K4SAV wrote:
> EI7BA wrote: Yes I am I am talking dipoles here..The dipoles have
> single wire
> capacity hats at either end, which is the most efficient way of loading
> them. The bottom capacity hat wire is 10ft over ground, and the top hat
> is at 55ft. all the details are at
> http://www.iol.ie/~bravo/low_band_antennae.htm#My%20TX%20Antennae
>
>
> The antenna you are describing on that page is commonly called a top
> loaded T, with two elevated radials (not a vertical dipole), although
> the radials described are only 1/8 wavelength each.
Jerry OM... It is NOT a loaded T.. I do know what a top loaded T is, as
I have built a few.. This is a dipole..
Rudy built it.... I have built it.... others have built it....It works...
Talk to Rudy about your model, as I'm not an expert, though I do use eznec.
It does not use radials. What you call radials are the capacity hats. I
could use coils, or linear loading, but capacity hats are more efficient
> There must be some mistake on that diagram because when I put those
> dimensions into EZNEC I get a resonant frequency of 2.43 MHz. I don't
> get any of the other characteristics described on that page either.
> The antenna was described as having a feedpoint impedance of 65 ohms
> and a 2:1 SWR of 170 KHz, and a gain of -0.25 dB. I get a feedpoint
> impedance at 1.85 MHz of 10.4 -j278 over average ground. Bandwidth at
> that frequency has no meaning.
> I tried to find the error. I can make the antenna resonate on 1.87
> MHz by lengthening the two radials to 133 ft each, but the feedpoint
> impedance goes to approximately 12 ohms over average ground. It's
> even less over salt water. I could make the two top wires 130 ft each
> (instead of 65 ft each) and make the antenna resonate on 1.835 MHz,
> but the feedpoint impedance goes to approximately 17 ohms over average
> ground. I could simulated a feedline that is not decoupled from the
> antenna and causes a lot of ground loss and that would raise the
> impedance and widen the bandwidth. The gain is largely dependent on
> whether you are talking about average ground or salt water. So does
> that diagram accurately reflect what you built?
>
>
I think you're looking at the 80m antenna, not the 160m version. The cap
hats on the 80m are 66ft tip to tip, and the 160m hats are around 130ft
. Please read Rudy N6LF's QEX articles on the links provided.. Please
also read Tom W8JI's and LB Cebik W4RNL's comments on my page.
I did not design this antenna... I built it from Rudy N6LF's design.
I make this perfectly clear on my webpage.
190 countries worked on 160m in five years says it works.
73
John EI7BA
> Jerry, K4SAV
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|