • Variants:
    1. Rings floating
    2. Rings linked with 5–22 pF capacitors
    3. Rings referenced to shield via very high resistance (≈1 MΩ)

What you are testing

  • Reduction in “touchiness”
  • Cleaner multipath behavior
  • More stable stereo decode

This is boundary engineering, not resonance tuning.

How to judge success (FM-specific metrics)

Avoid vague impressions. Use repeatable criteria:

  • Stereo lock stability
  • Background hiss consistency
  • Multipath “swish” during movement
  • Sensitivity to antenna rotation
  • Sensitivity to nearby objects

If improvements persist across days and environments, they are unlikely to be placebo.

Why this matters

All of the components discussed here are well-known. What is not standard is the emphasis:

  • Not chasing gain
  • Not assuming noise is inevitable
  • Treating antennas as pattern interfaces, not just resonant conductors

AMS provides a coherent rationale for exploring these effects, but the experiments stand on their own. If they fail, they fail cleanly. If they succeed, they suggest that boundary conditions deserve more attention than they usually receive in everyday antenna practice.

Either outcome is useful.

Next directions

Natural extensions include:

  • Ferrite-bar replacements using controlled boundary sleeves
  • FM reception in electrically noisy environments
  • Scaling concepts toward large conductive structures (e.g. hulls, frames, vehicles)

FM is not just “better AM.” It is a window into how geometry, boundaries, and ordering shape what we actually hear.

Sometimes the antenna isn’t wrong.
It’s just being asked the wrong questions.

​

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Validation vs. Valuation

Validation vs. Valuation I recently found myself reflecting on the difference between validation and valuation , and I realised that although the words are often used interchangeably, they point to very different things. Validation, at its simplest and most innocent, is a form of support in the moment. It says: you’re seen , you’re heard , you’re not alone right now . In practical terms, validation is important — we validate work to ensure it’s safe, correct, or fit for purpose. In relationships, it can be reassuring and kind. But validation has a shadow side. When validation becomes something I need in order to feel whole — when my sense of self depends on it — it quietly shifts from support into something corrosive. In its more sinister form, validation can become manipulation, or an inadvertent tapping into a core wound: without your approval, I don’t exist . At that point, validation no longer supports identity — it erodes it. Valuation is something else entirely. Valuation ...
Read more

Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) Ontology — v0.8

AMS Ontology v0.8 — Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (Self-referencing, structured, and vocabulary-sealed. Uses “first/second heavens” for runtime reality and “third heaven” for creation-level domain. Avoids “universe”.) 0. Purpose and Reader Contract This document defines the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) as a unified ontological framework for runtime physical reality: matter, fields, energy, waves, circuits, and life-as-process. It is written to be: Self-referencing: terms are defined once and referenced consistently. Layered: it distinguishes creation-level constraint (T0) from runtime topology (T1/T2). Guardrailed: it forbids category errors (especially “order ⇒ agency” and “organisation ⇒ new energy”). This ontology does not attempt to model: ensoulment, spiritual state change, or personhood instantiation divine agency, the Holy Spirit, or theological mechanisms creation-level acts beyond their runtime implications (Those topics can be acknowledged in appendice...
Read more

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate I recently watched a video titled “There Is Something Faster Than Light.” The specifics of the argument aren’t the point here. What caught my attention was the familiar framing that followed: Newton versus Einstein, non-local versus local gravity, classical intuition versus modern physics. This framing is common. It’s also misleading. What follows is not a critique of either Newton or Einstein, but an attempt to understand what they were actually observing , why their descriptions differed, and how those observations can be unified under a single, coherent ontology — the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) . Newton: Gravity as Non-Local Action Newton’s law of gravitation is often caricatured as “action at a distance,” and historically, Newton himself was uneasy with that implication. From a modern perspective, Newtonian gravity is described as non-local : Two masses influence one another instantly N...
Read more