Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 23:13:25 +0000 (UTC), Owen Duffy
wrote: You are treading down a well worn path. Yeah, I know the feeling when I'm stuck in a rut. There is a flaw in thinking that the shield of the coax below the bottom of your nominal dipole does not carry significant current on the outer surface. Whilst you are trying to account for the current distribution on the nominal dipole, you are ignoring the common mode current on the feedline. Agreed. The feedline should be decoupled, which one can do by wrapping a few turns into a coil and tied together with tie wraps. Another method is a 1/4 wave decoupling sleeve further down the coax cable. The antenna will 'work' and you may be delightedm but if you expect that it will have very low VSWR based on formula dimensions, I think you will be dissapointed. Well, putting a 75 ohm antenna onto a 50 ohm system results in a minimum VSWR of 1.5:1 assuming the coax is cut for some multiple of 1/2 wave electrical length. Also, most HT's are designed to tolerate the fairly miserable VSWR presented by rubber ducky antennas and body proximity. In this case, the problem to be solved was rather mundane. A friend was in the process of packing for a weekend camping trip with the kids. His 13 year old daughter apparently had lost the rubber ducky antenna from her Yaesu FT-60r. Rather than borrow an antenna, or build an adapter kludge, he decides it's time for her to build an antenna. They found some SMA cables, and proceeded to make a simple coaxial sleeve dipole. However, there was some debate over the cut length of the driven element because of the presence of coax dielectric. I get a hasty email with the question and discover that I really don't know the answer. So, I posted the question here. We'll find out how it worked when they return. Whether the home made antenna is optimized for best performance doesn't seem to be important in this case. Any reasonable antenna is better than a rubber ducky, so she should be fine (assuming she doesn't lose another antenna). You might obtain better feedline decoupling by some form of common mode choke. Yes, that will help (as previously noted). The failure of the sleeve to effectively decouple the dipole is the reason why several antennas don't work as thought. King gives some hints that the relative diameters of the conductors bears on operation. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jeff Liebermann wrote in
: .... Agreed. The feedline should be decoupled, which one can do by wrapping a few turns into a coil and tied together with tie wraps. Another method is a 1/4 wave decoupling sleeve further down the coax cable. Those all may reduce common mode current. If you have tried them and measured the results, you know by how much. .... kids. His 13 year old daughter apparently had lost the rubber ducky antenna from her Yaesu FT-60r. Rather than borrow an antenna, or build an adapter kludge, he decides it's time for her to build an antenna. They found some SMA cables, and proceeded to make a simple coaxial sleeve dipole. However, there was some debate over the cut length of the driven element because of the presence of coax dielectric. And the answer is not a simple as put by some. Particularly, if you had in mind that the sleeve should be an electrical quarter wave to current flowing on the outside so forming half of a centre fed dipole, and an electrical quarter wave on the inside to form a quarter wave s/c stub, the presence of high permittivity dielectric on the inside prevents those both happening together... so you compromise, like discarding the centre fed concept, tune the s/c stub for resonance (max decoupling, and the sleeve will be less than a physical quarter wave), now tune the top part of the dipole (it will be a bit longer than a physical quarter wave) for lowest VSWR on the feedline. I get a hasty email with the question and discover that I really don't know the answer. So, I posted the question here. We'll find out how it worked when they return. To some extent, everything 'works'. Just stripping a quarter wave of shield off the end of a length of coax probably 'works' about as well. Whether the home made antenna is optimized for best performance doesn't seem to be important in this case. Indeed, it seems that for most modern hams, performance isn't an issue or of interest. Owen |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Will it work? Yes. Will it be a very good antenna? No, but you
didn't expect it to be, did you? It's possible for it to be better than the typical rubberducky though. That's the whole point, isn't it? - 'Doc |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 07:15:07 +0000 (UTC), Owen Duffy
wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote in : ... Agreed. The feedline should be decoupled, which one can do by wrapping a few turns into a coil and tied together with tie wraps. Another method is a 1/4 wave decoupling sleeve further down the coax cable. Those all may reduce common mode current. If you have tried them and measured the results, you know by how much. I haven't. I also know that using the available RG-316 or RG-174 coax cable is not going to yield optimum results. For a commercial product, suitable for general consumption, such compromises are not a great idea. However, for the purpose intended (short notice replacement of a lost HT antenna suitable for a camping trip), in my never humble opinion, is totally adequate. As long as it throw RF in the correct direction, and doesn't cause the transmitter to shut down from excessive VSWR, it should suffice. And the answer is not a simple as put by some. With all due respect, the answer is NEVER as simple as the common wisdom and practice. I just went through a similar mess in rec.bicycles.tech, where I contended that many of the common design practices found in todays bicycles are not sufficiently optimized. When success is measured in milliseconds and profitability in tenths of a penny, then good enough is never really good enough. Antennas should all be silver painted, made from Litz wire, use Teflon insulators, suspended air dielectric coax cable, and gold plated connectors. That should squeeze the last 0.000001dB out of the design. One can always make an antenna a little bit better. However, I don't think the 13 year old will notice. Similarly, 90% of the hams using a sleeve dipole coax antenna will notice. The real question is "what is good enough". In this case, it's the ability of a 13 year old to build an antenna on short notice, that works at least better than the stock rubber ducky, with available parts, and probably keep her out of the parents way as they load up the camper. Particularly, if you had in mind that the sleeve should be an electrical quarter wave to current flowing on the outside so forming half of a centre fed dipole, and an electrical quarter wave on the inside to form a quarter wave s/c stub, the presence of high permittivity dielectric on the inside prevents those both happening together... Huh? I thought (err... guessed) that the dielectric only has an effect if it were between the conductors. The grounded half of the dipole formed by coax braid has the vinyl outer jacket forming a dielectric. I presume this is what you consider to be a problem. Worse, the jacket can be various grades (flooded, plenum, buriable) with various dopings (UV proofing, gel filled). In general, it seems to shorten the electrical wavelength. This is usually not a problem because expanding the diameter of the coax braid, as it's folded back over the shield, also mechanically shortens the braid. In the 2 or 3 such antennas I've built over the years, I've randomly shortened the braid. What makes such arbitrary design decisions function is that the dipole has a rather large operating bandwidth. One can be incredibly sloppy and still end up with an acceptable antenna. so you compromise, like discarding the centre fed concept, tune the s/c stub for resonance (max decoupling, and the sleeve will be less than a physical quarter wave), now tune the top part of the dipole (it will be a bit longer than a physical quarter wave) for lowest VSWR on the feedline. I must confess that I haven't bothered to try optimizing such an antenna, while you obviously have made the attempt. What I usually do with crude antennas is to attach one of several reflection coefficient bridges in my pile or a directional coupler and some diode detectors, sweep generator, and scope, and just play with the dimensions until it works. Calculations, NEC models, and theory are great, but I prefer to see the results on some test equipment. (For 2.4 and 5.7Ghz antennas, I have a rather marginal test range and transfer standard, which are suitable for estimating the gain of the antenna). I get a hasty email with the question and discover that I really don't know the answer. So, I posted the question here. We'll find out how it worked when they return. To some extent, everything 'works'. Just stripping a quarter wave of shield off the end of a length of coax probably 'works' about as well. That's probably what she ended up building. If she can talk into the local repeaters, it's good enough. In this case, the 13 year old antenna builder is probably not up to doing much more than measuring, removing the outer jacket and peeling back the braid. I was going to suggest adding a decoupling sleeve (using aluminum foil duct tape), but decided that would be too much for a quick build. Maybe when they return. I forgot who rammed this down my throat when first got started in engineering.... "The secret to engineering is to know when to stop engineering and start building". It's a moving target, that has many implications, but my method is that when it meets the "suitability for purpose" criteria, you're done. Whether the home made antenna is optimized for best performance doesn't seem to be important in this case. Indeed, it seems that for most modern hams, performance isn't an issue or of interest. That's also true for 90% of bicyclists. 90% of the bicycling public do not race their bicycles. Similarly, 90% of the hams probably are not optimizing their antennas and designs to what can theoretically be achieved. It doesn't take much to look at an existing design of literally anything, and think of a better way to do it. I do this all the time. (Former ladyfriend called it the engineering mentality and claimed it drove her nuts). Whether the average ham wants or needs that last dB squeezed out of the design is problematic. If I were doing moonbounce or microwave DX, where every fraction of a dB is important, I would certainly be into such optimizations. However, for yacking on the local repeaters, almost anything will work. I'll probably steal a few of your ideas and comments in order to build a "better" coax cable dipole, if she returns with an interest in how it works, or how to make it better. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Building a Ready-Made "GreerTech" Coax Cable [Shielded] Loop Antenna with Multi-Heads | Shortwave | |||
Cutting cable length to match 1/4 wave 162 MHz antenna? | Antenna | |||
TX to Antenna cable length? | Antenna | |||
FS:RG8X 18 FT LENGTH COAX WITH COAX CONNECTOR | Swap | |||
TV antenna question-cable length | Antenna |