On 5/28/2011 2:25 PM, Frank wrote:


How many amateur radio operators use this kind of academic preening
when they are putting up a dipole.

Too much hand-waving here to be useful to most folks.

People who are running NEC models, particularly NEC2 as opposed to NEC4,
tend to be interested in this kind of thing.

While building antennas and running them up the flagpole/tower/tree to
test is fun and enjoyable, you can save a whole bunch of time with some
modeling ahead of time (and besides, sometimes the weather isn't good
for antenna building/testing)

On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Frank
wrote:

How many amateur radio operators use this kind of academic preening
when they are putting up a dipole.

Me, me, me. Even the simplest antenna is influenced by nearby
structures, towers, poles, elevation, guy wires, position of coax
feed, chain link fences, and grounding system. That makes a simple
dipole not very simple. I've helped a few local hams model their
houses allowing prediction of takeoff angles, mysterious nulls,
optimum height, and cut length. While modeling (I use 4NEC2) does
take some learning and understanding, it does offer an improvment over
the tradition ham radio cut-n-try.

Too much hand-waving here to be useful to most folks.

Speak for yourself please. I like postings that are over my knowledge
level so that I learn something new. It's also nice to know *WHY*
things work, or don't. Learn by Destroying(tm).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 5/31/2011 1:52 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:25:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

How many amateur radio operators use this kind of academic preening
when they are putting up a dipole.

Me, me, me. Even the simplest antenna is influenced by nearby
structures, towers, poles, elevation, guy wires, position of coax
feed, chain link fences, and grounding system. That makes a simple
dipole not very simple. I've helped a few local hams model their
houses allowing prediction of takeoff angles, mysterious nulls,
optimum height, and cut length. While modeling (I use 4NEC2) does
take some learning and understanding, it does offer an improvment over
the tradition ham radio cut-n-try.

Too much hand-waving here to be useful to most folks.

Speak for yourself please. I like postings that are over my knowledge
level so that I learn something new. It's also nice to know *WHY*
things work, or don't. Learn by Destroying(tm).


I agree, Jeff.

I like antennas that are naturally short-circuited by design and can be
grounded, making the feed point essentially grounded for DC and lower
frequencies. One such antenna is the folded unipole. Its only problem is
that the feedpoint resistance is about 120 or so ohms.

So, I had this idea. The usual monopole (or ground plane) has about
30-35 ohms resistance. To get 50 ohms it is common practice to droop the
radials about 45 degrees. Since that raises the feedpoint resistance,
would raising the radials lower the feedpoint resistance of the folded
unipole and, if so, what effect would it have on the pattern?

EZNEC said to raise the radials of the folded unipole about 23 or so
degrees to get 50 ohms and the pattern would not be affected.

So I built one and it works swimmingly. I had to make some minor
adjustments in element lengths but that was fairly easy with the vector
voltmeter. Hooray for modeling.

Cheers,
John - KD5YI