Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:46:40 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote: Show my your NEC2 deck and tell me what I did wrong, and maybe I'll believe that it's 72 ohms. Incidentally, the possibility that I screwed up somewhere in the model is quite real: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/mfj1800/mfj1800.txt (I'll convert this mess back to a macro form so it's easier to read maybe this weekend). I don't have an option of NEC2 deck. No problem. Just post or email me the .EZ file. 4NEC2 will import it or I'll just switch to EZNEC. (I promise not to complain about your using inches). One thing you might check, and is something I reported about, is does your model have the loop symmetrical to the plane of the directors/reflector? Unfortunately, yes. I got lazy and planted the folded dipole centered about the axis of the other elements. I don't think (guess) it would make much difference, but I'll move it to the correct position this weekend. Got any theory as to why the vertical and horizontal patterns are so different? That only appeared when I switched to the flat wire folded dipole. They were symmetrical with the wire rod driven element. I followed all of Mike's dimensions and I note that your lobe characteristics don't show his lack of driven element symmetry - mine do. Again, I have modeled only the three elements (Ref/Dr/Dir) as the additional directors are unlikely to perturb drive point Z as much as to push it from 73 Ohms up to your high 200s (triple?). Yes, something is different. In past tinkering, I've found that 3 elements is sufficient to characterize the feed impedance, where the additional elements just improve the gain and pattern. Another point, as I have described, I used 1/4 inch diameter wire in place of larger flat sheet metal elements (which I note you try to replecate, but only once). True, 1/4 inch is not as big as any flat dimension, but as Roy reports on equivalence, flat is not the same as diameter, but flat performance is closer to a smaller diameter round wire. Hence the 1/4 inch. Well, I used a rod with the same circumference as the flat (asymetrical) elements. Methinks the element diameter would have an effect on the bandwidth of the antenna, but not on its characteristic impedance. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC thanks much... -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WTD: Drake SL-1800 Filter | Boatanchors | |||
Panasonic RE-1800 scanner | Scanner | |||
PCB Antenne for GSM (900/1800) | Antenna | |||
GSM patch antenna (900/1800/1900 MHz) ? | Antenna | |||
1800 Watts PEP on .555 | CB |