Greetings Group,
I would like to have this groups input on something that I have been working
on today.
Today was not the first time that I've toyed with this idea but I performed
the experiments again that I have done a few times with the same results as
before. There was a question posted on another forum about some ideas for
lowloss coaxial cable and I offered some information as a POSSIBLE
solution.
This is it:
The Idea was to use two 72Ohm Belden cables in parallel to obtain 36Ohms
to match a 32Ohm 1/4 wave groundplane antenna. In doing this, the I
squared R losses would also be 1/2 unless there is something that I am not
seeing. Since the tests show that it works, if I qualified the tests
properly, I would have no doubts except that I have been a Ham and a RF
engineer for almost 40 years and have never heard of running two cables in
parallel.
I used an MFJ259B and measured the Characteristic Impedance of three
lengths of Belden 72 ohm cable.
One of them was Three Feet, one was 12 Feet and the other one was 18 Feet.
They measured 71.2, 71.3 and 71.2Ohms. I then measured the velocity
factor using the "Distance to Fault Mode" to determine the electrical length
of the cable in inches and and then divided that figure by the actual length
in inches.
The Velocity Factor measured at .80, .80 and .79 blinking to .80
After making up 3 parallel cables by fitting both cables into a single
Pl259 at each end just as you would to make a cophasing cable for CB
radios, I made the measurements again. The impedances were almost exactly
what I expected at 35.7, 35,7 and 35.4.
The Velocity Factors were a little further from the single cable figures
than were the impedances, measuring at 82.3, 82,4 and 82.0. I figured that
this was because the losses from the insulation was divided among the two
cables causing the Velocity to be just a little faster than one cable.
I am familiar with Conjugate Matching and realize that there is really no
practical reason for using this cable arrangement in order to radiate 100%
of the power delivered by the transmitter less the power dissipated by the
cable losses.. Also the amount of power saved by halving the losses of
cable that is already low enough is not worth the time it takes and the
extra cost of the cable to bother with it. However, to stir up a discussion
on the other forum, I offered this idea. So please NO preaching about why I
do not need to bother with this idea. It is just a fun thing for
discussion.
In your opinions, are there any flaws in this being a viable feed line.
Billy
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/antennaware
Submissions: antennaware@contesting.com
Administrative requests: antennawareREQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: ownerantennaware@contesting.com
