Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
What is the best way to use one feed line for more than one dipole?
Or, is it better to use a coax switch in the shack? Thanks, Ron |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"rhymer" wrote
What is the best way to use one feed line for more than one dipole? Or, is it better to use a coax switch in the shack? Ron, your subject line "Two dipoles on one coax" implies the typical antenna selector switch that leaves no question (of course you can do that). But the message body asks about one feedline for more than one dipole as opposed to the antenna selector. The two choices are so unequal that a comparison is not possible. Someone may explain here that they have connected more than one antenna with a single feedline, but it flies in the face of proper operating procedure. Most operators however do use antenna selector switches to provide more than one antenna choice to a given receiver or transmitter. The individual antennas always have their own individual feedline in those cases. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jack Painter wrote:
Someone may explain here that they have connected more than one antenna with a single feedline, but it flies in the face of proper operating procedure. Except, of course, for paralleled dipoles where only one of them is resonant (low feedpoint impedance) on any one frequency. Perhaps that is what he is talking about. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
... Jack Painter wrote: Someone may explain here that they have connected more than one antenna with a single feedline, but it flies in the face of proper operating procedure. Except, of course, for paralleled dipoles where only one of them is resonant (low feedpoint impedance) on any one frequency. Perhaps that is what he is talking about. Thanks Cecil. I meant to say "normal" operating procedure. I knew you guys had examples of why you would do otherwise, LOL. Best, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Va |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 21 May 2004 09:21:44 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote: "rhymer" wrote What is the best way to use one feed line for more than one dipole? Or, is it better to use a coax switch in the shack? Ron, your subject line "Two dipoles on one coax" implies the typical antenna selector switch that leaves no question (of course you can do that). But the message body asks about one feedline for more than one dipole as opposed to the antenna selector. The two choices are so unequal that a comparison is not possible. I have no idea what you mean by "typical antenna selector switch". Someone may explain here that they have connected more than one antenna with a single feedline, but it flies in the face of proper operating procedure. Most operators however do use antenna selector switches to provide more than one antenna choice to a given receiver or transmitter. The individual antennas always have their own individual feedline in those cases. Yes, I was referring to more than one dipole on a single feed line (in my case two dipoles 40 and 15). Thanks, Ron Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() rhymer wrote: On Fri, 21 May 2004 09:21:44 -0400, "Jack Painter" wrote: "rhymer" wrote What is the best way to use one feed line for more than one dipole? Or, is it better to use a coax switch in the shack? Ron, your subject line "Two dipoles on one coax" implies the typical antenna selector switch that leaves no question (of course you can do that). But the message body asks about one feedline for more than one dipole as opposed to the antenna selector. The two choices are so unequal that a comparison is not possible. I have no idea what you mean by "typical antenna selector switch". Someone may explain here that they have connected more than one antenna with a single feedline, but it flies in the face of proper operating procedure. Most operators however do use antenna selector switches to provide more than one antenna choice to a given receiver or transmitter. The individual antennas always have their own individual feedline in those cases. Yes, I was referring to more than one dipole on a single feed line (in my case two dipoles 40 and 15). Thanks, Ron You might try something like this: http://www.hamuniverse.com/multidipole.html 73, AC6XG |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"rhymer" wrote in message
news ![]() Yes, I was referring to more than one dipole on a single feed line (in my case two dipoles 40 and 15). OM, Since a dipole will also work on the third harmonic of its design frequency, it's very common to use a 40 M dipole on 15. You usually don't need a second dipole to work 15 if you already have one for 40. As other have pointed out, however, it's perfectly fine to put dipoles for other bands on the same feedline: 20, 17, or whatever. The antenna that's not in resonance presents a high impedance to the feedline, and the resonant dipole takes the power. HTH. 73, Bill |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "rhymer" wrote in message ... What is the best way to use one feed line for more than one dipole? Or, is it better to use a coax switch in the shack? Thanks, Ron Ron, Connecting two *dipoles* to the same feedline works just fine. Just tie them directly to the same balun. There will be two kinds of interaction: first, the two are electrically in parallel, and second, the wires themselves could have mutual coupling. The first seems to not really be a problem, and the second is minimized if there is separation between the two dipoles. For best results, put them at right angles to each other; if that is not possible, have at least 15 - 30 degrees separation, either vertical or horizontal. For instance, you could have a dipole supported at the ends, with an inverted V hanging below it. The most interesting case is for antennas at 75 and 80 meters. You get 2:1 SWR from 3.5 to 4 MHz in a virtually non directional antenna (if the two dipoles are at 90 degrees). I presently have a 40 m inverted V hanging below an 17 m dipole. (The trees are too close to do it the other way). The 40 meter is also out of plane to miss the trees. Works great. Since you have to trim the lengths slightly (lowest frequency first), it is simplest to run EZNEC or some other simulation first. Tam/WB2TT |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:22:20 -0400, "Tam/WB2TT"
wrote: "rhymer" wrote in message .. . What is the best way to use one feed line for more than one dipole? Or, is it better to use a coax switch in the shack? Thanks, Ron Ron, Connecting two *dipoles* to the same feedline works just fine. Just tie them directly to the same balun. There will be two kinds of interaction: first, the two are electrically in parallel, and second, the wires themselves could have mutual coupling. The first seems to not really be a problem, and the second is minimized if there is separation between the two dipoles. For best results, put them at right angles to each other; if that is not possible, have at least 15 - 30 degrees separation, either vertical or horizontal. For instance, you could have a dipole supported at the ends, with an inverted V hanging below it. That's what I wanted to hear, that it can be done without using anything special. It sure would beat switching them at the xmitter. I have always used separate feed lines and recently I read where someone had 4 dipoles on the same feed line. The most interesting case is for antennas at 75 and 80 meters. You get 2:1 SWR from 3.5 to 4 MHz in a virtually non directional antenna (if the two dipoles are at 90 degrees). That sounds really cool. I presently have a 40 m inverted V hanging below an 17 m dipole. (The trees are too close to do it the other way). The 40 meter is also out of plane to miss the trees. Works great. Is the 40m at a right angle to the 17m, or is the V separation adequate? Since you have to trim the lengths slightly (lowest frequency first), it is simplest to run EZNEC or some other simulation first. Tam/WB2TT Thanks muchly for that, Ron, W1WBV |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "rhymer" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:22:20 -0400, "Tam/WB2TT" wrote: .................................................. ..... Is the 40m at a right angle to the 17m, or is the V separation adequate? The 40 is not at right angles. Only shifted horizontally enough to clear the tree trunks and find suitable anchors for the ends. Vertically, there might be 30 degrees separation, since the ends of the 17 go up, and the ends of the 40 come down Since you have to trim the lengths slightly (lowest frequency first), it is That is because the 40 has more effect on the 17 than the 17 does on the 40. I am using a 1:1 balun. Not sure if that affects anything or not. simplest to run EZNEC or some other simulation first. Tam/WB2TT Thanks muchly for that, Ron, W1WBV |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Coax choke, losses and ferrite | Antenna | |||
Coax length - important ? | Antenna | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna | |||
Ladder Line or Coax For Reception only? | Antenna | |||
Length of Coax Affecting Incident Power to Meter? | Antenna |