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. :-)

73,
Bob
K3PH

--
+----------------------------------------------+
| Bob Schreibmaier K3PH | E-mail: |
| Kresgeville, PA 18333 | http://www.dxis.org |
+----------------------------------------------+

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 -

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

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 -

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

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 -

Years ago, I was working on a Marine HF Radio, on the bench, in Seattle
WA, connected to a Bird 1 Kw Dummy Load. As I was setting the -16 db
Pilot Carrier Level for the Public Coast Station KMI, at Point Rayes CA,
on 12 Mhz, I got a reply from the Operator, ON Duty, asking for Station
Call Sign. I had a nice chat with him for about 5 minutes. ANY antenna,
no matter how it is built, even a Dummy Load, will radiate, and
communicate IF the Band is open. If the Band is closed, it doesn't
matter how efficient the antenna is, you will not communicate.

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply

Bruce in alaska wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

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 -

Years ago, I was working on a Marine HF Radio, on the bench, in Seattle
WA, connected to a Bird 1 Kw Dummy Load. As I was setting the -16 db
Pilot Carrier Level for the Public Coast Station KMI, at Point Rayes CA,
on 12 Mhz, I got a reply from the Operator, ON Duty, asking for Station
Call Sign. I had a nice chat with him for about 5 minutes. ANY antenna,
no matter how it is built, even a Dummy Load, will radiate, and
communicate IF the Band is open. If the Band is closed, it doesn't
matter how efficient the antenna is, you will not communicate.


But we shouldn't have to spend 600 dollars to find that out! ;^)

While it is true that at ceratin times, anything will "get out", and at
other times, nothing does, there is a whole range in between. I did some
mobile contesting this weekend, and the consequences of having a bit
more efficent and productive antenna were apparent. Mor QSO's, and less
time spent doing multiple exchange sends.

And wow, the bands were weird this past weekend.


But given the results of shootouts, it is clear that having a good
mobile antenna will add quite a bit of punch to your signal. IIRC the
Hamsticks were about 20 db down (Cecil, I think you had some test
results, so correct me if I'm way off).

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Oct 13, 11:22*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Bruce in alaska wrote:
In article ,
*Michael Coslo wrote:

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 -

Years ago, I was working on a Marine HF Radio, on the bench, in Seattle
WA, connected to a Bird 1 Kw Dummy Load. As I was setting the -16 db
Pilot Carrier Level for the Public Coast Station KMI, at Point Rayes CA,
on 12 Mhz, I got a reply from the Operator, ON Duty, asking for Station
Call Sign. I had a nice chat with him for about 5 minutes. ANY antenna,
no matter how it is built, even a Dummy Load, will radiate, and
communicate IF the Band is open. *If the Band is closed, it doesn't
matter how efficient the antenna is, you will not communicate.

But we shouldn't have to spend 600 dollars to find that out! ;^)

While it is true that at ceratin times, anything will "get out", and at
other times, nothing does, there is a whole range in between. I did some
mobile contesting this weekend, and the consequences of having a bit
more efficent and productive antenna were apparent. Mor QSO's, and less
time spent doing multiple exchange sends.

And wow, the bands were weird this past weekend.

But given the results of shootouts, it is clear that having a good
mobile antenna will add quite a bit of punch to your signal. IIRC the
Hamsticks were about 20 db down (Cecil, I think you had some test
results, so correct me if I'm way off).

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

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 -

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