Michael Coslo wrote:
While looking for a way to get a little more bandwidth out of an 80
meter antenna, I mocked up an antenna in EZNEC that was thick. I plan on
making an antenna with spreaders and run 4 wires on each leg of the
dipole.

I emulated this in EZNEC by simply making the wire thickness quite
thick, ranging from 4 inches to a foot.

The interesting thing was that as the thickness increased, the antenna
length decreased for min VSWR.

Is this a real thing?

yes.

It's often explained as "extra capacitance from the bigger size", but I
think that's not what's really going on.

"Jim Lux" wrote in message
...
Michael Coslo wrote:
While looking for a way to get a little more bandwidth out of an 80 meter
antenna, I mocked up an antenna in EZNEC that was thick. I plan on making
an antenna with spreaders and run 4 wires on each leg of the dipole.

I emulated this in EZNEC by simply making the wire thickness quite thick,
ranging from 4 inches to a foot.

The interesting thing was that as the thickness increased, the antenna
length decreased for min VSWR.

Is this a real thing?

yes.

It's often explained as "extra capacitance from the bigger size", but I
think that's not what's really going on.


The effect is clearly shown in Hallen's curves which appear in many of the
standard text books (e.g. Jordan & Balmain, Electromagnetic waves and
radiating systems). There's certainly a likelihood of greater shunt
capacitance at the feed point, but if the limbs are made conical - radiating
geometrically from the feedpoint - then this doesn't apply. In that case,
Schelkunoff might be of some help.

Chris

Jim Lux wrote:
"It`s often explained as "extra capacitance from the bigger size", but I
think that`s not what`s really going on."

Arnold B. Bailey in "TV and Other Receiving Antennas" agrees with Jim.
Bailey writes on page 317:
"We should expect such thin rods to be resonant when their physical
length is slightly less than a free-space half-wave length. When the rod
is thick, the effective velocity along the rod is considerably less than
the free-space velocity, thus reducing the wavelength proportionally."

The above may be grist for Arthur`s mill.

Bailey produces emperical equations (equilibrium?), graphs, and worked
examples for various cross sections.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Jim Lux wrote:
"It`s often explained as "extra capacitance from the bigger size", but I
think that`s not what`s really going on."

Arnold B. Bailey in "TV and Other Receiving Antennas" agrees with Jim.
Bailey writes on page 317:
"We should expect such thin rods to be resonant when their physical
length is slightly less than a free-space half-wave length. When the rod
is thick, the effective velocity along the rod is considerably less than
the free-space velocity, thus reducing the wavelength proportionally."


Some might argue, though, that the reason the effective velocity is less
is because the sqrt(1/LC) term is smaller because C is bigger because of
the increased surface area. And that might not be far from the truth
for a restricted subset of antennas.

All of this kind of confusion is trying to make one sort of model (a
transmission line) fit something else (a radiator). Just like the
things that treat the antenna as a lumped RLC.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:57:03 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

All of this kind of confusion is trying to make one sort of model (a
transmission line) fit something else (a radiator).

Hi Jim,

I've seen this kind of assertion made before, generally as a blanket
prohibition/warning/incantation/supplication/condemnation - but never
with any demonstrable problem that wasn't an example of designed-in
failure suited to the argument.

Lest there be any confusion: an antenna IS a transmission line.

The clarity to this confusion starts with the Biconical Dipole. S. A.
Schelkunoff describes it as a "Linear" antenna and used transmission
line math to build the mathematical model for the thin wire dipole in
his classic publication "Theory of antennas of arbitrary size and
shape," Proc. I.R.E., 29, 493, 1941 and S. A. Schelkunoff, "Advanced
Antenna Theory, " John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, (1952) I'm
inclined to allow the weight of his work stand until someone tips it -
or can demonstrate I incorrectly read his thesis. Somehow given the
weight of authorities (Ronold King being one) that cite him for this
very reading (specific to the correlation) are abundant, I will await
heavier lifting to tip the math.

Accessible reference work can be found by searching the PTO with his
patent number: 2235506.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Lest there be any confusion: an antenna IS a transmission line.

In fact, there is a formula for calculating the Z0 of
a single horizontal transmission line wire above ground.
#14 wire at 30 feet is very close to 600 ohms. #14 wire
at 30 feet describes a lot of dipoles.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

In message , Cecil Moore
writes
Richard Clark wrote:
Lest there be any confusion: an antenna IS a transmission line.

In fact, there is a formula for calculating the Z0 of
a single horizontal transmission line wire above ground.
#14 wire at 30 feet is very close to 600 ohms. #14 wire
at 30 feet describes a lot of dipoles.

Are there any calculations or charts for centre impedance of a dipole in
free space, starting from zero length, and going out to infinity?
--
Ian

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:

Are there any calculations or charts for centre impedance of a dipole in
free space, starting from zero length, and going out to infinity?

I think that what you're looking for is in Kraus "Antennas for All
Applications", page 446 - "Self-impedance of a thin linear antenna".
The formula given is based on the induced-EMF method... it's an
approximation which apparently works well for cylindrical antennas
whose length is at least 100x the diameter.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:30:39 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

Are there any calculations or charts for centre impedance of a dipole in
free space, starting from zero length, and going out to infinity?

Institutional memory here is so slight:

"Theory of antennas of arbitrary size and
shape," Proc. I.R.E., 29, 493, 1941 and S. A. Schelkunoff, "Advanced
Antenna Theory, " John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, (1952)

Accessible reference work can be found by searching the PTO with his
patent number: 2235506.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Ian wrote:
"Are there any calculations or charts for centre impedance of a dipole
in free space, starting from zero length, and going out to infinity?"

It gets repetitive after a while.

Arnold B. Bailey has "Graph of the resistance of a center-fed antenna
near first resonance and below" on page 343 in "TV and Other Receiving
Antennas". Then on page 348 Bailey has: "Various orders of resonance of
thin center-fed antennas, showing the current loops and approximate
radiation and antenna resistance in each case.".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI