[Top] [All Lists]

[Towertalk] Re: [Towertalk] 468/f

To: <>
Subject: [Towertalk] Re: [Towertalk] 468/f
From: (
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:24:10 +0200
With a good modeling software and proper skill is nowadays possible to 
realize even very complex (yagi) antennas (like those with open sleeve 
tapered elements) and predict results, even SWR dips within KHz.
With cut and try method it's practically impossible to obtain 
reasonable results or optimize when more than one variable is present, 
not counting that SWR at TX side, typical effort, is often only a 
transformated impedance (by cable lenght) of an antenna that's not 
resonant, not a cure.
When a computer model is correct but practical results doesn't appear 
coincident with predicted ones is almost sure that the antenna in 
object is not working because suffering by interactions or detunings 
caused by objects or other antennas, not because the model is incorrect.

A cut and try procedure that would minimize SWR doesn't solve the 
problem at all, likewise wrong is modeling too close from ground, from 
other antennas elements or objects.

Both will not make a poorly installed antenna efficient or properly 

Mauri I4JMY

---------- Initial Header -----------
>From    :
To      : <>
Cc      : 
Date    : Wed, 26 Jun 2002 04:17:32 -0400
Subject : [Towertalk] 468/f

> >And for how long did 468/f rest resplendent in the books,
> >unquestioned, until Joe Common Ham got his mits on antenna modeling
> >software?"
> When I was a kid, the ARRL handbook offered 468/f as an approximation 
> of the length of a dipole @ 1/2 wave height.  It was stated rather cle
> that trimming would be required to accomodate site-variables.  
> Last week, I cut an 80m dipole using 468/f as a starting point. Went u
p as
> an inverted Vee.  Took perhaps 10 minutes with a meter to trim off a f
> from each end, precisely as expected.  (I always add a foot on 80 & 40
> just to give me room to trim.  THAT they didn't put in the handbook!) 
> Evidence suggests that 468/f is still a workable approximation.
> It would seem that Joe Common Ham may suffer from an over-reliance on 
> model data, or a lack of common sense in applying it.
> Perhaps it's the expectation that you can predict unseen environmental
> variables with any precision whatever.  
> Jim Jarvis, N2EA
> Essex, VT
> _______________________________________________
> Towertalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>