Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 01:27:08 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:02:14 GMT, "Alan" wrote: I guessed they might be but does anybody use a smaller antenna as a compromise? Hi Alan, Sure. So's the signal (a compromise). When you get into fractional wavelength sizes (and we're talking on the order of less than 5% of wavelength), you quickly get into fractional performance. It has to do with the comparison of the radiation resistance which at 5% is 2 Ohms. This is 25:1 mismatch, and the matching components are going to have to present less than 2 Ohms in themselves (not forgetting all the connections that support the circulating currents) just to limit your loss to 3dB. Richard, May I expand on a couple of your points. Amateurs are very focused on VSWR. Additionally, they hate narrowband mobile antennas. Radiation resistance of short verticals on low HF bands is very low, whether or not they are base loaded, centre loaded, top loaded, capacitively loaded, or continuously loaded. Even when the resistance of the radiating car body and earth coupling are added in, the direct base impedance of a short loaded resonated vertical mounted on a car is well below 50 ohms. If the loading coil is made sufficiently lossy, then the feedpoint resistance can be raised sufficiently to satisfy a "reasonable" VSWR spec, in fact the better (lower) the VSWR spec for direct feeding, the lossier the loading coil need to be. The upside of this is that the bandwidth is expanded, isn't that good! We have delivered on the two most important criteria! Well, these things (simplified feed arrangement for tolerable VSWR, better bandwidth) are obtained at the expense of efficiency. If you view the world through an VSWR meter, you will be pleased with short direct fed verticals for cars. If you want efficiency, then it will almost certainly require a base matching network. With a suitable base matching network and low loss loading coils, you may still achieve reasonable efficiency in a shorter vertical, though low loss coils are not low profile! Secondly, commercial manufacturers of low loss verticals skip straight to long antennas. Like Richard, I am sure lots of people will be happy that anything "works". Owen -- |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
I Want Another Antenna | Shortwave | |||
The Long and Thin Vertical Loop Antenna. [ The Non-Resonance Vertical with a Difference ] | Shortwave | |||
Mobile 2m/70cm antenna | Antenna | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna |