On May 16, 12:46 am, Richard Clark wrote:


Look at your data comparison again and ask: Should it be 4:1 or 1:4?


Richard, I guess I'm not seeing something obvious. Its a 4:1 balun
transforming the high side impedance down by a factor of 4. The 4:1
impedance measurements (line on the high impedance side of the balun,
analyzer on the low impedance side) should be down by roughly a factor
of 4, right?
I can't see anything wrong with how I presented the data.

Moving the feed along a dipole does not change its resonances and anti-resonances
(some prefer the terms series and parallel resonances); it changes their impedances

I agree

However, the balanced dipole shows low resonance (series) and high
anti-resonance (parallel) impedances.


By feeding off center my sloping dipole is not balanced.


You are showing consistent low resonant impedances.


The OCF feedpoint (at least by design) is near (but not on) the peak
of a current loop on 80, 40 and 20 meters (even harmonics). Don't
current peaks occur at points of low impedance along an antenna? My
EZNEC current traces confirm this. Shouldn't my even harmonics
impedance measurements all be low rather than high?

By the way Richard the frequencies my impedance measurements were
taken at are not "resonant" frequencies. The resonant frequencies
(zero reactance) occur at 3.56 Mhz, 8.05 Mhz, and 15.7 Mhz. A little
too low on 80M. Too high for 40M and 20M. The tuner gets me the match
in the 40 and 20 amateur bands.

I apologize for not stating that my sloping OCF is fed at 35% of its
total length from the high end. High end at a height of about 40 feet
and low end at a height of about 10 feet. Total antenna length is 136
feet.


73s
Dykes Cupstid AD5VS