Jim Smith wrote:
>
>It did occur to me that I could add a 1/4 wave of wire to transform the
>impedance down to something easy to match so I modelled a 3/4 wave
>vert. Oooohhh.... yuckkk.. Not a low angle antenna.
>
<snip>
Yep, a 3/4 wave antenna is not a low angle radiator. Anything longer
than 5/8 wave and the maximum lobe starts to go up. That's the reason
you see so many 5/8 wave mobile 2M antennas. You may have intended your
1/4 wave transformer to be similar to the use of a stub, which you
mentioned next.
<snip>
>
>Another, who has an array of 1/2 wave verts on 160, pointed out the
>difficulties in using stubs when he said, "I did look at using a
>quarter wave coaxial stub to lower the feed impedance to something
>manageable. Problem with that was that even with 7/8" hard-line at 160m
>the loss was some 10dB. Good match though!!!!"
>
<snip>
Yep, you have a piece of coax operating at extreme SWR. Losses are
going to be very high.
<snip>
>
>Another suggested a 1/4 wave xfmr using 450 ohm ladder line. I had
>thought of this but it seems to me that the currents in the line would
>be very unbalanced, leading to messing up of the pattern due to high
>angle radiation from the line. This assumes that the line is running
>parallel to the ground and not very high above it. If the line is
>running vertical and connects to the 1/2 wave vert 1/4 wave above
>ground it seems to me to be the same situation as with just a 1/4 wave
>length of wire, given the current unbalance in the ladder line.
>
<snip>
Actually the currents aren't significantly unbalanced. This is where
you are reinventing the J pole. The unterminated side of the 450 ohm
line acts as the matching network. Its radiated field is cancelled by
the field produced by other side of the 450 ohm line that is attached to
the 1/2 wave antenna. So the antenna system performs like a 1/2 wave
antenna, end fed with a matching network that should radiate very
little. It doesn't matter if the 450 ohm line is vertical or
horizontal, as long as it is not too close to the ground. Same rules
apply as to using open line, you can't put it in close proximity to
other conductive objects. You will also need another matching network to
match the 450 ohm line to 50 ohm coax. This network should be much
easier to design, however. Or you could just do the same as is done
with a J pole. You can make this work without ground radials, but it
won't be as efficient as a 1/4 wave antenna using a good ground system.
If you can't implement some kind of radial system (either in-ground or
elevated) this may be your best choice.
<snip>
>
>Another proposed a 3/8 wave vert as being easier to feed and working
>just FB (310 countries on 75 from Ct). My model says - 3 dBi at a T/O
>angle of 21 deg which is 4 degrees worse than the 1/2 wave.
>
<snip>
Yes 3/8 wave is easier to match than a half wave. You will need ground
radials for this. Performance is not much different than a 1/4 wave
antenna using ground radials. (Note: Working countries is not a good
antenna test. As a kid I worked a bunch of countries with a piece of
wire laying on the floor in my room, but this doesn't make it a good
antenna.) Although, I will admit that a 3/8 wave antenna with a good
ground system, is a good antenna for 80 or 160.
<snip>
>
>I'm going to have to play with NECWin+ some more to make sure I actually
>know how to use it (given that I seem to be disagreeing with ON4UN)
>before I pursue this any further.
>
<snip>
Good idea. Vertical performance is very confusing, since most modeling
programs don't do a very good job (it's a difficult task). Seems like
they are all slightly different, and I am not familiar with NECWin+.
NEC4 seems to be the best, but not many people have access to that.
EZNEC gives you several choices of ground types which works OK, if you
understand the limitations. Check the stuff in ON4UN's book (most was
done with NEC4) and if you have a big disagreement, then you need to
resolve it. Remember that even the best of these programs, have
somewhat iffy results when modeling vertical antennas. Most of these
programs are "good enough" for horizontal antennas because the ground
isn't being used to obtain the return currents for the antenna, and the
losses, in general are lower (unless you have a very low horizontal
antenna).
Jerry, K4SAV
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|