An antenna question--43 ft vertical
 

As a lead in, I use a 16 ft vertical on 20-10 meters, mounted on a flat
metal roof. The antenna is fed with about 25 feet of RG-8, and there is a
tuner at the transmit end.

While I'm pretty happy with the antenna, I'd like to simplify the matching.

Thus, the question: what is the purpose of a 1:4 unun on a 43 foot vertical?
( I assume the "4" side is on the antenna side.)

I'd expect a better coax to antenna match when the antenna feedpoint is a
high Z (example, at 30 meters), but I'd also expect a worse coax to antenna
match when the feedpoint is a low Z (example, at 10 meters).

Is that the way it works, or is there other magic involved?

An antenna question--43 ft vertical
 

On 6/29/2015 10:48 AM, Wayne wrote:
As a lead in, I use a 16 ft vertical on 20-10 meters, mounted on a flat
metal roof. The antenna is fed with about 25 feet of RG-8, and there is
a tuner at the transmit end.

You use a 16ft vertical as a lead-in? For what and how is that done?

What are the dimensions of the metal roof?

While I'm pretty happy with the antenna, I'd like to simplify the matching.

To what matching do you refer? You don't want to use the tuner, or is
there some other stuff you have not mentioned?

Thus, the question: what is the purpose of a 1:4 unun on a 43 foot
vertical? ( I assume the "4" side is on the antenna side.)

You wrote that you were interested in a 16ft vertical. Now it is a 43ft
vertical?

I'd expect a better coax to antenna match when the antenna feedpoint is
a high Z (example, at 30 meters), but I'd also expect a worse coax to
antenna match when the feedpoint is a low Z (example, at 10 meters).

Is that the way it works, or is there other magic involved?

All this depends on your answers to the above questions.

An antenna question--43 ft vertical
 

"John S" wrote in message ...

On 6/29/2015 10:48 AM, Wayne wrote:
As a lead in, I use a 16 ft vertical on 20-10 meters, mounted on a flat
metal roof. The antenna is fed with about 25 feet of RG-8, and there is
a tuner at the transmit end.

You use a 16ft vertical as a lead-in? For what and how is that done?

Grammatically, the description of the vertical is a lead in for the
question, not an actual antenna lead.


What are the dimensions of the metal roof?

Somewhat irrelevant to my question. But it's about 20 by 35 feet.
I'm not looking for an analysis of the existing antenna.


While I'm pretty happy with the antenna, I'd like to simplify the
matching.

To what matching do you refer? You don't want to use the tuner, or is there
some other stuff you have not mentioned?

I want the tuner matching to be less awkward on some bands.
I'm willing to live with the existing high SWRs on the upper bands.


Thus, the question: what is the purpose of a 1:4 unun on a 43 foot
vertical? ( I assume the "4" side is on the antenna side.)

You wrote that you were interested in a 16ft vertical. Now it is a 43ft
vertical?

Please disregard all about the 16 ft vertical. I'm asking about a 43 ft
vertical 1:4 unun.


I'd expect a better coax to antenna match when the antenna feedpoint is
a high Z (example, at 30 meters), but I'd also expect a worse coax to
antenna match when the feedpoint is a low Z (example, at 10 meters).

Is that the way it works, or is there other magic involved?

All this depends on your answers to the above questions.

So, lets begin again, with no distractions.

What is the purpose (or benefit) of using a 1:4 unun on a 43 ft vertical.

An antenna question--43 ft vertical
 

In article ,
Wayne wrote:
So, lets begin again, with no distractions.

What is the purpose (or benefit) of using a 1:4 unun on a 43 ft
vertical.

http://www.eham.net/articles/21272 has a nice analysis.

It looks to me as if:

- Without a 4:1 unun, the antenna provides a very nice match at three
frequencies with in the HF band. At other frequencies, the SWR is
up over 10:1 much of the time - high enough that a coaxial feed
can be rather lossy.

- With a 4:1 unun, you do lose the excellent match at those three
frequencies... but the match gets better at most other
frequencies. The SWR across the HF band is much more uniform, and
lower on average... low enough to cut the coax losses somewhat and
(I think) within the matching range of many rigs' "line flattener"
built-in autotuners.

An antenna question--43 ft vertical
 

"Dave Platt" wrote in message ...

In article ,
Wayne wrote:
So, lets begin again, with no distractions.

What is the purpose (or benefit) of using a 1:4 unun on a 43 ft
vertical.

# http://www.eham.net/articles/21272 has a nice analysis.

# It looks to me as if:

# - Without a 4:1 unun, the antenna provides a very nice match at three
# frequencies with in the HF band. At other frequencies, the SWR is
# up over 10:1 much of the time - high enough that a coaxial feed
# can be rather lossy.

# - With a 4:1 unun, you do lose the excellent match at those three
# frequencies... but the match gets better at most other
# frequencies. The SWR across the HF band is much more uniform, and
# lower on average... low enough to cut the coax losses somewhat and
# (I think) within the matching range of many rigs' "line flattener"
# built-in autotuners.


Thanks Dave. I'll have to spend some more time studying it, but the article
is along the lines of what I was looking for.

I would assume that the 1:4 causes behavior just as you say....worse SWR at
nearly matched frequencies and better SWR elsewhere.

I'll have to pull out some textbooks and see how the math works out for a Z
seen through a 1:4 unun.

In practice, I've had good results with SWRs even in the 30:1 range with
short coax feeds.

More research...and thanks.

An antenna question--43 ft vertical
 

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 8:46:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne wrote:
"Dave Platt" wrote in message ...

In article ,
Wayne wrote:
So, lets begin again, with no distractions.

What is the purpose (or benefit) of using a 1:4 unun on a 43 ft
vertical.

# http://www.eham.net/articles/21272 has a nice analysis.

# It looks to me as if:

# - Without a 4:1 unun, the antenna provides a very nice match at three
# frequencies with in the HF band. At other frequencies, the SWR is
# up over 10:1 much of the time - high enough that a coaxial feed
# can be rather lossy.

# - With a 4:1 unun, you do lose the excellent match at those three
# frequencies... but the match gets better at most other
# frequencies. The SWR across the HF band is much more uniform, and
# lower on average... low enough to cut the coax losses somewhat and
# (I think) within the matching range of many rigs' "line flattener"
# built-in autotuners.


Thanks Dave. I'll have to spend some more time studying it, but the article
is along the lines of what I was looking for.

I would assume that the 1:4 causes behavior just as you say....worse SWR at
nearly matched frequencies and better SWR elsewhere.

I'll have to pull out some textbooks and see how the math works out for a Z
seen through a 1:4 unun.

In practice, I've had good results with SWRs even in the 30:1 range with
short coax feeds.

More research...and thanks.

I know that what I am about to say is provocative to some but I still think it is worth saying. If you look at the way that commercial and military radios are matched to antennas you will notice that most of the matching is done as close to the feed point as practical.

Since only the power that actually reaches the antenna can be radiated I have a hard time seeing the point of matching the transmitter to the feed line. Matching at the feed line connection point will prevent damage to the transmitter but if that were the main objective a dummy load would accomplish that.

When you couple the antenna to the load at the feed point you can have extremely low losses in the feed line. When you do the matching at the feed point you will transfer the most energy possible to the antenna and will get the highest available effective radiated power. Since the objective is the transfer of the highest practical amount of power to the antenna the place to do that is at the feed point were possible.

I do realize that it is often simpler and easier to match at the feed line connection but I felt obliged to point out that is is not the most effective place to do the job.

Tom

An antenna question--43 ft vertical
 

On 6/30/2015 12:40 PM, Tom W3TDH wrote:

I know that what I am about to say is provocative to some but I still
think it is worth saying. If you look at the way that commercial and
military radios are matched to antennas you will notice that most of
the matching is done as close to the feed point as practical.

Since only the power that actually reaches the antenna can be
radiated I have a hard time seeing the point of matching the
transmitter to the feed line. Matching at the feed line connection
point will prevent damage to the transmitter but if that were the
main objective a dummy load would accomplish that.

When you couple the antenna to the load at the feed point you can
have extremely low losses in the feed line. When you do the matching
at the feed point you will transfer the most energy possible to the
antenna and will get the highest available effective radiated power.
Since the objective is the transfer of the highest practical amount
of power to the antenna the place to do that is at the feed point
were possible.

I do realize that it is often simpler and easier to match at the feed
line connection but I felt obliged to point out that is is not the
most effective place to do the job.

Has it occurred to you that it might be important to match impedance
both at the transmitter and at the antenna? When the feed line is not
impedance matched to the transmitter output the maximum power is not
transferred into the feed line. Then you have already lost power that
can't be recovered by the matching at the antenna even if it is perfect.

Your statements are not really provocative, they are just incomplete
and/or wrong.

--

Rick

An antenna question--43 ft vertical
 

On 6/30/2015 12:40 PM, Tom W3TDH wrote:
On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 8:46:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne wrote:
"Dave Platt" wrote in message ...

In article ,
Wayne wrote:
So, lets begin again, with no distractions.

What is the purpose (or benefit) of using a 1:4 unun on a 43 ft
vertical.

# http://www.eham.net/articles/21272 has a nice analysis.

# It looks to me as if:

# - Without a 4:1 unun, the antenna provides a very nice match at three
# frequencies with in the HF band. At other frequencies, the SWR is
# up over 10:1 much of the time - high enough that a coaxial feed
# can be rather lossy.

# - With a 4:1 unun, you do lose the excellent match at those three
# frequencies... but the match gets better at most other
# frequencies. The SWR across the HF band is much more uniform, and
# lower on average... low enough to cut the coax losses somewhat and
# (I think) within the matching range of many rigs' "line flattener"
# built-in autotuners.


Thanks Dave. I'll have to spend some more time studying it, but the article
is along the lines of what I was looking for.

I would assume that the 1:4 causes behavior just as you say....worse SWR at
nearly matched frequencies and better SWR elsewhere.

I'll have to pull out some textbooks and see how the math works out for a Z
seen through a 1:4 unun.

In practice, I've had good results with SWRs even in the 30:1 range with
short coax feeds.

More research...and thanks.

I know that what I am about to say is provocative to some but I still think it is worth saying. If you look at the way that commercial and military radios are matched to antennas you will notice that most of the matching is done as close to the feed point as practical.

Since only the power that actually reaches the antenna can be radiated I have a hard time seeing the point of matching the transmitter to the feed line. Matching at the feed line connection point will prevent damage to the transmitter but if that were the main objective a dummy load would accomplish that.

When you couple the antenna to the load at the feed point you can have extremely low losses in the feed line. When you do the matching at the feed point you will transfer the most energy possible to the antenna and will get the highest available effective radiated power. Since the objective is the transfer of the highest practical amount of power to the antenna the place to do that is at the feed point were possible.

I do realize that it is often simpler and easier to match at the feed line connection but I felt obliged to point out that is is not the most effective place to do the job.

Tom


Tom, very close.

Yes, it's most effective to match the feedline to the antenna at the
antenna connection. But it's also important to match the transmitter to
the feedline.

This latter piece is often ignored because people will use a feedline
who's characteristic impedance matches the transmitter already (i.e. 50
ohm line for a 50 ohm transmitter).

However, there are exceptions. For instance, if you're feeding a 75 ohm
antenna (i.e. a dipole) with 75 ohm coax, a 1:1 balun at the antenna
will provide a good match (ideally, 1:1). But there will be a 1.5:1
mismatch to a 50 ohm transmitter. In this case it would be better to
have the matching network at the transmitter.

You could also feed the antenna with 50 ohm feedline and place the
matching network at the antenna. The effect would still be a 1:1 SWR,
but the lower impedance of the coax would create higher i^2R losses; not
important if you're talking a short line, but a longer one would lower
output at the antenna.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

An antenna question--43 ft vertical
 

"Tom W3TDH" wrote in message
...

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 8:46:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne wrote:
"Dave Platt" wrote in message ...

In article ,
Wayne wrote:
So, lets begin again, with no distractions.

What is the purpose (or benefit) of using a 1:4 unun on a 43 ft
vertical.

# http://www.eham.net/articles/21272 has a nice analysis.

# It looks to me as if:

# - Without a 4:1 unun, the antenna provides a very nice match at three
# frequencies with in the HF band. At other frequencies, the SWR is
# up over 10:1 much of the time - high enough that a coaxial feed
# can be rather lossy.

# - With a 4:1 unun, you do lose the excellent match at those three
# frequencies... but the match gets better at most other
# frequencies. The SWR across the HF band is much more uniform, and
# lower on average... low enough to cut the coax losses somewhat and
# (I think) within the matching range of many rigs' "line flattener"
# built-in autotuners.


Thanks Dave. I'll have to spend some more time studying it, but the
article
is along the lines of what I was looking for.

I would assume that the 1:4 causes behavior just as you say....worse SWR
at
nearly matched frequencies and better SWR elsewhere.

I'll have to pull out some textbooks and see how the math works out for a
Z
seen through a 1:4 unun.

In practice, I've had good results with SWRs even in the 30:1 range with
short coax feeds.

More research...and thanks.

# I know that what I am about to say is provocative to some but I still
think it is worth saying. If you look at the way that commercial and
military radios are matched to antennas you will notice that most of the
matching is done as close to the # feed point as practical.

# Since only the power that actually reaches the antenna can be radiated I
have a hard time seeing the point of matching the transmitter to the feed
line. Matching at the feed line connection point will prevent damage to the
transmitter but if # that were the main objective a dummy load would
accomplish that.

# When you couple the antenna to the load at the feed point you can have
extremely low losses in the feed line. When you do the matching at the feed
point you will transfer the most energy possible to the antenna and will get
the highest # available effective radiated power. Since the objective is
the transfer of the highest practical amount of power to the antenna the
place to do that is at the feed point were possible.

#I do realize that it is often simpler and easier to match at the feed line
connection but I felt obliged to point out that is is not the most effective
place to do the job.

I agree. However, the extra trouble of matching at the antenna feed point
may not necessarily provide a noticeable improvement.

On one of my antennas, I just provide a conjugate match for the
antenna-feedline at a tuner within the shack. Then I accept whatever
additional loss there is in the coax.

For my 25 foot run of RG8, there is about 0.5 dB of loss with a match at 30
MHz. From the charts, there will be about an additional 2.7 dB of loss if
the SWR is 20:1. For a 10:1 SWR the additional loss is around 0.9 dB.

Below 30 MHz, the numbers get smaller.

Of course, my automatic tuner (in the shack) fizzles out around SWR 5:1, but
my manual tuner can be used instead at higher SWRs.

In the case of the 43 foot vertical, it seems to me that a conjugate match
in the shack would still be optimum, but perhaps not significantly
beneficial.

On the 43 foot vertical it could be that the 4:1 unun provides a lower
amount of SWR induced additional feedline loss on high Z feedpoints. Of
course, the unun might increase the SWR induced additional feedline loss for
smaller Z.

That's why the original question, and what I'm trying to understand.

An antenna question--43 ft vertical
 

In article ,
Wayne wrote:

On the 43 foot vertical it could be that the 4:1 unun provides a lower
amount of SWR induced additional feedline loss on high Z feedpoints. Of
course, the unun might increase the SWR induced additional feedline loss for
smaller Z.

From the charts, that kinda does appear to be the case.

Add into consideration the fact that losses go up with the square of
the current.

Another issue is the other aspect of SWR - voltage. If you're trying
to run "legal limit" or close to it, high SWR on the feedline coax
could exceed the voltage rating of the coax dielectric, and you'd get
arcing in the coax (or arcing at the connector between your feedline
and shack tuner).

Installing a hefty 4:1 unun right at the antenna would reduce the
worse-case voltage on the feedline, and inside the shack tuner
considerably. Depending on feedline length, that might be even more
of a consideration than the increase in peak feedline current and the
associated I^2*R losses.