Hi, you have rediscovered an old trick.
If you look at ON4UN's book "Low-Band Dxing" you will see some arrays of
verticals using an element fed with parallel coaxial feebleness. To
match, and also create the magnitude of current needed for the array.
The triangle array is one such example. Of course in reality when you
try to build this array it creates a complex relay matrix, since we wish
to "steer" the array, but it works. Three towers in line is another
There are other ways to feed this type of array using single coaxial
feed lines too.
But the point is that it is a common practice with phased arrays to use
parallel coaxial cables.
Reducing loss in the cable is not usually the concern, but I guess a
little less IR drop in an antenna feed line that has say 6 ohms of
impedance would be good. Say a mobile whip used on 160 meters. Here an
ohm of IR RF loss would be worth the effort to reduce.
Or guys on the 1750 meter band. These antennas probably can have a
fraction of an ohm of radiation impedance.
Billy Ward wrote:
> 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
> low-loss coaxial cable and I offered some information as a POSSIBLE
> This is it:
> The Idea was to use two 72-Ohm Belden cables in parallel to obtain 36-Ohms
> to match a 32-Ohm 1/4 wave ground-plane 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
> I used an MFJ-259-B 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 71.2-Ohms. 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
> Pl-259 at each end just as you would to make a co-phasing 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
> In your opinions, are there any flaws in this being a viable feed line.
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/antennaware
> Submissions: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Administrative requests: antennaware-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: email@example.com
WX0B - Array Solutions
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/antennaware
Administrative requests: antennaware-REQUEST@contesting.com