Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
20m "ringo"
Jimmie D wrote:
Thanks Cecil This was my first plan but I dont have room to run the stub straight out so I kind of tabled the idea for a while. Now that I have thought about it there is no reason I couldnt wrap it around the antenna. There's no reason why you couldn't spiral it around the antenna like a pancake inductor. If you kept each spiral about a foot away from the next one, the area occupied would be pretty small. Good luck. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
20m "ringo"
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:23:37 -0400, "Jimmie D"
wrote: I heard once upon a time that the Ringo utilizes the mast as part of the radiator. Hi Jimmie, What was meant was that the mast inappropriately became part of the radiator due to the design of the Ringo (which has had a reputation for being a dummy load). The problem with half-wave designs is they are high Z. Being high Z they are difficult to choke. Being difficult to choke, they appropriate masts, supports, feed lines, as additional radiation surfaces. When you add these lengths to the radiator (and they are co-linear) then your radiation lobes begin to climb into the sky (no one there to hear you) and the antenna becomes deaf and dumb. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
20m "ringo"
Richard Clark wrote: On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:23:37 -0400, "Jimmie D" wrote: I heard once upon a time that the Ringo utilizes the mast as part of the radiator. Hi Jimmie, What was meant was that the mast inappropriately became part of the radiator due to the design of the Ringo (which has had a reputation for being a dummy load). The problem with half-wave designs is they are high Z. Being high Z they are difficult to choke. Being difficult to choke, they appropriate masts, supports, feed lines, as additional radiation surfaces. When you add these lengths to the radiator (and they are co-linear) then your radiation lobes begin to climb into the sky (no one there to hear you) and the antenna becomes deaf and dumb. It's probably more critical on VHF/UHF, but on the HF bands I never had any trouble with ringos and decoupling problems overly skewing the pattern. I've used a few with no decoupling at all, and they worked fine. But I'm of the opinion that the "gamma loop" type feed helps decouple the feedline a bit better than some other methods of feeding. I tried adding a decoupling section to one I used on 10m a few years ago, and it did help, but not in a huge amount. I found the antennas pretty easy to choke by using a 1/4 WL section of coax, and then 4 radials. Much the same as used on the "ringo ranger" antennas. Anyway, I've never seen a case on HF where I thought a ringo acted like a dummy load. I imagine it's possible on VHF though, if precautions aren't taken. I've used lots of them on 10m at various heights. Always worked pretty well. And I never noticed an overly hot feedline. The only times I had horrible results with a half wave was a time years ago when I tried to make a center fed job, using peeled back coax braid as part of the antenna. The decoupling from the line was horrible on that thing. That was on VHF though where the problem shows up more. MK |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
20m "ringo"
Richard Clark wrote: On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:23:37 -0400, "Jimmie D" wrote: I heard once upon a time that the Ringo utilizes the mast as part of the radiator. Hi Jimmie, What was meant was that the mast inappropriately became part of the radiator due to the design of the Ringo (which has had a reputation for being a dummy load). The problem with half-wave designs is they are high Z. Being high Z they are difficult to choke. Being difficult to choke, they appropriate masts, supports, feed lines, as additional radiation surfaces. When you add these lengths to the radiator (and they are co-linear) then your radiation lobes begin to climb into the sky (no one there to hear you) and the antenna becomes deaf and dumb. It's probably more critical on VHF/UHF, but on the HF bands I never had any trouble with ringos and decoupling problems overly skewing the pattern. I've used a few with no decoupling at all, and they worked fine. But I'm of the opinion that the "gamma loop" type feed helps decouple the feedline a bit better than some other methods of feeding. I tried adding a decoupling section to one I used on 10m a few years ago, and it did help, but not in a huge amount. I found the antennas pretty easy to choke by using a 1/4 WL section of coax, and then 4 radials. Much the same as used on the "ringo ranger" antennas. Anyway, I've never seen a case on HF where I thought a ringo acted like a dummy load. I imagine it's possible on VHF though, if precautions aren't taken. I've used lots of them on 10m at various heights. Always worked pretty well. And I never noticed an overly hot feedline. The only times I had horrible results with a half wave was a time years ago when I tried to make a center fed job, using peeled back coax braid as part of the antenna. The decoupling from the line was horrible on that thing. That was on VHF though where the problem shows up more. MK |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
20m "ringo"
.. The only times I had horrible results with a half wave was a time years ago when I tried to make a center fed job, using peeled back coax braid as part of the antenna. The decoupling from the line was horrible on that thing. That was on VHF though where the problem shows up more. MK Ive had trouble with this type of antenna too. Turning the shield inside out over the feedline is not a good idea. The outer viynl jacket has some very poor RF characteristics not to mention it is a bear to do. Stangely enough plans for this antenna abound. Shakespeare used to build a CB antenna lie this called the big stick They latter change it to four wires inside a fibergas tube with th wires imbedded in the fiberglass connected to the shield of the feedline. Then the feedline is centered in the tube using styrofoam. I built something similar using a metal tube connecting to the shield with the coax down the middle of the tube also using little pieces of styrofam to center the cable in the tube. This seemed to work pretty good. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
20m "ringo"
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message om... Jimmie D wrote: Thanks Cecil This was my first plan but I dont have room to run the stub straight out so I kind of tabled the idea for a while. Now that I have thought about it there is no reason I couldnt wrap it around the antenna. There's no reason why you couldn't spiral it around the antenna like a pancake inductor. If you kept each spiral about a foot away from the next one, the area occupied would be pretty small. Good luck. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil, I got the antenna up Sunday, for now the stub is straight out from the antenna. Is it normal for the 50 ohm point to be a little hard to find? About the best VSWR I can get now is 1.7:1 This is pretty close to the point where my radio starts limiting power. I m thinking either the stub or the antenna may be a little long is there an easy way to tell or is easier just to try something and see what happens? Checking the VSWR at differerent freqs doesnt help much. Maybe a slight indication that it is too long. Jimmie |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
20m "ringo"
Jimmie D wrote:
Cecil, I got the antenna up Sunday, for now the stub is straight out from the antenna. Is it normal for the 50 ohm point to be a little hard to find? About the best VSWR I can get now is 1.7:1 This is pretty close to the point where my radio starts limiting power. I m thinking either the stub or the antenna may be a little long is there an easy way to tell or is easier just to try something and see what happens? Checking the VSWR at differerent freqs doesnt help much. Maybe a slight indication that it is too long. You've discovered the problem with SWR meters. They don't read phase. If you were using an antenna analyzer, the solution would probably be obvious. With only an SWR meter, your tuning algorithm either converges or diverges but you may not know which. The easy way to tune the antenna is to use an antenna analyzer to determine where the impedance is purely resistive and then adjust the stub tap point to 50 ohms. An antenna analyzer is a good investment. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
20m "ringo"
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Jimmie D wrote: Cecil, I got the antenna up Sunday, for now the stub is straight out from the antenna. Is it normal for the 50 ohm point to be a little hard to find? About the best VSWR I can get now is 1.7:1 This is pretty close to the point where my radio starts limiting power. I m thinking either the stub or the antenna may be a little long is there an easy way to tell or is easier just to try something and see what happens? Checking the VSWR at differerent freqs doesnt help much. Maybe a slight indication that it is too long. You've discovered the problem with SWR meters. They don't read phase. If you were using an antenna analyzer, the solution would probably be obvious. With only an SWR meter, your tuning algorithm either converges or diverges but you may not know which. The easy way to tune the antenna is to use an antenna analyzer to determine where the impedance is purely resistive and then adjust the stub tap point to 50 ohms. An antenna analyzer is a good investment. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com I think before I start cutting I will try adding a little series capacitance or inductance to the antenna and see how it reacts to that. My work week just started so it may be a week or so before I get back at it again. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
20m "ringo"
In order to guarantee the ability to obtain a 1:1 SWR, you need to be
able to adjust at least two independent or partially independent things. This can be two variable lumped components; any two of the following: stub length, position, and Z0(*); and so forth. Adjusting, say, a stub length and the value of a capacitor across the input end of the stub won't do it because they're basically adjusting the same thing and therefore aren't independent. If you've only been varying one item, you'll get a perfect match only if lucky. If you're as close as 1.7:1, it's likely as easy or easier to find the solution by trial and error rather than calculation. The reason that two adjustments are required is that 1:1 SWR requires a particular value of R and a zero value of X. If you vary only one item, it'll change only R, or only X, or, more likely, both R and X but in some fixed relationship. (*) Because you can practically adjust Z0 over only a relatively narrow range, this is a good method only for fine tuning or as a way to set the range of other adjustments. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Jimmie D wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Jimmie D wrote: Cecil, I got the antenna up Sunday, for now the stub is straight out from the antenna. Is it normal for the 50 ohm point to be a little hard to find? About the best VSWR I can get now is 1.7:1 This is pretty close to the point where my radio starts limiting power. I m thinking either the stub or the antenna may be a little long is there an easy way to tell or is easier just to try something and see what happens? Checking the VSWR at differerent freqs doesnt help much. Maybe a slight indication that it is too long. You've discovered the problem with SWR meters. They don't read phase. If you were using an antenna analyzer, the solution would probably be obvious. With only an SWR meter, your tuning algorithm either converges or diverges but you may not know which. The easy way to tune the antenna is to use an antenna analyzer to determine where the impedance is purely resistive and then adjust the stub tap point to 50 ohms. An antenna analyzer is a good investment. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com I think before I start cutting I will try adding a little series capacitance or inductance to the antenna and see how it reacts to that. My work week just started so it may be a week or so before I get back at it again. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
20m "ringo"
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:20:02 -0400, "Jimmie D"
wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... Jimmie D wrote: Cecil, I got the antenna up Sunday, for now the stub is straight out from the antenna. Is it normal for the 50 ohm point to be a little hard to find? About the best VSWR I can get now is 1.7:1 This is pretty close to .... I think before I start cutting I will try adding a little series capacitance or inductance to the antenna and see how it reacts to that. My work week just started so it may be a week or so before I get back at it again. Roy has given you some good advice. Some further thoughts. I assume that the coax is not decoupled, that will complicate achieving your outcome. Before cutting things, an observation of whether VSWR is better at a higher or lower frequency will help guide you in the reactance dimension of the problem. Find the tap point for lowest VSWR, change frequency and do it again. This will hint to you whether the antenna / stub combination is short or long. Keep in mind that there is not a correct length of the radiator independently of the stub, small reactance due to the radiator being off resonance can be compensated by suitable stub dimensions. That says cut / lengthen the elements that are most convenient. Temporary increase in length by clamping an additional conductor to top of the radiator might less final that cutting bits off. Again, the shift in point of lowest VSWR is a hint. With knowledge, you should be able do this easy enough without an antenna analyser. Owen -- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|