Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 08:08:27 -0800, "Brian Kelly" wrote: 2. Remove half the transmission line muffling of results by using a field strength meter to find resonance (another reason for power); Same as above but with a field strength indicator? Just might work if I use a 4-digit DVM and a diode. Excellant choice (add a filter cap too with resistive load for averaging). Yup. 3. Find the Vf (as you put it) by derivation against a wire model (through the difference in lengths of bare wire model resonance to real wire resonance); That would seem to work but I'd expect to still have the flat curves because of the coax losses. Hi Brian, Actually, by using the FSM you entirely remove the transmission line as disturbance to accurate response readings. Those come from the external reading which interprets all power being applied AT the antenna junction. However, it imposes upon you that you be scrupulous about achieving the same drive levels at all the intermediate frequencies across the swept band. If you do that, then the transmission line characteristics for the drive going up to the antenna junction fall out too. "Eureka". You're right. This is the way to go. Or at least to try. Careful drive monitoring, and careful response monitoring render the transmission line transparent to the measurement. Thus response/drive is the antenna characteristic. Define one point's SWR, and you can cast that into the suite of readings for a swept SWR curve. Take care in that "one" SWR determination to anticipate the SWR lowering effect of transmission line loss. Since coax losses don't vary much if at all over any of the individual HF ham bands a decent inline wattmeter with maybe a 4 inch scale should allow me to maintain a constant power output over the sweep. Then you do the same thing in software, and tailor the characteristic insulation thickness to match your measurements. Having achieved that, then you have your standard insulation. This does not give you Vf until you then remove that virtual insulation and find the native, bare wire resonance. Agreed. This last step is satisfying (it answers your question as to Vf), but the step before is more useful because you can model other antennas from that standard. That's what I need. It'll make a worthwhile weekend project which, if successful, should result in less futzing around with the cutters and the soldering iron up the tower. I'll also compare the experimental results of the bare wire sweeps to the predictions given by the modeler and "calibrate" the modeler in this respect too. Might lead me to my own real world ground condx vs. the generic "real ground" in the modeler which is another big source of modeling non-truths. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC w3rv |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:16:04 -0500, "Hal Rosser" wrote: "Wes Stewart" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:23:34 -0500, "Hal Rosser" wrote: or just use .95 as the VF and adjust as needed Or buy a copy of Eznec v4 or just use .95 as the VF and adjust as needed Or use .1 and adjust as needed. NOW ur talkin' :-) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Mar 2005 19:16:44 -0800, "Brian Kelly" wrote:
Since coax losses don't vary much if at all over any of the individual HF ham bands a decent inline wattmeter with maybe a 4 inch scale should allow me to maintain a constant power output over the sweep. Hi Brian, I left that unsaid, expecting someone, if not you, would also come to that conclusion. It does not work across all bands, but within a band it will suffice. Also, even given the impression of accuracy that most impart to their power meters, this method demands only "relative accuracy" which can be exceptional when care is shown (try to maintain a full scale indication or at least greater than 2/3rds at some cardinal point on the scale). At this point, one should reflect that if there is a mismatch, then power at the feed point will vary somewhat. In other words, the presumption of constant power (to subtract out the effects of the transmission line) is violated. However, as a first pass estimation, the method is still quite productive, and tightening up the method and the numbers is an exercise left to the experimenter. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message roups.com...
I've been using Nec Win Plus which is OK but it doesn't have the the ability to handle velocity factors like EZNEC 4.0 can. You could also try 4nec2 in which a provision was added (as described by L.B. Cebik) to model insulated wires. The CAD program does all the tedious trig for me. When I have a bare-wire model which "works" in NWP I can rescale the physical model by 0.98 or 0.95 or whatever the Vf might be to get a "close enough" fully dimensioned antenna design. But I still need to find the Vf experimentally and we're back to square one. You fed me some thinking fodder, I'll try a few things per above and get there one way or another. It also includes a drawing (drag and drop) style geometry editor and you can rescale part of or the whole structure. Arie. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
build a scale model with insulation at 900 MHz and test it on a network
analyzer in the lab remove insulation and retest? Mark |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The question that comes first to my mind is, "Why do you care?"
Certainly an antenna does not need to be resonant to work well. I can imagine you'd like a reasonably low indicated SWR, just so your transmitter has a reasonable load to drive. If you really want to know what's going on at the antenna feedpoint, you'll need to back the effects of the feedline out of your antenna analyzer readings, or use an analyzer that does it for you. If you have a reasonable estimate of the feedline loss and know its electrical length (easy to find if you put a short at the end of the line and look at the resulting impedances read on the analyzer), then you should be able to translate your analyzer readings to actual feedpoint impedance. Do you have the feedline properly decoupled from the antenna so it's not a significant part of the radiating system? If not, there seems little reason to bother making the measurements. I'd expect half-wave dipole resonance to result in lowest SWR on a 50-ohm feedline, but it won't be a very sharp minimum. So is it worth worrying about? Another 'speriment to try: build a fairly wide-spaced two wire transmission line from your wire. Short it at one end, open at the other, and look for quarter-wave resonance; or short both ends and look for half-wave resonance. Measure the resonant frequency, which will be a pretty sharp resonance (much sharper than the dipole). Remove the insulation and see how much the resonance changes. Try for various spacings to see what effect the spacing has. (Expect that close spacings will show more effect than wide.) Cheers, Tom |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
K7ITM wrote: The question that comes first to my mind is, "Why do you care?" Certainly an antenna does not need to be resonant to work well. I can imagine you'd like a reasonably low indicated SWR, just so your transmitter has a reasonable load to drive. If you really want to know what's going on at the antenna feedpoint, you'll need to back the effects of the feedline out of your antenna analyzer readings, or use an analyzer that does it for you. If you have a reasonable estimate of the feedline loss and know its electrical length (easy to find if you put a short at the end of the line and look at the resulting impedances read on the analyzer), then you should be able to translate your analyzer readings to actual feedpoint impedance. Do you have the feedline properly decoupled from the antenna so it's not a significant part of the radiating system? If not, there seems little reason to bother making the measurements. I'd expect half-wave dipole resonance to result in lowest SWR on a 50-ohm feedline, but it won't be a very sharp minimum. So is it worth worrying about? I agree 100%, it's not worth worrying about - if all I wanted is to get a 20M dipole running on the air. But that's not my point. I'm trying to use dipoles to determine the velocity factors of insulated wires used for the radiators. Another 'speriment to try: build a fairly wide-spaced two wire transmission line from your wire. Short it at one end, open at the other, and look for quarter-wave resonance; or short both ends and look for half-wave resonance. Measure the resonant frequency, which will be a pretty sharp resonance (much sharper than the dipole). Remove the insulation and see how much the resonance changes. Try for various spacings to see what effect the spacing has. (Expect that close spacings will show more effect than wide.) Now we're cookin', I like it, this approach has definite appeal and I need to explore it for several reasons. First because of the sharp nulls, it takes out the coax and it's a simple sort of "bench test" I can do at ground level. I'll build three identical shorted 20M or 30M close-spaced quarter wave lines. One with bare #14 stranded wire, one with the insulated #14 THHN wire I usually use for quick & dirty dipoles and one with The Wireman's very flexible #544 or #546 #14 insulated PVC jacketed wire I'd use to build a hex wire beam or a quad. Then I'd use a grid dip meter to find the resonant frequencies of all three. I'd use an HF rcvr with a digital freq display to listen to the GDO rather than trust the GDO dial calibration and resolution. Yes? Which leads into another head-scratcher I've had in the past. I've had a bad time coupling a GDO to quad elements because it takes a couple turns of wire near the GDO coil to get enough coupling between the quad element and the GDO. Which in turn means that I've shortened the element length and the result is wrong. What's your suggestion on a method to accurately measure the resonant frequencies of the quarter-wave lines in this exercise? Thanks, Cheers, Tom w3rv |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Kelly wrote:
Which leads into another head-scratcher I've had in the past. I've had a bad time coupling a GDO to quad elements because it takes a couple turns of wire near the GDO coil to get enough coupling between the quad element and the GDO. Which in turn means that I've shortened the element length and the result is wrong. What's your suggestion on a method to accurately measure the resonant frequencies of the quarter-wave lines in this exercise? OK, I admit to being a spoiled brat when it comes to making measurements like this. The easiest for me would be to set up a network analyzer, with the analyzer's source and receiver each coupled lightly to the line. But there are other ways. You may not even need a signal generator. You could loosely couple a receiver to the line, and loosely couple an antenna to it on the other side, and as you tune the receiver across the resonance, you should notice a sharp peak in atmospheric noise. With a loaded Q of a few hundred, the peak at 10MHz would be a very few tens of kHz wide. You could also build an oscillator which uses the tuned line as the frequency-determining element, and just count the frequency of the oscillator. A simple version of a network analyzer could be done by lightly coupling an RF generator into the line, and putting an RF detector across the line a small distance up from the shorted end. I'd use either a simple diode detector, which can have pretty high input impedance, or one of the Linear Technology or Analog devices RF detectors, but since those are lower impedance, tap them down very far on the line. -- I'd expect a 10MHz quarter-wave resonator made from 600 ohm line using AWG14 wires to have an unloaded Q around 350. You can achieve that loose coupling by calling the center of the short across the end "ground" and tapping up just one or two percent of the length of the line from that for the "hot" connection. Or you can couple in with a loop, say of a diameter about equal to the line spacing, held next to the shorted end of the line. "Reference Data for Radio Engineers" shows various coupling schemes in the "Transmission Lines" chapter. As long as you keep the coupling light (to keep the loaded Q high), and are consistent in the way you arrange things, you should be able to measure the resonance to within a fraction of a percent repeatability, if not absolute accuracy. Relative measurements should be all you need in this case. And I assume it's obvious that though the resonant line will not have exactly the same VF as an antenna, as you increase the wire spacing, it should approach the same effect as you'll see in the antenna. Then compare with the formulas Reg posted, and if you see significant differences, try to resolve what's causing them. By the way, one place where the "velocity factor" effect might be noticable is in parasitic elements of an array in which you're trying to achieve maximum gain. The element tuning will affect phasing among the elements and therefore gain. If the design is narrow-band, high-gain, you might actually notice some effect from the insulation. Cheers, Tom |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Someone might refer to you as a "spoiled brat" regarding your interest in the details. I consider you to be a carefull thinker. Jerry "K7ITM" wrote in message oups.com... Brian Kelly wrote: Which leads into another head-scratcher I've had in the past. I've had a bad time coupling a GDO to quad elements because it takes a couple turns of wire near the GDO coil to get enough coupling between the quad element and the GDO. Which in turn means that I've shortened the element length and the result is wrong. What's your suggestion on a method to accurately measure the resonant frequencies of the quarter-wave lines in this exercise? OK, I admit to being a spoiled brat when it comes to making measurements like this. The easiest for me would be to set up a network analyzer, with the analyzer's source and receiver each coupled lightly to the line. But there are other ways. You may not even need a signal generator. You could loosely couple a receiver to the line, and loosely couple an antenna to it on the other side, and as you tune the receiver across the resonance, you should notice a sharp peak in atmospheric noise. With a loaded Q of a few hundred, the peak at 10MHz would be a very few tens of kHz wide. You could also build an oscillator which uses the tuned line as the frequency-determining element, and just count the frequency of the oscillator. A simple version of a network analyzer could be done by lightly coupling an RF generator into the line, and putting an RF detector across the line a small distance up from the shorted end. I'd use either a simple diode detector, which can have pretty high input impedance, or one of the Linear Technology or Analog devices RF detectors, but since those are lower impedance, tap them down very far on the line. -- I'd expect a 10MHz quarter-wave resonator made from 600 ohm line using AWG14 wires to have an unloaded Q around 350. You can achieve that loose coupling by calling the center of the short across the end "ground" and tapping up just one or two percent of the length of the line from that for the "hot" connection. Or you can couple in with a loop, say of a diameter about equal to the line spacing, held next to the shorted end of the line. "Reference Data for Radio Engineers" shows various coupling schemes in the "Transmission Lines" chapter. As long as you keep the coupling light (to keep the loaded Q high), and are consistent in the way you arrange things, you should be able to measure the resonance to within a fraction of a percent repeatability, if not absolute accuracy. Relative measurements should be all you need in this case. And I assume it's obvious that though the resonant line will not have exactly the same VF as an antenna, as you increase the wire spacing, it should approach the same effect as you'll see in the antenna. Then compare with the formulas Reg posted, and if you see significant differences, try to resolve what's causing them. By the way, one place where the "velocity factor" effect might be noticable is in parasitic elements of an array in which you're trying to achieve maximum gain. The element tuning will affect phasing among the elements and therefore gain. If the design is narrow-band, high-gain, you might actually notice some effect from the insulation. Cheers, Tom |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Is this voltage doubler different? | Homebrew | |||
Two Shortwave Listener (SWL) 10:1 Baluns for Random Wire Antennas | Swap | |||
Newbie SWL question: Antenna geometry | Shortwave | |||
RF filters and Impedance Matching | Homebrew | |||
Question for better antenna mavens than I | Shortwave |