LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #6   Report Post  
Old November 11th 04, 05:39 AM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 10 Nov 2004 20:16:40 -0800, (Dr. Slick) wrote:

A double dip in a very narrow band, like 88-108 MHz
for example, is a real indication of something wrong.
It has always meant that the maximum return loss suffers.


Well, for openers, and by your own description of a "garden variety
dipole," you don't have the prospects of anything but a narrower band
than 88-108 MHz (even if you opt to match directly to 73 Ohms). A
"garden variety dipole" centered in this band will only match 73 Ohms
from 89.5-99 MHz - it will only match 50 Ohms from 90.5-97 MHz.

As for "double dipping" none of your posts to date have any facts to
test your complaint. If we are to assume these two dips occur within
the same band, that is actually to your benefit as it could only
enlarge the matching prospects. However, your paucity of details
leaves this as speculation on both sides. If the two dips occur
within and without the band, then you have offered nothing to
distinguish this from the natural order of things. Simply put, ALL
dipoles have many dips throughout the spectrum. In this regard there
is nothing special about your "double resonance."

As for the disparaging comment of "maximum return loss suffers," that
too is in conflict with expectation. There is nothing inherently
sufferable about having more than your share of "dips." Additional
resonances does not detract from any other resonance's capacity to
perform within its region of match. A second resonance doesn't
necessarily rob another and it could be argued that it is actually a
boon if you wish to enlarge the bandwidth of an antenna (which by your
only specification of 88-108 would be a positive feature).

Now, as to HOW you could achieve TWO SWR dips within the FM broadcast
band with a "garden variety dipole," then that is revealed by your
comments about not needing (and by inference not having) your
driveline choked. Simply put, it sounds distinctly like your
transmission line length (combined with velocity factor) added a
resonant circuit in parallel with the dipole to offer this second dip.
You munged things around with the antenna, but changed lines and the
second dip went away (as a function of a different line length, or its
becoming balanced or choked). You would have to have stumbled onto an
unique antenna design to have forced these two dips into this FM band
and this is negated by your own description of a "garden variety
dipole." On the other hand, transmission line common modality is as
common as rain in Seattle.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
 
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
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 8 February 24th 11 11:22 PM
The "TRICK" to TV 'type' Coax Cable [Shielded] SWL Loop Antennas {RHF} RHF Antenna 27 November 3rd 04 02:38 PM
40 meter dipole or 88 feet doublet Dick Antenna 2 February 6th 04 09:55 PM
FS: Connectors, Antennas, Meters, Mounts, etc. Ben Antenna 0 January 6th 04 01:18 AM
Bricks effect in dipole resonance? Help! Roy Lewallen Antenna 14 August 25th 03 07:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 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