RadioBanter - View Single Post - Let's design a short antenna just for fun

[email protected] · November 5th 14, 08:07 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:33:06 PM UTC-6, rickman wrote:
On 11/5/2014 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:33:48 PM UTC-6, John S wrote:

Can you tell us how big would it be? And what about the coil dimensions,
losses? Can you do an EZNEC model so those of us who have the simulator
can look at all the parameters/arguments?

It can be any size one wants. The bigger the better of course..

What? Maybe you don't fully grasp the idea of a "short" antenna? ;-)

--

Rick

I grasp that the shorter the antenna, the worse it generally performs.
But if I use an 18 ft long dipole for 80 or 40 meters, I consider
that a short dipole. Others may disagree, but I don't care.
They can knock themselves out with shorter versions.
I try to avoid using short dipoles. My previously mentioned methods
can be used with any length dipole. The smaller, the smaller the
performance.
Of course, the reasons for the smaller performance are not
what he who is silly thinks are the reasons. :|

Well...

There is little practical reason for shortning 23 cm band antenna,
but antennas for 160M are a challenge for most people that live
in an urban area.

Where I live anything over about 30 feet tall is basically a no-go.

So in the interest of practicallity and maybe getting something usefull
out of it, how about a 160M antenna with a maximum height of 30 feet
as a goal?

That immediately eliminates dipoles as a 160M dipole at 30 feet will
radiate most of the power straight up.

--
Jim Pennino