Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 6th 09, 04:20 AM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
tom tom is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2009
Posts: 660
Default Matching impedance with coax

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:52:18 -0600, tom wrote:

Well you can believe what you like.

I believe what occurs and is measurable.


Hi Tom,

It's amazing how after a period of silence, BOTH Art and Jaro pop up
at the same time.

Does Art have an antipodes sock-puppet?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Well, I've been silent also. And for almost the same time period. I
could be both of them. I do have 2 feet.

tom
K0TAR
  #2   Report Post  
Old November 6th 09, 06:24 AM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default Matching impedance with coax

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:20:32 -0600, tom wrote:

I do have 2 feet.


But not one of them in Perth.
  #3   Report Post  
Old November 6th 09, 07:49 AM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 6
Default Matching impedance with coax

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:24:44 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:20:32 -0600, tom wrote:

I do have 2 feet.


But not one of them in Perth.


No relation to anyone you are thinking_of/describing/etc, sorry to
ruin your conspiracy theory.

If you want to try and achieve a match to 50 ohms by moving the
adjacent parasitic elements seriously close to the driven folded
dipole, go for it. (I could dust off trusty Elnec and get a result.)
But I'd be surprised if anyone who gives a rats about the consistency
of the result would go down that path.

I am very familair with how the commercial side-mounted dipoles and
yagis are manufactured here in Australia, and I doubt that the rest of
the world is dramatically different. In three simple words - series
coax transformer. Let's agree that with an SMD you don't have
parasitics to play around with - except for tower spacing (which has
an impact on pattern, and variations are used for that end.) The
Aussie manufacturers use eaxactly the same method on the FD on their
yagis. That is why I suggested the O/P look into that approach.
  #4   Report Post  
Old November 6th 09, 04:18 PM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default Matching impedance with coax

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:49:46 +0800, who where wrote:

But not one of them in Perth.


No relation to anyone you are thinking_of/describing/etc, sorry to
ruin your conspiracy theory.


Your confirmation here doesn't ruin anything. Art would hug you no
matter how you sign. Those he does have a remarkable need for
retaining anonymity. He would have us believe it's because his
supporters are easily bruised in the jostle. The following comment
would support that:

...gives a rats about the consistency
of the result would go down that path.


which is another but perhaps left-handed confirmation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
  #5   Report Post  
Old November 6th 09, 10:32 PM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 6
Default Matching impedance with coax

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:18:49 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:49:46 +0800, who where wrote:

But not one of them in Perth.


No relation to anyone you are thinking_of/describing/etc, sorry to
ruin your conspiracy theory.


Your confirmation here doesn't ruin anything. Art would hug you no
matter how you sign. Those he does have a remarkable need for
retaining anonymity. He would have us believe it's because his
supporters are easily bruised in the jostle. The following comment
would support that:

...gives a rats about the consistency
of the result would go down that path.


which is another but perhaps left-handed confirmation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Whatever - and whoever Art is. I wonder why people like you carry on
at a personal level towards posters whose views you don't share. And
you seem to need the limelight, posting a name and callsign.

I'm describing how the matching IS done commercially. You can crap on
forever if you wish about how you might do it. Fini.


  #6   Report Post  
Old November 6th 09, 11:12 PM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default Matching impedance with coax

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:32:25 +0800, who where wrote:

you seem to need the limelight, posting a name and callsign.


Yeah, as a longstanding convention for thousands of posters here, it
is a strange thing about being public and open in this world isn't it?

If you can't put your name to it, then any posting is only vacant
spam. "No one at home" informs us all about quality.

On the other hand, you choosing to be anonymous means you could have
us believe you are writing from a cave on the Afghan/Pakistan border
while waiting for your dialysis treatment to finish. Only Ossama and
vampires avoid the limelight - as you call it.

I'm describing how the matching IS done commercially.


Your painted-into-the-corner explanation has nothing to do with the
correlation between exhibited low feedpoint R and the proximity of
passive elements to what would have ordinarily been a very HiZ folded
element.

Fini.


We shall await your next post as

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
  #7   Report Post  
Old November 7th 09, 02:55 AM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
tom tom is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2009
Posts: 660
Default Matching impedance with coax

who where wrote:

Whatever - and whoever Art is. I wonder why people like you carry on
at a personal level towards posters whose views you don't share. And
you seem to need the limelight, posting a name and callsign.

I'm describing how the matching IS done commercially. You can crap on
forever if you wish about how you might do it. Fini.


The "ways it's done commercially" depends a lot on the desired result.

A choked line into a 50 ohm DE is an easy to do but not optimal method.

It doesn't give best gain or BW or best F/B or best noise temperature
and never ever gives the best combination of them for weak signal work.

But it IS easy.

And it's not always what the commercial antenna builders use. It's what
you have noticed that they sell. Or you might be pushing how much it's
used just a bit.

tom
K0TAR
  #8   Report Post  
Old November 7th 09, 02:20 PM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 6
Default Matching impedance with coax

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:55:19 -0600, tom wrote:

who where wrote:

Whatever - and whoever Art is. I wonder why people like you carry on
at a personal level towards posters whose views you don't share. And
you seem to need the limelight, posting a name and callsign.

I'm describing how the matching IS done commercially. You can crap on
forever if you wish about how you might do it. Fini.


The "ways it's done commercially" depends a lot on the desired result.

A choked line into a 50 ohm DE is an easy to do but not optimal method.

It doesn't give best gain or BW or best F/B or best noise temperature
and never ever gives the best combination of them for weak signal work.

But it IS easy.

And it's not always what the commercial antenna builders use. It's what
you have noticed that they sell. Or you might be pushing how much it's
used just a bit.


If you re-read what I posted, you will notice I stated "series coax
transformer". An in-line impedance transforming section is totally
different to simply stuffing RF choking on the line.

It is the method the three major manufacturers here in Australia
employ on their SMD's and the driven FD's on their yagis.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Matching Coax Impedance: To Receiver or To Antenna ? Robert11 Shortwave 7 March 5th 08 02:09 PM
Matching Coax Impedance: To Receiver or To Antenna ? Robert11 Antenna 4 March 4th 08 01:17 PM
How much can the impedance of coax vary from its characteristic impedance? [email protected] Antenna 23 August 21st 07 09:12 PM
.5-600 MHz LT5512 impedance matching [email protected] Homebrew 1 May 23rd 07 05:45 AM
impedance matching [email protected] General 3 April 10th 07 04:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017