On Feb 23, 12:40 am, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Feb 22, 12:16 am, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
It was a bust. :-(

They can be quirky..And the decoupling is pretty critical. I always
preferred
a base fed half wave for those reasons. You still need to decouple for
best
performance, but there are no "coax in the way" issues, etc.. I use a
simple
"gamma loop" feed. IE: single turn coil, and a cap if needed.
Sometimes
you don't need the cap, but if you do, 30-50 pf is about the usual
value for
10m. I make those from a short length of coax.. I'm basically copying
the
feed system of the usual cushcraft ringos.. BTW, cushcraft sells a 10m
ringo if one doesn't want to build one, or have the tubing.

I will try decoupling and also try that feed.

I have several commercial antennas but I tend toward building them myelf. I
learned the hard way about the three types of copper pipe, K, L, & M. Until
I got home and hit google.com, I didn't know to shop for the more economical
Type M and paid premium $$$ for Type L. I don't want to think what Type K
would have cost.

"Sal"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sal, I would like to know how it works with the PVC as I have tried it
on exactly this type of antenna and it worked horribly. Apparently the
PVC I was using has some really lousy dielectric qualities, This stuff
would melt in a microwave while other PVC pipes do not.. I understand
that all PVC is not created equally and that some may be OK. To get
mine to work I used larger pipe, smaller coax, and a different
insulating material but my original was identical to your first
attempt. Unfortunately for me I made all the changes at once and
really dont know which fixed the problem except that the PVC was an
issue. I am very interested in finding whether or not just adding the
choke fixed the problem because this is also something I forgot to do
on my intial attempt. Second attempt had one of those chokes from
"Wireman" made of a length of coax and ferrite beads. One thing that
concerned me even after the antenna was working is the the SWR
appeared to be a little too good. It was 1.2:1 in the middle of 10
meters and never got ave 1.7:1 even at the band edges. I thought that
this is a little too good to be true..

Jimmie

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
oups.com...


snip

One thing that
concerned me even after the antenna was working is the SWR
appeared to be a little too good. It was 1.2:1 in the middle of 10
meters and never got ave 1.7:1 even at the band edges. I thought that
this is a little too good to be true..

My concern, too, for the same reason but the readings appear to be
authentic. For check, I tried the modified antenna (coax not running
through the lower element) on a few other bands with very, very low power
and got terrible VSWR readings. I get about a 1.4:1 at the low end of the 10
band, dropping to a 1.1:1 near the top of the band. I believe having big,
fat elements helps.

Due to cable loss, my measured VSWR at the transceiver is a skosh better
than what I would see at the antenna. A nice chart in the ARRL Antenna Book
shows that with 1 dB cable loss (approximate for 100' of RG-8), my 1.4:1
VSWR measured at the radio is actually closer to 1.6 at the antenna. Still a
keeper. I went on the air last night with a few watts and got a great
signal report from a local ham, so the antenna is working.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW /AE)

Sal M. Onella wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message
oups.com...


snip

One thing that
concerned me even after the antenna was working is the SWR
appeared to be a little too good. It was 1.2:1 in the middle of 10
meters and never got ave 1.7:1 even at the band edges. I thought that
this is a little too good to be true..

My concern, too, for the same reason but the readings appear to be
authentic. For check, I tried the modified antenna (coax not running
through the lower element) on a few other bands with very, very low power
and got terrible VSWR readings. I get about a 1.4:1 at the low end of the 10
band, dropping to a 1.1:1 near the top of the band. I believe having big,
fat elements helps.

Due to cable loss, my measured VSWR at the transceiver is a skosh better
than what I would see at the antenna. A nice chart in the ARRL Antenna Book
shows that with 1 dB cable loss (approximate for 100' of RG-8), my 1.4:1
VSWR measured at the radio is actually closer to 1.6 at the antenna. Still a
keeper. I went on the air last night with a few watts and got a great
signal report from a local ham, so the antenna is working.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW /AE)




A year or two ago I was into playing with various monopole designs for
10 meters and greater freqs.

The bazooka I built and liked was a stainless steel whip for the
radiator. The bazooka sleeve was hook to coax and the mast--at the
sleeve where the bottom of the radiator was mounted on a teflon block
insulator. The sleeve was either 1-1/8 or 1-3/8 copper pipe.

The antenna was fed at the top of the sleeve where the radiator exited,
with a 1:1 current balun on a toroid core. The balun was able to handle
100+ watts and I drove it at 100 W.

The swr was below 1.5:1 on most of the ten meter band, I don't believe
it was ever above 2:1, if memory now serves me correct.

The antenna was ok. However, a 1/2 monopole with a gamma feed is what I
finally settled on and still run today. Benefit is that this antenna
requires a minimal counterpoise for excellent performance and radiation
pattern and ease of construction.

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

snip

However, a 1/2 monopole with a gamma feed is what I
finally settled on and still run today. Benefit is that this antenna
requires a minimal counterpoise for excellent performance and radiation
pattern and ease of construction.

Regards,
JS


I need to learn more aboout matching. I picked up the 1989 edition of
ARRL's ANTENNA IMPEDANCE MATCHING at the swap meet a few years ago, but I
really haven't taken the time to dig into it.

I'm starting to think in terms of Smith charts, which I never thought I
would need or use. Surprise!

Sal M. Onella wrote:
I'm starting to think in terms of Smith charts, which I never thought I
would need or use. Surprise!

Carrying a Smith Chart around in your head is a
good way to conceptualize transmission line and
antenna configurations.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Sal M. Onella wrote:
I'm starting to think in terms of Smith charts, which I never thought I
would need or use. Surprise!

Carrying a Smith Chart around in your head is a
good way to conceptualize transmission line and
antenna configurations.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Yes. I have seen a lot of Smith charts for broadband Navy shipboard
antennas. The people who match them obviously have to do a chart for the
raw antenna in place on the ship, then design and adjust a matching network,
followed by a chart of the results, with every point inside the 3:1 (or 4:1)
circle. Their efforts are generally documented in the ships' antenna files.

I agree about the Smith chart for conceptualizing but at this stage, I am
just a Smith baby.

Back on topic, I am using the sleeve in a conventional dipole configuration
until I can take the time to apply the ideas presented in this NG. I
noticed this afternoon that coiling four turns of decoupling loop a few feet
from the feed actually raised the VSWR, which I didn't understand. Also,
where the coax hangs down next to the antenna makes a difference in the
VSWR, so obviously the line is not "flat" and is instead part of the
antenna. (Do we still use the term "flat" to describe a transmission line
which is properly matched to the load? I recall it from Navy training more
than 40 years ago.) My first HF antenna works, but it's clearly no marvel.

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in
:


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Sal M. Onella wrote:
I'm starting to think in terms of Smith charts, which I never
thought I would need or use. Surprise!

Carrying a Smith Chart around in your head is a
good way to conceptualize transmission line and
antenna configurations.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Yes. I have seen a lot of Smith charts for broadband Navy shipboard
antennas. The people who match them obviously have to do a chart for
the raw antenna in place on the ship, then design and adjust a
matching network, followed by a chart of the results, with every point
inside the 3:1 (or 4:1) circle. Their efforts are generally
documented in the ships' antenna files.

I agree about the Smith chart for conceptualizing but at this stage, I
am just a Smith baby.

Back on topic, I am using the sleeve in a conventional dipole
configuration until I can take the time to apply the ideas presented
in this NG. I noticed this afternoon that coiling four turns of
decoupling loop a few feet from the feed actually raised the VSWR,
which I didn't understand. Also, where the coax hangs down next to
the antenna makes a difference in the VSWR, so obviously the line is
not "flat" and is instead part of the antenna. (Do we still use the
term "flat" to describe a transmission line which is properly matched
to the load? I recall it from Navy training more than 40 years ago.)

Yes, I think that the meaning taken for a "flat line" is one with 1:1 or
close VSWR, flat to mean the magnitude of the voltage (or current) is
approximately constant all all positions on the line, and that describes
only what is happening on the inside of the line. That doesn't preclude
current flowing on the outside of the line which seems to be your issue.
I won't confuse you with examples of where the outside of the line is
intended to carry current and at the same time the VSWR is low, but it is
possible and sometimes desired.

I agree with you that if you change the feedline routing physically, and
you see a consequent change in VSWR, that suggests the outside of the
feedline carries current and is part of the radiating system, and I don't
think that is what you want.

My first HF antenna works, but it's clearly no marvel.

Look upon it as an opportunity for learning. After all, what would you do
if it just worked?

Owen

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in
:

Back on topic, I am using the sleeve in a conventional dipole
configuration until I can take the time to apply the ideas presented
in this NG. I noticed this afternoon that coiling four turns of
decoupling loop a few feet from the feed actually raised the VSWR,
which I didn't understand. Also, where the coax hangs down next to
the antenna makes a difference in the VSWR, so obviously the line is
not "flat" and is instead part of the antenna. (Do we still use the
term "flat" to describe a transmission line which is properly matched
to the load? I recall it from Navy training more than 40 years ago.)
My first HF antenna works, but it's clearly no marvel.

I just read your first posting. It sounds like you are building what I
refer to as a coaxial dipole. The key to success with coaxial dipoles is
decoupling the feedline. A common configuration is to place a set of
radials, or a quarter wave choke to be effective a quarter wave below the
bottom of the dipole lower element... this actually attempts to reduce
current below the radials, and uses the quarter wave of feedline above
the radials as part of the radiator for a little more gain.

IIRC, the ARRL had some suggestions about decoupling a coaxial dipole.

Owen