Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Tube and Twin lead Slim Jim
LAB wrote:
I have tried the Slim Jim antenna on the 2m. I used a 1/4" copper tube, antenna is very good. Then I made another one using 300 Ohm TV clear twin lead, but SWR is very high and it seems to be not adjustable to the same 1:1 of the first antenna. Why? Does anyone know where is the problem? How can one move the feedpoint up and down the matching stub with insulation on the wire? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Tube and Twin lead Slim Jim
CECIUL MOO
How can one move the feedpoint up and down the matching stub with insulation on the wire? I started at the same distance of the copper tube antenna. About 1cm apart SWR seemed to be about the same: not better, not worse. It seemed to be the best... I've had no time in the week for other tests; I'll continue today or tomorrow. If someone has an idea it will be appreciated. -- Gianluca |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Tube and Twin lead Slim Jim
LAB wrote:
CECIUL MOO How can one move the feedpoint up and down the matching stub with insulation on the wire? I started at the same distance of the copper tube antenna. About 1cm apart SWR seemed to be about the same: not better, not worse. It seemed to be the best... I've had no time in the week for other tests; I'll continue today or tomorrow. If someone has an idea it will be appreciated. The velocity factor of the twinlead might be as much as 20% different from the copper tubes. If you use the same dimensions, the resonant frequency will be too low. Did you compensate for velocity factor? Did you check the resonant frequency with something like an MFJ-259B? By changing the characteristic impedance of the matching stub, you change the optimum tap point on the stub so you cannot use the same dimensions as the copper tube antenna. Seems you need to make the adjustments using a throw-away version of the antenna. Once you determine the proper dimensions, you can build the final version. I would start by shaving the insulation off both stub wires so they can be soldered to the coax and chopping off 10% of the length of the 1/2WL section. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Tube and Twin lead Slim Jim
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... snip The velocity factor of the twinlead might be as much as 20% different from the copper tubes. If you use the same dimensions, the resonant frequency will be too low. Did you compensate for velocity factor? Did you check the resonant frequency with something like an MFJ-259B? snip Seems you need to make the adjustments using a throw-away version of the antenna. Once you determine the proper dimensions, you can build the final version. I would start by shaving the insulation off both stub wires so they can be soldered to the coax and chopping off 10% of the length of the 1/2WL section. Yes! All of the above! Also, it has been my experience that the recommended quarter-inch gap cut in one of the twinlead conductors [to create the stub section] is insufficient. I make it at least a half-inch. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Tube and Twin lead Slim Jim
I have been surprised for the twin lead problems because i had already
made another Slim Jim using 2mm bare copper wire on the sides of a black "electric" plastic tube (d=about 2cm) and I get the same good performances of the copper tube... -- Gianluca |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Tube and Twin lead Slim Jim
LAB wrote:
I have been surprised for the twin lead problems because i had already made another Slim Jim using 2mm bare copper wire on the sides of a black "electric" plastic tube (d=about 2cm) and I get the same good performances of the copper tube... The velocity factor of the insulated twinlead is much lower than bare wires. If you don't understand velocity factor, please study up on the subject. Velocity factor can make as much as a 20% difference in element lengths between bare wires and insulated twinlead. The characteristic impedance is also different causing the 50 ohm feedpoint position to change. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Tube and Twin lead Slim Jim
On May 30, 10:33*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
LAB wrote: * * I have been surprised for the twin lead problems because i had already made another Slim Jim using 2mm bare copper wire on the sides of a black "electric" plastic tube (d=about 2cm) and I get the same good performances of the copper tube... The velocity factor of the insulated twinlead is much lower than bare wires. If you don't understand velocity factor, please study up on the subject. Velocity factor can make as much as a 20% difference in element lengths between bare wires and insulated twinlead. The characteristic impedance is also different causing the 50 ohm feedpoint position to change. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com Whats the advantage of the Slim Jim over a plan old J antenna. Jimmie |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Tube and Twin lead Slim Jim
I had already made another Slim Jim using 2mm bare copper wire on the
sides of a black "electric" plastic tube The velocity factor of the insulated twinlead is muchlower than bare wires. If you don't understand velocity factor, please study up on the subject. I know what is velocity factor. It is determined by L and C. In the "other" Slim Jim a plastic tube was between the 2mm wires, but performances was similar to the 6mm tube antenna, in which only air is between the tube -- Gianluca |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
100 Ohm Twin Lead | Antenna | |||
Twin lead lightning arrestor? | Antenna | |||
300 Ohm Twin Lead Antenna Wire | Antenna | |||
300 Ohm Twin Lead Antenna Wire | Antenna | |||
Staples and twin lead | Antenna |