![]() |
Dummy Load Antenna
"Howard Kowall" wrote in
: Has anyone ever tried putting a dipole antenna up with the center insulator being a high power 50 ohm dummy load,then connecting the dipole elements across the dummy load.This would always keep a suitable match at 50 ohms and satisfy the transceiver.Would most of the power go to the dummy load and not the elements and wouldn't radiate.In thinking about this it all logically makes sense the load would really never change or would it have some reactance with the dipole elements. Thanx All Howard VE4ISP Firstly, your proposal does not produce a 50 ohms antenna at all frequencies. Your circuit analysis skills are lacking. Various antennas include a resistance somewhere, and although it means loss, it limits the feedline VSWR excursions with frequency and the loss in the resistor may be more than offset by the reduction of feedline loss at some frequencies. Owen |
Dummy Load Antenna
Owen Duffy writes:
Various antennas include a resistance somewhere, and although it means loss, it limits the feedline VSWR excursions with frequency and the loss in the resistor may be more than offset by the reduction of feedline loss at some frequencies. Not so useful for most amateur applications, but very useful for what remains of professional HF radio. Frequency agility is often required, particularly by the military, and operators either don't have time, or skill, to fiddle with antenna tuners. Unless you are manpack portable, the loss of signal can be made up by increasing power. Automatic antenna tuners are getting ever better, though. May be these designs are getting less popular. LA4RT Jon |
Dummy Load Antenna
Bob Schreibmaier wrote:
In article , says... Has anyone ever tried putting a dipole antenna up with the center insulator being a high power 50 ohm dummy load,then connecting the dipole elements across the dummy load.This would always keep a suitable match at 50 ohms and satisfy the transceiver.Would most of the power go to the dummy load and not the elements and wouldn't radiate.In thinking about this it all logically makes sense the load would really never change or would it have some reactance with the dipole elements. Thanx All Howard VE4ISP That is very similar to what the Maxcom Antenna Matcher did. It was reviewed (and panned) in November 1984 QST. As you suspected, almost all the power would go into the dummy load and very little would be radiated. Honestly, it's not a very good idea. :-) This one is meant to be a poor antenna, for use at really close distances. http://www.wa0dx.org/wa0itp/dlspecial.html Here is the gold standard, the MaxCom. If you gan get the link, QST had a review. It was a toroid, and 3 resistors. Apparently a very high quality dummy load (these things cost between 600 to 900 dollars! http://www.eham.net/articles/14905 Had great SWR tho'! - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Dummy Load Antenna
On Oct 9, 3:27*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Bob Schreibmaier wrote: In article , says.... Has anyone ever tried putting a dipole antenna up with the center insulator being a high power 50 ohm dummy load,then connecting the *dipole elements across the dummy load.This would always keep a *suitable match *at 50 ohms and satisfy the transceiver.Would most of the power go to the dummy load and not the elements and wouldn't radiate.In thinking about this it all logically makes sense the load would really never change or would it have some reactance with the dipole elements. Thanx All Howard VE4ISP That is very similar to what the Maxcom Antenna Matcher did. *It was reviewed (and panned) in November 1984 QST. As you suspected, almost all the power would go into the dummy load and very little would be radiated. Honestly, it's not a very good idea. *:-) This one is meant to be a poor antenna, for use at really close distances.. http://www.wa0dx.org/wa0itp/dlspecial.html Here is the gold standard, the MaxCom. If you gan get the link, QST had a review. It was a toroid, and 3 resistors. Apparently a very high quality dummy load (these things cost between 600 to 900 dollars! http://www.eham.net/articles/14905 Had great SWR tho'! - 73 de Mike N3LI -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Once I joke about using a CB groundplane with a 10 db pad for an all band antenna. I thought about this for a while and decided to try it. I did nt have to use 10 db maybe it was only 3db or 6db I cant remember now to get an antenna that my soliddtate transceiver with no tuner was happy with on allHF bands. I was fairly amazed at how well the antenna worked or at least amazed that it did work at all. Jimmie |
Dummy Load Antenna
On Oct 8, 1:07*pm, John Smith wrote:
Howard Kowall wrote: Has anyone ever tried putting a dipole antenna up with the center insulator being a high power 50 ohm dummy load,then connecting the *dipole elements across the dummy load.This would always keep a *suitable match *at 50 ohms and satisfy the transceiver.Would most of the power go to the dummy load and not the elements and wouldn't radiate.In thinking about this it all logically makes sense the load would really never change or would it have some reactance with the dipole elements. Thanx All Howard VE4ISP When you run a 73 ohm "resistor" and a 50 ohm resistor in parallel? You would need a balun (rf transformer) to match to that antenna ... Then you would need a suitable name for it. *Let me see, we are mating up a "dummy load" with a "dipole." *How about "Dummy-Pole?" *grin Regards, JS I'm glad you called it a 'balun (rf transformer)' instead of a 'balun (CM Choke)'. Did Cecil review this before you posted it? |
Dummy Load Antenna
That is very similar to what the Maxcom Antenna Matcher
did. It was reviewed (and panned) in November 1984 QST. As you suspected, almost all the power would go into the dummy load and very little would be radiated. Honestly, it's not a very good idea. :-) 73, Bob K3PH Hello, and generally not if maximizing operating efficiency (the portion of available transmitter power that is being radiated by the antenna) is of concern. However, placing a low-loss pad between the output of one device and the input of another can be a simple, inexpensive broadband matching technique if the power loss in the pad can be tolerated . Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 |
Dummy Load Antenna
JIMMIE wrote:
Once I joke about using a CB groundplane with a 10 db pad for an all band antenna. I thought about this for a while and decided to try it. I did nt have to use 10 db maybe it was only 3db or 6db I cant remember now to get an antenna that my soliddtate transceiver with no tuner was happy with on allHF bands. I was fairly amazed at how well the antenna worked or at least amazed that it did work at all. What is more, you didn't have to spend 600 dollars for a bad antenna. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Dummy Load Antenna
J. B. Wood wrote:
That is very similar to what the Maxcom Antenna Matcher did. It was reviewed (and panned) in November 1984 QST. As you suspected, almost all the power would go into the dummy load and very little would be radiated. Honestly, it's not a very good idea. :-) 73, Bob K3PH Hello, and generally not if maximizing operating efficiency (the portion of available transmitter power that is being radiated by the antenna) is of concern. However, placing a low-loss pad between the output of one device and the input of another can be a simple, inexpensive broadband matching technique if the power loss in the pad can be tolerated . Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, But as a good operating practice, Hams usually want to have efficient ways to transfer their limited power. It's in that realm between extremes - the Person who never puts up an antenna because nothing is perfect enough, and the person who is willing to waste almost all their power in the name of Low SWR, or maximum convenience. IMO, it's best to settle somewhere towards the more efficient end of that group. Which I guess is why I have a big ungainly Bug-Catcher type antenna on the car instead of a short and cute whip. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Dummy Load Antenna
In article , Michael Coslo
wrote: Which I guess is why I have a big ungainly Bug-Catcher type antenna on the car instead of a short and cute whip. - 73 de Mike N3LI - Hello, and you can have a physically short and efficient whip if you choose an appropriate frequency band ;-). Now what ever happened to those cute car-mount cell phone antennas? Guess they're in antenna heaven along with the K40s. Sincerely, John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com