Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 27th 15, 07:27 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2012
Posts: 989
Default Parallel coax

On 9/27/2015 2:20 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 9/27/2015 10:41 AM, kg7fu wrote:

Matching the antenna won't make the Return Loss go away but it will make
the transmitter happy.


Can you explain this? I thought matching the antenna would *exactly*
make the return loss go away because it would eliminate the mismatch.


Not wanting to put words in his mouth....
I read that to mean that the high SWR between the ATU and the antenna
would remain, but the transmitter would be happy with the SWR on the
transmitter/ATU coax.


Are you suggesting the ATU is at the transmitter rather than at the
antenna? The losses are in the coax and transmitter. If the ATU is at
the transmitter you still have coax losses. If the ATU is at the
antenna there are then no losses other than due to non-ideality of the ATU.

--

Rick
  #2   Report Post  
Old September 27th 15, 07:44 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,898
Default Parallel coax

rickman wrote:
On 9/27/2015 2:20 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 9/27/2015 10:41 AM, kg7fu wrote:

Matching the antenna won't make the Return Loss go away but it will make
the transmitter happy.


Can you explain this? I thought matching the antenna would *exactly*
make the return loss go away because it would eliminate the mismatch.


Not wanting to put words in his mouth....
I read that to mean that the high SWR between the ATU and the antenna
would remain, but the transmitter would be happy with the SWR on the
transmitter/ATU coax.


Are you suggesting the ATU is at the transmitter rather than at the
antenna? The losses are in the coax and transmitter. If the ATU is at
the transmitter you still have coax losses. If the ATU is at the
antenna there are then no losses other than due to non-ideality of the ATU.



It was stated in the original post the ATU is at the transmitter end.


--
Jim Pennino
  #3   Report Post  
Old September 27th 15, 10:47 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 409
Default Parallel coax



"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 9/27/2015 2:20 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 9/27/2015 10:41 AM, kg7fu wrote:

Matching the antenna won't make the Return Loss go away but it will make
the transmitter happy.


Can you explain this? I thought matching the antenna would *exactly*
make the return loss go away because it would eliminate the mismatch.


Not wanting to put words in his mouth....
I read that to mean that the high SWR between the ATU and the antenna
would remain, but the transmitter would be happy with the SWR on the
transmitter/ATU coax.


# Are you suggesting the ATU is at the transmitter rather than at the
# antenna?

Yes. It is a whip with a 15 foot run of 213 to an ATU in the shack.

The coax loss is low enough that I can live with a higher SWR.

  #4   Report Post  
Old September 27th 15, 07:42 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2011
Posts: 550
Default Parallel coax

On 9/27/2015 1:20 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 9/27/2015 10:41 AM, kg7fu wrote:

Matching the antenna won't make the Return Loss go away but it will make
the transmitter happy.


Can you explain this? I thought matching the antenna would *exactly*
make the return loss go away because it would eliminate the mismatch.


Not wanting to put words in his mouth....
I read that to mean that the high SWR between the ATU and the antenna
would remain, but the transmitter would be happy with the SWR on the
transmitter/ATU coax.



Rick is correct. If the antenna (load) is matched to the line, there is
no return loss, hence no SWR. The ATU will be adjusted (hopefully) to
make the transmitter operate properly with the impedance as seen at the
transmitter end of the line.

Yes, the SWR due to mismatch of the antenna (load) and line will remain.
Even if the real part of your load impedance is matched to the line, you
will still have a high SWR if the reactance remains.

Does this make sense?
  #5   Report Post  
Old September 28th 15, 02:46 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 409
Default Parallel coax



"John S" wrote in message ...

On 9/27/2015 1:20 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 9/27/2015 10:41 AM, kg7fu wrote:

Matching the antenna won't make the Return Loss go away but it will make
the transmitter happy.


Can you explain this? I thought matching the antenna would *exactly*
make the return loss go away because it would eliminate the mismatch.


Not wanting to put words in his mouth....
I read that to mean that the high SWR between the ATU and the antenna
would remain, but the transmitter would be happy with the SWR on the
transmitter/ATU coax.



# Rick is correct. If the antenna (load) is matched to the line, there is
# no return loss, hence no SWR. The ATU will be adjusted (hopefully) to
# make the transmitter operate properly with the impedance as seen at the
# transmitter end of the line.

# Yes, the SWR due to mismatch of the antenna (load) and line will remain.
# Even if the real part of your load impedance is matched to the line, you
# will still have a high SWR if the reactance remains.

# Does this make sense?

Yes. That's what I was trying to say using SWR instead of return loss.
Return loss numbers get bigger with lower SWR.
For example: SWR 1:1 = infinite return loss.

But I assumed that Rick was talking about the reflected power used in the
return loss calculation. That part goes to zero for a perfect match, hence
the infinite return loss.

Since my ATU is closer to the transmitter than the antenna, I tune for
lowest SWR from the transmitter to the ATU and don't worry about the ATU to
antenna SWR.

I believe we are all talking about the same thing.



  #6   Report Post  
Old September 29th 15, 10:42 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2011
Posts: 550
Default Parallel coax

On 9/27/2015 1:42 PM, John S wrote:
On 9/27/2015 1:20 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 9/27/2015 10:41 AM, kg7fu wrote:

Matching the antenna won't make the Return Loss go away but it will
make
the transmitter happy.


Can you explain this? I thought matching the antenna would *exactly*
make the return loss go away because it would eliminate the mismatch.


Not wanting to put words in his mouth....
I read that to mean that the high SWR between the ATU and the antenna
would remain, but the transmitter would be happy with the SWR on the
transmitter/ATU coax.



Rick is correct. If the antenna (load) is matched to the line, there is
no return loss, hence no SWR. The ATU will be adjusted (hopefully) to
make the transmitter operate properly with the impedance as seen at the
transmitter end of the line.


I apologize. My statement that "there is no return loss" above is
technically incorrect. The return loss with matched conditions is
maximum. It will peg your meter.


  #7   Report Post  
Old September 27th 15, 07:22 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2011
Posts: 550
Default Parallel coax

On 9/27/2015 9:41 AM, kg7fu wrote:
Doubling the number of feedlines would double the losses. Not only that
but each connector in the system inserts losses so that number
would be 4x.


How can that be? Each line carries half the power.

Connector loss at 14MHz is insignificant.


Increasing the coax diameter would effectively reduce the loss.



No argument here. Except that it costs much more.


Matching the antenna won't make the Return Loss go away but it will make
the transmitter happy.



Maybe you are working from the assumption that a mismatch between the
source and line causes return loss. It does not. Only the mismatch
between the load and line causes return loss.


KG7FU

On 09/25/2015 02:31 PM, Wayne wrote:
I use a short vertical antenna that has a low feedpoint impedance.

Would there be any advantage to running two parallel 50 ohm coax to
reduce losses to the shack tuner?


  #8   Report Post  
Old October 5th 15, 04:41 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2015
Posts: 3
Default Parallel coax



On 09/27/2015 11:22 AM, John S wrote:
On 9/27/2015 9:41 AM, kg7fu wrote:
Doubling the number of feedlines would double the losses. Not only that
but each connector in the system inserts losses so that number
would be 4x.


How can that be? Each line carries half the power.

Connector loss at 14MHz is insignificant.


Connector losses are static up to UHF at around .5db per connector for a
typical PL-259/SO-239 pair. Insertion losses for professional grade
connectors on high quality rigid and semi-rigid coax such as Andrew
Heliax are around .05db.


Matching the antenna won't make the Return Loss go away but it will make
the transmitter happy.



I should have said matching the line.

Maybe you are working from the assumption that a mismatch between the
source and line causes return loss. It does not. Only the mismatch
between the load and line causes return loss.


KG7FU
  #9   Report Post  
Old October 5th 15, 05:31 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 702
Default Parallel coax


"kg7fu" wrote in message
...


On 09/27/2015 11:22 AM, John S wrote:
On 9/27/2015 9:41 AM, kg7fu wrote:
Doubling the number of feedlines would double the losses. Not only that
but each connector in the system inserts losses so that number
would be 4x.


How can that be? Each line carries half the power.

Connector loss at 14MHz is insignificant.


Connector losses are static up to UHF at around .5db per connector for a
typical PL-259/SO-239 pair. Insertion losses for professional grade
connectors on high quality rigid and semi-rigid coax such as Andrew Heliax
are around .05db.


Where did you get the .5 db loss per connector ?

If you would think for about 1 minuit,you would see that has to be wrong.

To make things simple and using round numbers. Take 2 PL-259 connectors and
a barrel connector and put them together. Not counting the barrel that
would be 1 db of loss. That is about 25 %. Using a 100 watt transmitter,
that is 25 watts of heat in a couple of inches. It would get warm. Bumping
it up to the 1 KW level that lots of hams use, that is 250 watts. It would
melt down in a short order.

The loss is around .01 db per connector around 100 MHz, about half that at
10 MHz.





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT Parallel to USB Cable jim CB 19 January 10th 07 03:32 AM
Parallel Lines Earl Andrews Antenna 0 June 19th 05 03:38 PM
varicaps in parallel Ken Scharf Homebrew 0 March 26th 04 02:20 AM
varicaps in parallel Ken Scharf Homebrew 0 March 26th 04 02:20 AM
Parallel runs of coax to antenna Roy Lewallen Antenna 6 September 26th 03 06:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017