Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

Hi

I found it (thank you to all for your helping)

The name of the feeding system I was looking for is:" Balanced
Capacitive Matching", and as Ralph Mowery said, it is a system
patented by the Mosley company see = http://www.mosley-electronics.com/page%20files/faq.htm
for explanations.

Mosley people says that its function is the one that I supposed in
third term = to increase the radiation resistance lengthening the
element.

When I search the web for the first time I didn't find it because I
looked for "T33".
My friend Luis Fernández - LU1DMA - mentioned again (in another radio
list) a Mosley "TA-33" and with this new Google key I gave immediately
with her.
LU1DMA tell me that he has a "Mosley TA-33" and a "Palombo" antenna
(local production, the last) and that both use this feeding type =

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1508589.../adaptador.pdf

that it is not identical to the one that Mosley describes in its FAQ.

Could this be a later variant they add to the lengthening effect of
their original system with the properties that are attributed to the
bazooka system?

73

Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

lu6etj wrote in
:

Hi

I found it (thank you to all for your helping)

The name of the feeding system I was looking for is:" Balanced
Capacitive Matching", and as Ralph Mowery said, it is a system
patented by the Mosley company see =
http://www.mosley-electronics.com/page%20files/faq.htm for
explanations.

Miguel,

I browsed your reference.

The text following "MOSLEY TRAP MASTER AND POWER MASTER SERIES... A
Discussion of Beam Antenna Feed Systems" is typical BS that comes from
antenna manufacturers with more interest in taking your money than an
understanding of how things work.

For example, the justification of unbalanced feed of the split dipole is
sheer technical nonsense.

Owen

Owen

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

I read on their web page for some more BS.

In explaining why their traps are lossless:

"Gain is a function of element spacing and boom length and not what
constitutes an element. The published gain figures for our products are
dBd, actual measured gain. Antennas which use other forms of trapping such
as linear loading, poor trap copies, baluns or matching devices have
inherit loss. "

So, all these things have inherent loss, but not their traps.

Fact is that GAIN is reduced by LOSS, anywhere and everywhere in the
system, dB for dB. This includes conductor losses, dielectric losses, and
trap losses which they exclude from their definition.

Owen

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

On 12 mayo, 19:00, Owen Duffy wrote:
I read on their web page for some more BS.

In explaining why their traps are lossless:

"Gain is a function of element spacing and boom length and not what
constitutes an element. *The published gain figures for our products are
dBd, actual measured gain. *Antennas which use other forms of trapping such
as linear loading, poor trap copies, baluns or matching devices have
inherit loss. "

So, all these things have inherent loss, but not their traps.

Fact is that GAIN is reduced by LOSS, anywhere and everywhere in the
system, dB for dB. This includes conductor losses, dielectric losses, and
trap losses which they exclude from their definition.

Owen

As I said: "I wanted to discover what was the supporting idea behind
that
feeding system for its designers"

Defend commercial stuff and his claims It is not my job (I do not
trust enough in all of them), I am an Amateur :) but seems to me that
their concept it is not opposed to my modest theoretical knowledge
neither my simulations exercises in 4NEC2 (their "numbers" partially
agree with mine, although I have not simulated exactly a Mosley
antenna model).
Now I am only interested in validate or negate the especific technical
concept and explanation given, from a scientific perspective.

Proposition =. Is it possible match the impedance of some Yagi
antennas lengthening the driven element and canceling its inductive
reactance splitting the element and adding series caps?
Can be made these caps with special pieces of insulated wire
introduced in element tube?.

Try it... lenghten in a NEC simulation the driven element and cancel
inductive reactance = impedance raises and gain stays (I used
"3YAGI20.NEC" from 4NEC2 examples provided with Arie soft, for
testing).
In my test, raisen length from 5.12 m to 5.85 m per leg, Zin raises
from 31.8 + j2 ohm to 50.9 + j150 ohm and gain stays in 12 dBi (with a
fast ground and 15 m height).

73

Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

Owen Duffy wrote in
:

Ok, since you are discussing impedance matching, what was the effect on
VSWR bandwidth.

It seems to me that as you go lower in frequency, the inductive reactance
at the feedpoint becomes less and the series stub reactance becomes
greater, so one aggravates the other.

The question is whether the outcome is narrower than desired or available
with other matches.

Because Mosely's explanation contains so much BS, I have no faith in
anything they have said.

Owen

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

lu6etj wrote:
On 12 mayo, 19:00, Owen Duffy wrote:
I read on their web page for some more BS.

In explaining why their traps are lossless:

"Gain is a function of element spacing and boom length and not what
constitutes an element. The published gain figures for our products are
dBd, actual measured gain. Antennas which use other forms of trapping such
as linear loading, poor trap copies, baluns or matching devices have
inherit loss. "

So, all these things have inherent loss, but not their traps.

Fact is that GAIN is reduced by LOSS, anywhere and everywhere in the
system, dB for dB. This includes conductor losses, dielectric losses, and
trap losses which they exclude from their definition.

Owen

As I said: "I wanted to discover what was the supporting idea behind
that
feeding system for its designers"

Defend commercial stuff and his claims It is not my job (I do not
trust enough in all of them), I am an Amateur :) but seems to me that
their concept it is not opposed to my modest theoretical knowledge
neither my simulations exercises in 4NEC2 (their "numbers" partially
agree with mine, although I have not simulated exactly a Mosley
antenna model).
Now I am only interested in validate or negate the especific technical
concept and explanation given, from a scientific perspective.

Proposition =. Is it possible match the impedance of some Yagi
antennas lengthening the driven element and canceling its inductive
reactance splitting the element and adding series caps?
Can be made these caps with special pieces of insulated wire
introduced in element tube?.

A worthy goal.. There's countless schemes for feeding, most developed
empirically, and all probably work about the same, but have some aspect
that is convenient for manufacture, installation, patent avoidance; and
a lot of them are just marketing sizzle (Now! with brigher color paint!
our patented 10 mm bolt with 1.618 mm threads in the Golden Ratio is
available exclusively on our Whiz-Bang model 32 antenna! Worked all 5
boroughs of NY from the top of the Empire State Building on 40m!, etc.)



Try it... lenghten in a NEC simulation the driven element and cancel
inductive reactance = impedance raises and gain stays (I used
"3YAGI20.NEC" from 4NEC2 examples provided with Arie soft, for
testing).
In my test, raisen length from 5.12 m to 5.85 m per leg, Zin raises
from 31.8 + j2 ohm to 50.9 + j150 ohm and gain stays in 12 dBi (with a
fast ground and 15 m height).

Running that model in free space gives a forward gain of 8.13dBi and a
f/b of about 26.5 dB, with a couple of sidelobes at 115 degrees off
boresight at about 29 dB down.

making the change you give, changes the forward gain to 8.11 dBi
(insignificantly different), but the rear lobes get bigger: The side
lobe is now 25 dB down (instead of 29), and the back lobe is at 24dB down.

Still not a bad F/B, though.




Changing the length of the elements changes the relative phases and
magnitudes of the currents in the elements. You can have pretty big
changes without affecting gain very much.

However, what *will* go bad in a hurry is front/back or sidelobe
performance. The "cancellation" of the back and side lobes depends on
the phasing of the currents.

So, if the goal is "reasonable gain" in the forward direction and "easy
to build a matching network for" that's a valid strategy.

Just for grins, here are the currents in the center of each element:
5.85m leg 5.15m
R (wire2,seg62) 0.27 + j0.07(0.30 70) -0.3 +j 0.75 (1.3111)
De(wire1,seg21) 0.39 - j1.45(0.51-75) 1.62 -j 1.03 (3.1-32.5)
D (wire3,seg103) -1 + j0.05(0.45152) -1.2 -j 0.27 (1.9-167)

(magphase)


A couple things are interesting.. the overall magnitudes of the currents
are lower for the 5.85m version, but that's because it's excited with
1Volt, so the higher feedpoint Z means lower total current.

What's interesting is looking at the relative currents and phases:
The 5.85 has almost equal magnitudes, while the 5.15 has more current in
the driven element, and very much lower in the rear element.

The 5.15 meter has about 143 degrees phase shift from reflector to
driven, and then another 135 degrees from driven to director.
The 5.85 has 145 degree from reflector to driven, and 133 degrees from
driven to director.

That's pretty close in phase, which is why the forward gain is pretty
much the same.. the wavefronts line up nicely. It's the different
current magnitudes that are ruining the back lobes. A current magnitude
error of 10% changes the forward gain by about 0.4dB. But that same
error can turn a -30dB side lobe into a -10dB sidelobe.

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
Owen Duffy wrote in
:

Ok, since you are discussing impedance matching, what was the effect on
VSWR bandwidth.

It seems to me that as you go lower in frequency, the inductive reactance
at the feedpoint becomes less and the series stub reactance becomes
greater, so one aggravates the other.

The question is whether the outcome is narrower than desired or available
with other matches.

Because Mosely's explanation contains so much BS, I have no faith in
anything they have said.



Aside from marketing BS..

Owen raises a good point. You bring the feedpoint Z from 31.8+j2 to
51+j150. Resonating the j150 with a -j150 is fine, but now,you've
effectively got a resonant circuit with moderately high Q, or, at the
very least, more circulating power between matching network and antenna.

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

On 12 mayo, 22:12, Jim Lux wrote:
Owen Duffy wrote:
Owen Duffy wrote in
:

Ok, since you are discussing impedance matching, what was the effect on
VSWR bandwidth.

It seems to me that as you go lower in frequency, the inductive reactance
at the feedpoint becomes less and the series stub reactance becomes
greater, so one aggravates the other.

The question is whether the outcome is narrower than desired or available
with other matches.

Because Mosely's explanation contains so much BS, I have no faith in
anything they have said.

Aside from marketing BS..

Owen raises a good point. *You bring the feedpoint Z from 31.8+j2 to
51+j150. *Resonating the j150 with a -j150 is fine, but now,you've
effectively got a resonant circuit with moderately high Q, or, at the
very least, more circulating power between matching network and antenna.- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Very good and detailed análisis Jim.

Owen point it is also good, but seems to me it is a little odd biased
by the others claims of Mosley people :)
I think that if Owen "forget Mosley" perhaps he could give another
chance to the system itself. For example = not all directive antennas
needs a great bandwidth...

However 4NEC2 simulation seem to favor the system we are analyzing.
Adding an ideal reactance of -155 ohms coarsely in the first segment
to the right of the central segment of mentioned provided 4NEC2 model
with lengthen driven element and doing a 13 to15 MHz frequency sweep I
got a lightly increment on VSWR bandwidth of approximately 200 kHz and
a decreasing of VSWR at resonance from aprox 1.5:1 to 1:1 (perhaps for
the localization of capacitive reactance on model?).

Finally, maybe I am also a little biased because my third speculation
was viable and that made me feel happy, hi hi :D

73

Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

lu6etj wrote in news:e57e2fbf-75a6-4014-a190-
:

Adding an ideal reactance of -155 ohms

Bit is not a fixed reactance, it is a transmission line element, and you
should model it as that, even if lossless.

Owen

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

On 13 mayo, 02:11, Owen Duffy wrote:
lu6etj wrote in news:e57e2fbf-75a6-4014-a190-
:

Adding an ideal reactance of -155 ohms

Bit is not a fixed reactance, it is a transmission line element, and you
should model it as that, even if lossless.

Owen

;=D Easy and quick 50 ohm transmission line 0.05121 lambda (-150
ohms) replacement for old fix reactance in the same segment = ¡Same
result...! and now... I'm go to ZZZZZ

73

Miguel

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

lu6etj wrote in news:90c5c494-45a0-476c-8f9e-
:

On 13 mayo, 02:11, Owen Duffy wrote:
lu6etj wrote in news:e57e2fbf-75a6-4014-a190-
:

Adding an ideal reactance of -155 ohms

Bit is not a fixed reactance, it is a transmission line element, and
you
should model it as that, even if lossless.

Owen

;=D Easy and quick 50 ohm transmission line 0.05121 lambda (-150
ohms) replacement for old fix reactance in the same segment = ¡Same
result...! and now... I'm go to ZZZZZ

If you specified it in wavelengths, wouldn't that have a constant
reactance.

The real stub is a fixed physical length, and its reactance changes with
frequency.

Owen

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

On 13 mayo, 04:59, Owen Duffy wrote:
lu6etj wrote in news:90c5c494-45a0-476c-8f9e-
:





On 13 mayo, 02:11, Owen Duffy wrote:
lu6etj wrote in news:e57e2fbf-75a6-4014-a190-
:

Adding an ideal reactance of -155 ohms

Bit is not a fixed reactance, it is a transmission line element, and
you
should model it as that, even if lossless.

Owen

;=D *Easy and quick 50 ohm transmission line 0.05121 lambda *(-150
ohms) replacement for old fix reactance in the same segment = ¡Same
result...! *and now... I'm go to ZZZZZ

If you specified it in wavelengths, wouldn't that have a constant
reactance.

The real stub is a fixed physical length, and its reactance changes with
frequency.

Owen- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Good morning (here) Mr. Duffy

It was in meters...

Please, remember the proposition to validate or refute. Once validated
(if it is), then we could think about details

You know, I was not trying to find out if it is the best matching
method but whether it is a viable method. For example: In precedent
post I said I was using a "coarsely" reactance for a basic hypothesis
test because my dictionary suggest that word, perhaps I should have
written: rudely? approximately?

SRI, this is not my natural language and I may not adequately
explained my goal...

Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

On Thu, 13 May 2010 05:11:58 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I was using a "coarsely" reactance for a basic hypothesis
test because my dictionary suggest that word, perhaps I should have
written: rudely? approximately?

Hi Miguel,

Coarse,
Rude,
Approximate
are the correct forms as adjectives that describe things.

Coarsely,
Rudely,
Approximately
are forms of adverbs that describe actions.

Any of the six words are easily understood in context.

I understand your goal. Newsgroup behavior is about speaking more
completely to the larger audience. Thus, other's will add commentary
to your goal.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

On 13 mayo, 13:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 05:11:58 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I was using a "coarsely" reactance for a basic hypothesis
test because my dictionary suggest that word, perhaps I should have
written: rudely? approximately?

Hi Miguel,

Coarse,
Rude,
Approximate
are the correct forms as adjectives that describe things.

Coarsely,
Rudely,
Approximately
are forms of adverbs that describe actions.

Any of the six words are easily understood in context.

I understand your goal. *Newsgroup behavior is about speaking more
completely to the larger audience. *Thus, other's will add commentary
to your goal.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thank you very much Richard I am happy to know it:

When I translate a ham technical article from spanish to english it is
worse because I have not any feedback to check if it has good sense to
english language readers.
I know you say about newsgropus, and that makes very interesting to me
read this. I like the way in that you squeeze the juice of each
topic :) Thanks to it I have understood very good things from all of
you...

73

Miguel

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
lu6etj wrote in news:e57e2fbf-75a6-4014-a190-
:

Adding an ideal reactance of -155 ohms

Bit is not a fixed reactance, it is a transmission line element, and you
should model it as that, even if lossless.

Owen
In the Mosley case, judging from the writeup at the link supplied a few
days ago, the series capacitor is sufficiently short (a few inches?),
that it's probably safe to consider it a lumped element. Isn't it just a
wire in the middle of a tube.. essentially a coaxial capacitor.

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

On 13 mayo, 15:38, Jim Lux wrote:
Owen Duffy wrote:
lu6etj wrote in news:e57e2fbf-75a6-4014-a190-
:

Adding an ideal reactance of -155 ohms

Bit is not a fixed reactance, it is a transmission line element, and you
should model it as that, even if lossless.

Owen

In the Mosley case, judging from the writeup at the link supplied a few
days ago, the series capacitor is sufficiently short (a few inches?),
that it's probably safe to consider it a lumped element. Isn't it just a
wire in the middle of a tube.. essentially a coaxial capacitor.

True. Since delta f is small (aprox 2%), considering it a plain
condenser, reactance variation between 14 and 14.3 MHz is from 150 to
146.6 ohm; considering it a transmission line variation is from 150 to
146.8 -worthless-
In the worst case, thinking it as a coaxial condenser could have a
higher error on cable length calculation more than in the reactancev
variation with frequency.

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

I think: If your assumed numbers were those of the Mosley beam, its
SWR would be 4:1(without losses), and with losses included she would
be ¡a very nasty antenna!. I think the ham buyers would not be very
happy with such a poor antenna on both cases :)


I am not saying that the Mosley antenna has a bad SWR or that is has a low gain.

I am just saying that the explanation they give for their matching arrangement
is not convincing. And this leads me to believe that their matching arrangement
is not equivalent to a simple capacitor in series...

73

Tony I0JX

Feeding System found it = Mosley
 

On Thu, 13 May 2010 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

When I translate a ham technical article from spanish to english it is
worse because I have not any feedback to check if it has good sense to
english language readers.

Hi Miguel,

Feel free to send me what you are working on for feedback.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC