"Sal M. Onella" wrote in
:


"Gordon" wrote in message
...
raypsi wrote in news:eedf031f-c023-4a15-abea-
:



Then there is mine...

http://mysite.verizon.net/g_reeder/C...V_antenna.html

Hi, Gordon,

I recall when you introduced your neat handiwork to the group. I
meant
to ask a question:

Did you ever try connecting each of the antennas' twin lead to its
own
separate balun and combine the 75-ohm sides of the baluns into a
single coax? A passive splitter, connected backwards, performs this
function nicely.


No, I didn't think to try that. I could give it a shot, I have all
the necessary parts. I am concerned about loss, and thought that
the extra hardware would introduce too much extra loss.


I ask because, as you have your antenna wired (two antennas in
parallel
to a single balun) looks like an impedance mismatch; the balun wants
a 300-ohm connection to the two screws and two 300-ohm antennas at the
same time would be 150-ohms. I think you previously said you are not
a techie, so forgive me if I'm using terms you don't know.

I'm following you.

Hmmm... Yes. I can see how there could be a mismatch. But I
thought that only applied to simple things like resistance in DC
and AC circuits. RF is not one of my forte`s.

Anyway, I was trying to mimic the Channelmaster two and 4 bay
bowtie designs, that seem to have a 300 ohm feed.

Maybe someone could explain that.


Not being one to argue with success, if you tried it and it wasn't
any
better, then more power to you. Rock on!

Well, I got an improvement, probably in spite of myself. The
setup gives better signal strength, and is less suseptable to
interfearence (people walking aroung the room) than just a
single bowtie.


"Sal"

PS: For my fellow techies: Yes, I realize the 300-ohm figure for a
bowtie is nominal and the actual impedance will differ from that
figure. Paralleling the two antennas could be superior.