On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:23:50 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote: On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:52:01 -0400, Buck wrote: Pardon me while I learn from this discussion. Hold on Buck. So far there has been very little "learning" to be done from this discussion. I dislike getting personal but I strongly suggest that you reject anything Fred has put forth. Some of what he says is correct, but for the most part you are being led astray. Since you don't yet have the skills to separate the good from the BS, the safest thing to do is ignore it all. For example he has suggested that an all-band antenna can be nothing more than a 130' dipole fed through 100' of 450 ohm line to which you connect a 50 ohm coax and "your rig will be happy." Let's examine this premise, shall we. If you don't already have it, download the free version of EZNEC. www.eznec.com If you have MS Excel do the following. If you don't skip down below the dotted line. I haven't been ignoring this thread, I have been trying to figure out eznec. I have managed to make it display a dipole and a two element beam. I'll need to learn the more advanced features. I'll try what you say If I can understand the program well enough to do so. -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:16:06 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote: On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:23:50 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote: [snip} Under "Qualifier" scroll the dropdown menu to either "Generic 450 ohm window" or if you more more realistic numbers you can select one of the Wireman Ladder line types. (Ignore "wet" ones.) This should of course read, "...if you want more realistic..." I am not sure what I just did or saw. I had several colored graphs charted and one gray. The gray didn't seem to move around, but the colored ones sure did. I am afraid I didn't see what you were trying to show me. I believe the colors were the different feed lines, capacitors, etc used in the feedline shown. I tried removing them and only leaving the feedline I chose to use. I don't know if I did something wrong or not, but the gray line appeared to be the antenna and it never appeared to move. The feedline markers moved radically. I haven't thought a lot about the losses in ladder-type feedline, but I do understand how the losses in coax can reduce High SWR by reducing both the outgoing and incoming reflected signals in the coax. This may make the antenna desirable to the rig, but it doesn't do any good for the operator who is trying to reach or copy that weak signal. It may well be that the Twin-lead has the same effect. I often read that one of the advantages of the twin-lead is that it can handle higher SWR without the higher losses of coax. I seem to have been seeing a lot about the technology of the twin-lead tuning technology, but then I can't be sure it wasn't from the same people here on this forum. I'll continue to look into it to see what I might learn. I was able to get past whatever block I had on learning to use EZNEC, so at least some good came from this discussion. Hopefully, I'll learn more and can model this antenna and others I read about. Thanks very much for taking the time to address this with me. 73, Buck N4PGW -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:23:44 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Buck wrote: The G5RV is a twenty meter antenna, isn't it? It needs a tuner on all other bands if I am not mistaken. The G5RV needs a tuner on all bands. Acceptable SWRs are very rare without a tuner. The G5RV is 1.5WL long on 20m. The resonant feedpoint impedance on 20m is in excess of 100 ohms giving a 50 ohm SWR in excess of 2:1 so a tuner is required, even on 20m. However, I have done to a G5RV what Fred has done to a 1/2WL 80m dipole. The matching section on my G5RV is a variable length between 22' and 38'. My G5RV has an SWR below 1.5:1 on all eight HF bands. I'm going to write it up one of these days. This is interesting. I remember reading where the G5RV originated as a gain dipole for 20 meters. I hadn't looked at it as a 1.5wl dipole. I have always used 1.5wl dipoles for 15 (40 meters) and had low SWR on the 15 meter band without a matching network. Am i missing something or is the coax stealing enough power to reduce the SWR? -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:52:39 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote: I showed you in detail how to answer your own questions. Did you not read my post? I read it and did it. It just took time for me to do so. I posted a reply to it today. Thanks -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 00:27:26 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote: No buck, the line is always longer than 1/2 wave. It is a matching section from what is at the antenna to 50 ohms, and then 1/2 wave from that point. "Buck" wrote in message .. . Pardon me while I learn from this discussion. The 450 ohm antenna is designed to be tuned by using exactly 1/2 electrical wave lengths to match both the transmitter and antenna. This should mean that any differing feedline should work equally as well (except for the losses) if I am correct.... SNIP On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:41:58 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: Buck wrote: Pardon me while I learn from this discussion. The 450 ohm antenna is designed to be tuned by using exactly 1/2 electrical wave lengths to match both the transmitter and antenna. This should mean that any differing feedline should work equally as well (except for the losses) if I am correct.... What you are missing is that first piece of matching section which can be any length less than 1/2WL. After that first piece of matching section, you could indeed switch to a different characteristic impedance. Congratulations, you have just invented the G5RV. :-) Fred, I believe that you and Cecil are 180 degrees out of phase. Did someone make a type-O? -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
Buck wrote:
I seem to have been seeing a lot about the technology of the twin-lead tuning technology, but then I can't be sure it wasn't from the same people here on this forum. I'll continue to look into it to see what I might learn. The "twin-lead tuning technology" is based on the laws of physics, not the approval of the gurus on this newsgroup. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:38:22 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Buck wrote: I am a little confused, so bare with me..... I put up an antenna with 50 ohm of impedance. I feed it with any length of 300 ohm feed less than 1/2 L. Then I run 1/2 L of 50 ohm feed to the radio and I have the 50 ohm match? Nope, 50 ohms is only one of an infinite number of impedances you might encounter. For 50 ohms, you feed it with 1/2WL of 300 ohm feedline. This is similar to (but not exactly like) a G5RV used on 20m. I put up a 300 ohm antenna. I feed it with 300 ohm twin lead for less than 1/2 L and 1/2 L of 50 ohm feedline. Is this a 50 ohm match? Nope, you cannot transform the impedance of a 300 ohm antenna using 300 ohm feedline. You need reflections to cause an impedance transformation. A 300 ohm antenna impedance is not within the green doughnut area below. The range of impedances that can be matched with a length of 450 ohm ladder-line are represented by the green doughnut at: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/smith.htm The impedances outside the green area cannot be matched by only one 450 ohm matching section. The area in the doughnut hole cannot be matched by only one 450 ohm matching section. I tried it again and got the picture. It appears that the 450 ohm twin lead sections can match any impedance between 20 and 100 ohms given the proper length. -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
Buck wrote:
This is interesting. I remember reading where the G5RV originated as a gain dipole for 20 meters. I hadn't looked at it as a 1.5wl dipole. I have always used 1.5wl dipoles for 15 (40 meters) and had low SWR on the 15 meter band without a matching network. Am i missing something or is the coax stealing enough power to reduce the SWR? Bingo! Your 15m SWR at the 40m dipole feedpoint is probably above 2:1. Feedline losses both ways probably reduce it to a value tolerated by your transmitter. If you replace the coax with an integer multiple of 15m halfwavelengths of ladder-line to reduce losses, your transmitter may object. I have inadvertently stepped upon an unpublished article with my posting. I apologize and will bow out. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 16:30:18 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote: Given an antenna that has 50 Ohms +J0, feed it with 50 ohm line and the swr for the system is 1:1, substitute a 1/2 wave of 450 ohm line and the antenna and the rig are both at 50 ohms. The SWR on the feedline is 450/50 or 9:1. Ok, just to reiterate so I know I understand (and you can see if I don't), If I feed a 20 meter dipole cut for my favorite frequency, I can feed the radio with exactly 1/2 wave of 450 ohm feedline and it will match the radio? Of course, coax will make a better match (with less loss?) Now, if I understand, the principle of the 130 foot dipole matching the rig is based on the length of 450 ohm twin-lead. The twin lead is always 1/2 WL long. The coax and rig are 50 ohms, but according to the smith chart, the impedance of the various frequencies range from 20 to 100 ohms. This would make me wonder why I don't get the same impedances at my rig, or at least at my feed point of 50 ohm coax. Thanks -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
Buck wrote:
W5DXP wrote: What you are missing is that first piece of matching section which can be any length less than 1/2WL. After that first piece of matching section, you could indeed switch to a different characteristic impedance. Congratulations, you have just invented the G5RV. :-) Fred, I believe that you and Cecil are 180 degrees out of phase. Did someone make a type-O? Well, I made an English language blunder as I was editing my posting. I should have dropped the which above. The first piece of matching section, which can be any length less than 1/2WL, brings the impedance looking into it to a purely resistive value, i.e. a resonant value, i.e. a current maximum point. So the first section of matching is the most important. After that, any Z0 could be used, but *only on that particular band*. That last *constraint* may be what you are missing (if you are missing anything at all). I am not aware of any phase difference between Fred and me. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Buck wrote:
I tried it again and got the picture. It appears that the 450 ohm twin lead sections can match any impedance between 20 and 100 ohms given the proper length. Not only them, but *any* impedance that causes a 450 ohm SWR between 4.5:1 and 18:1. That's an infinite number of impedances (every impedance within the green area) and includes virtually all the actual impedances encountered when the dipole is 1/2WL on the lowest frequency of operation. For instance, the feedpoint impedance of an 80m dipole usually falls into this green range when used on 40m (and any other HF band) even though the feedpoint impedance might be 5000 ohms on 40m. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Buck wrote:
Ok, just to reiterate so I know I understand (and you can see if I don't), If I feed a 20 meter dipole cut for my favorite frequency, I can feed the radio with exactly 1/2 wave of 450 ohm feedline and it will match the radio? Actually, any integer multiple of 1/2 wavelengths will work Of course, coax will make a better match (with less loss?) Amazingly, not necessarily true. Better match? Yes. Less loss? Not necessarily. Ladder-line with an SWR of 9:1 may actually have less loss than coax with an SWR of 1:1. Depends upon the type of coax and the type of ladder-line. For instance, at 10 MHz, RG174 has a matched line loss of 4 dB per 100 ft. while 600 ohm open-wire line has a matched line loss of about 0.075 dB, so small I have trouble reading it on the chart. Even adding the additional losses due to SWR, the open-wire line is far, far below the RG174 matched line losses. Now, if I understand, the principle of the 130 foot dipole matching the rig is based on the length of 450 ohm twin-lead. The twin lead is always 1/2 WL long. Nope. The twin lead is whatever length it takes to resonate the antenna system plus an integer multiple of 1/2WL. Correct this concept first before drawing additional conclusions. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:38:31 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Buck wrote: This is interesting. I remember reading where the G5RV originated as a gain dipole for 20 meters. I hadn't looked at it as a 1.5wl dipole. I have always used 1.5wl dipoles for 15 (40 meters) and had low SWR on the 15 meter band without a matching network. Am i missing something or is the coax stealing enough power to reduce the SWR? Bingo! Your 15m SWR at the 40m dipole feedpoint is probably above 2:1. Feedline losses both ways probably reduce it to a value tolerated by your transmitter. If you replace the coax with an integer multiple of 15m halfwavelengths of ladder-line to reduce losses, your transmitter may object. I have inadvertently stepped upon an unpublished article with my posting. I apologize and will bow out. I find it interesting as it has always been flat. Even better on 15 than 40 most of the time. 2:1 isn't terribly bad, most transmitters allow it, or close to it before reducing power. What is the impedance of that? actually I'll try it on eznec, that's one antenna I can model. Thanks for the comments. what's the unpublished article? the G5RV? I don't remember where I have read it, but then as we have seen here many times, not everything one reads on the internet (or in the newspaper, for that matter) is accurate. DOn't shy away. If you know differently, i am open to hearing it. -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:27:49 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Now, if I understand, the principle of the 130 foot dipole matching the rig is based on the length of 450 ohm twin-lead. The twin lead is always 1/2 WL long. Nope. The twin lead is whatever length it takes to resonate the antenna system plus an integer multiple of 1/2WL. Correct this concept first before drawing additional conclusions. I think I meant a 1/2 wl interval, but apparently that is wrong too. If I have an antenna at impedance A, I would first run a length of 450 ohm twin lead for X length which will create the matching impedance and then any integer multiple of a half wave after that. A and X being unknown. -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:59:42 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Buck wrote: W5DXP wrote: What you are missing is that first piece of matching section which can be any length less than 1/2WL. After that first piece of matching section, you could indeed switch to a different characteristic impedance. Congratulations, you have just invented the G5RV. :-) Fred, I believe that you and Cecil are 180 degrees out of phase. Did someone make a type-O? Well, I made an English language blunder as I was editing my posting. I should have dropped the which above. The first piece of matching section, which can be any length less than 1/2WL, brings the impedance looking into it to a purely resistive value, i.e. a resonant value, i.e. a current maximum point. So the first section of matching is the most important. After that, any Z0 could be used, but *only on that particular band*. That last *constraint* may be what you are missing (if you are missing anything at all). I am not aware of any phase difference between Fred and me. Fred says the matching section needs to be any length more than a 1/2 wave and you say it is less than a 1/2 wave. This is my confusion... -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
Buck wrote:
what's the unpublished article? the G5RV? I don't remember where I have read it, ... It's somebody else's unpublished article and if it's "unpublished", of course you haven't read it. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:13:01 -0400, Buck wrote:
[snip] I am not sure what I just did or saw. I had several colored graphs charted and one gray. The gray didn't seem to move around, but the colored ones sure did. I am afraid I didn't see what you were trying to show me. I believe the colors were the different feed lines, capacitors, etc used in the feedline shown. I tried removing them and only leaving the feedline I chose to use. I don't know if I did something wrong or not, but the gray line appeared to be the antenna and it never appeared to move. The feedline markers moved radically. I guess you're looking at the Smith chart in XLZIZL. What you are seeing is correct. The gray trace is the load impedance and absent changes in the antenna it will be fixed. If you look right to the legend you will see what each of the colors represents. So if you've modeled something in EZNEC and read the resulting data file into ZLZIZL.xls and did a "Refresh and show Smith chart" you will see the data plotted as the "Load" Let's do a little (bit long) experiment that will clarify this (I hope) and also demonstrate some of what happens in a matching network. 1. Open EZNEC and open the file "BYdipole.ez". 2. Go to "Setups" (at the top of the window) and select "Frequency Sweep." 3. When the pane opens, select "On" and type in 14.35 for the "Stop Frequency" and .05 for the "Frequency Step." 4. Under output. check the box "Microsmith Files" and for file name type "g5rv" and hit Ok. 5. Go to the "Wires" menu and change the Y value for End 1 to -51. Change the Y value for End 2 to 51. 6. Do a "Save As" and type "g5rv". 7. Perform a Freq Swp. (Bottom left button). 8. Open XLZIZL, clear any old data or networks and read the g5rv.gam file. 9. Press "Refresh and show Smith chart." 10. The gray trace is the plotted impedance of the feedpoint of the 102' dipole over the 20-meter band. 11. Now at this point Varney (G5RV) recommended a "matching section" of 34' of open wire line, followed by a run of 72 ohm line to the shack. (If you want to see how bad this idea was, you can experiment with adding the lines in the Network dialog) 12. We are going to do it the "modern" way, by using ladderline and a tuner. 13. In the Network definition dialog, select element position 5 and set the type to "Transmission Line", select "Wireman 554" and set the length to 50'. Set the element and close the pane. 14. Press the "Refresh and show Smith chart." The red trace shows the impedance at the input end of the 50' transmission line. Since the desired target is the center of the chart, we can seen that this was a negative "improvement." Note: I didn't contrive this feeder length, it was just a round number that seemed like an average situational value that follows the "conventional wisdom" that says, "Use a length long enough to reach from the antenna to the rig." 15. This is what we're stuck with if we decide to use ladderline and a tuner, so let's muddle on. 16. In the ZIZL worksheet at row 38 there are some boxes for Component Q. Enter 500 for Qu(C), 250 for Qu(L) and 14 for Q ref freq. 17. Now let's explore a slick feature of this program and design a matching network. Highlight the cells F106 and F107. 18. Look at cell I43 and press "Copy Selected R,X to T-Pi-L". 19. Focus will transfer to the T-Pi-L worksheet and a query window may open asking whether you want to copy the Q values from the ZIZL sheet. Answer Yes. You will no doubt get a second advisory pane that says that frequencies differ. Answer "Ok". Cell H10 will be selected. Type 14.2 into it and press Enter or Tab to input the data. 20. We are now presented with four built-in matching network solutions. The most used topography for commercial tuners these days is the "High Pass T." (Option 1) So we will use it. You can press "Schematic" and see the configuration. Press the "Copy to FT/Solver" button. (Cell B24) 21. The last action took the precalculated values and moved them to the Fine Tune / Solver Area. For now, we won't explore the attributes of this feature. Press the "Copy to ZIZL 1-3" button. (Cell K26) 22. Focus will return to the ZIZL sheet and a query pane will open. Answer "No." If you look at the network definition table area you can note that there are now three components in addition to the transmission line in evidence. 23. Press "Refresh and show Smith chart." 24. Focus returns to the Smith chart where a wealth of information is presented. In the upper right corner there is a box that shows exactly what the feed system consists of. The "Plot Segments" box shows the legend for each trace and what the effect of each network component is. The informational box to the left will show the parameters of any data point on any trace by just double clicking the point. Of course, the trace for Plot Segment 1, the input series C, is what we are after. All but the 14.0 MHz point fall inside a 2:1 SWR circle. Let's see if we can fix that. 25. Press the "Tune / Set" button (lower right corner). Long years of experience tell me to tune the input capacitor first, so that's what we'll do, but this may not always be the case. In the pane that opens, select, "1:Series C", which if all of the calculations are the same, should equal 51.2 pF. Mouse down a bit and find the +-1% option and select it. We are going to "tune" the input capacitor in 1% steps. Click the "Increase" up-arrow three times. Voila! The SWR is less than 2:1 over the whole 20-meter band with one set of adjustments. With each click you could see the action of "tuning" this component. Note that none of the other traces moved at all. All we changed was the match between the input and the junction of the input C and the shunt L. The match from the junction to the antenna was unaffected. Because this is getting a bit long-winded and off-topic, I'm going to stop here and pick this up in a new thread. I haven't thought a lot about the losses in ladder-type feedline, but I do understand how the losses in coax can reduce High SWR by reducing both the outgoing and incoming reflected signals in the coax. This may make the antenna desirable to the rig, but it doesn't do any good for the operator who is trying to reach or copy that weak signal. Correct. It may well be that the Twin-lead has the same effect. It does. I often read that one of the advantages of the twin-lead is that it can handle higher SWR without the higher losses of coax. I seem to have been seeing a lot about the technology of the twin-lead tuning technology, but then I can't be sure it wasn't from the same people here on this forum. I'll continue to look into it to see what I might learn. Some of the people here know what they are talking about... others I'm not so sure. I'm unlocking the tool box, so you can figure it out yourself. I was able to get past whatever block I had on learning to use EZNEC, so at least some good came from this discussion. Hopefully, I'll learn more and can model this antenna and others I read about. I'm sure you will. Thanks very much for taking the time to address this with me. No problem. The guys that really deserve the thanks are the geniuses 1: who developed the NEC engine, 2: Roy, W7EL, (among others) who put a pretty face on it, and 3: Dan Maguire, AC6LA, who did the Excel stuff. And the absolutely amazing thing is, they give away their work! Is this a great country or what? Regards, Wes N7WS |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:30:48 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Buck wrote: I seem to have been seeing a lot about the technology of the twin-lead tuning technology, but then I can't be sure it wasn't from the same people here on this forum. I'll continue to look into it to see what I might learn. The "twin-lead tuning technology" is based on the laws of physics, not the approval of the gurus on this newsgroup. I am not in a position to argue with either side on the issue. I am just doing my best to learn. Here is one lesson I learned in 25 years of ham radio, Either there is sufficient propagation for your station or there is not. Without propagation, a kw amp in a 12 element beam will not get you across the ocean, and if there is sufficient propagation, one can make a contact with a dummy load (I saw this demonstrated once on 75 meters). Probably the things I remember most about antennas is what I learned from the two Jims of Taylor Radio, a local antenna MFG company at the time. "More technological advancements have been made in marketing departments than in Research and Development." I realize that there are several here who actively disagree and discuss their disagreements with each other. I haven't seen any, so far, that are all BS and have no knowledge to offer. I don't criticize anyone, but I will ask, suggest, and offer opinions that I hope will be either corrected or supported appropriately. I have used experimental antennas that theoretically won't 'work' and made contacts. One was a roll of 500 foot of wire. I unrolled an estimated 1/4 wave of wire for 80 meters, on the first try it was 1.5:1 or less and I used it to check into the GA SSB net. I had a weak signal, but it worked. I also hung an inverted V with a random length of wire from each side (I don't remember the length, but they were both the same length.) I connected one side of the feedline and dipole to the left side of a 100ohm resistor and the other side of the feedline and dipole to the other side of the resistor. My theory was that the antenna would be a parallel circuit leaving the impedance below 100 ohms. I don't know if my theory worked, but I did make contacts. When I took down the antenna and replaced it with a shorter dipole, I had a much better receiver than I had with the resistor. I am always looking for that 'best' all-band hf antenna so I don't have to change or tune, etc. One day I'll either find it or die trying. Until then, I plan to enjoy learning more about antennas and experimenting with them. 73 for now Buck -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:58:44 -0400, Buck wrote:
[snip] I have used experimental antennas that theoretically won't 'work' and made contacts. Me too. When I was 16, and a newly minted Conditional class, my BC-342 receiver broke (I still have it and it's still broken...gotta fix that someday). I had a Heathkit DX-100 transmitter, which covered 160 meters. So I took an old tube type car radio, which in those days used a 262 KHz i-f and permeability tuning, and tweaked the inductors so it would tune the 160-meter band. I acquired a 262 KHz crystal and built an oscillator that I just let leak into the receiver for a bfo so I could copy CW. My bedroom (shack) had steel casement windows and I had removed a pane and replaced it with a sheet of aluminum (no access to plastic in those days or coax, I was poor) with some ceramic feed thru insulators. I ran a single wire from the rig to near the top of a Eucalyptus tree (talk about dying for an antenna). I don't remember the length, maybe 100 feet, or the ground system; a single rod I think. My first and only contact with that setup was DX; a VE7. The logs for those days are long gone so he's not in the current computer log. But if he was I would have a grand total of five countries worked on 160; about one every ten years [g]. |
Buck wrote:
. . . I have used experimental antennas that theoretically won't 'work' and made contacts. One was a roll of 500 foot of wire. I unrolled an estimated 1/4 wave of wire for 80 meters, on the first try it was 1.5:1 or less and I used it to check into the GA SSB net. I had a weak signal, but it worked. I also hung an inverted V with a random length of wire from each side (I don't remember the length, but they were both the same length.) I connected one side of the feedline and dipole to the left side of a 100ohm resistor and the other side of the feedline and dipole to the other side of the resistor. My theory was that the antenna would be a parallel circuit leaving the impedance below 100 ohms. I don't know if my theory worked, but I did make contacts. When I took down the antenna and replaced it with a shorter dipole, I had a much better receiver than I had with the resistor. What theory is it which says those antennas won't "work", given that your criterion for "working" is making contacts? I've made contacts on a light bulb, worked Alaska from a Colorado basement on 20 meters with 50 watts of SSB using a dipole(*) draped around the room with no part higher than ground level, worked New Hebrides on 40 meter CW running 1.5 watts to a bent attic dipole(**) 16 feet off the ground, and JA running 8 watts on 40 meter CW with a base loaded CB whip bumper mounted on a VW. These aren't exceptional -- every ham who's operated for some time has a handful of similar stories. All those antennas "worked". Any theory which declares they can't is wrong, and should be discarded. No theory I know says they can't. (*) The feedline was 72 ohm twinlead, with one conductor stuck into the rig's SO-239 center pin and the other clipped onto the rig's chassis. (**) Coax fed, no balun. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:29:16 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote: No problem. The guys that really deserve the thanks are the geniuses 1: who developed the NEC engine, 2: Roy, W7EL, (among others) who put a pretty face on it, and 3: Dan Maguire, AC6LA, who did the Excel stuff. And the absolutely amazing thing is, they give away their work! Is this a great country or what? Regards, Wes N7WS Thanks for the help, Wes. I will be looking for that additional thread. One of these days I'll get rich and famous and I can budget the cost of EZNEC and get the full copy. 20 elements is just not quite what I need for an antenna I am toying with in my mind. BTW, how closely does the program get the measurements for antennas? If I plot a dipole and EZNEC says the length should be 45 feet, will I need to trim the antenna to a different length or will it be within an inch or two? -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
No we are saying the same thing two different ways. Let's first talk about
the matching section. For example a G5RV may be modified by adjusting the feedline length from about 22 to 38 feet. From the end of the matching section you can run any practical length of coax. If you had the top of your G5RV mounted at 100 feet, those length might not be practical. Adding an additional 1/2 wave length, or multiple thereof would allow the mechanism that switches in lengths of matching sections to be at ground level. For example my 132 foot dipole uses 90 feet of fixed 450 ohm ladderline to the relay box. It is matched at 4035 and I then add sections to lower the frequency. 3.5 MHz requires an additional 39 feet. On 7.3 the first Imax point is at 29.5 feet and adding an additional 1/2 wave brings us to 90.3 feet. We could just as easily used 151, 211, 272, 333 etc. Feet. Where is the matching section? The first or the last 29.5 feet on the 90.3 feet? I think you could say that the first section matches the antenna impendence to somewhere around 50 Ohms and the 1/2 wave simply repeats it. Or you could say the first 1/2 wave section repeats the antenna impendence and the last 23 feet matches it. Potato, Patata, they both make the same fries. "Buck" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 00:27:26 -0400, "Fred W4JLE" Fred, I believe that you and Cecil are 180 degrees out of phase. Did someone make a type-O? -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:29:16 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote: [snip] 1. Open EZNEC and open the file "BYdipole.ez". 2. Go to "Setups" (at the top of the window) and select "Frequency Sweep." 3. When the pane opens, select "On" and type in 14.35 for the "Stop Frequency" and .05 for the "Frequency Step." 4. Under output. check the box "Microsmith Files" and for file name type "g5rv" and hit Ok. 5. Go to the "Wires" menu and change the Y value for End 1 to -51. Change the Y value for End 2 to 51. 6. Do a "Save As" and type "g5rv". 7. Perform a Freq Swp. (Bottom left button). A little mea culpa. The above sequence fails to identify the segmentation error in this model. I'm so used to using Multinec to interface to EZNEC that I forgot that when using EZNEC directly this error isn't trapped. EZNEC's automatic segmentation check doesn't run when changing wire lengths. It will allow the change that I made that results in too few segments in the new length. The minimum number should be 13, with more the merrier. With this simple structure, however, the error is small and the other results are generally acceptable. |
Let me answer each question below
"Buck" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 16:30:18 -0400, "Fred W4JLE" wrote: Given an antenna that has 50 Ohms +J0, feed it with 50 ohm line and the swr for the system is 1:1, substitute a 1/2 wave of 450 ohm line and the antenna and the rig are both at 50 ohms. The SWR on the feedline is 450/50 or 9:1. Exactly correct, actually you can replace it with 1/2 electrical wave length of anything including lampcord. That being said you should not use lamp cord before someone has a cow. Ok, just to reiterate so I know I understand (and you can see if I don't), If I feed a 20 meter dipole cut for my favorite frequency, I can feed the radio with exactly 1/2 wave of 450 ohm feedline and it will match the radio? Of course, coax will make a better match (with less loss?) No coax won't make a better match, a match is a match. The loss is lower on the ladder line. The use of ladder line for a dipole designed for and used on a single band probably doesent make a lot of sense. If you want to run an 80 meter dipole on all bands it is a must (sans a tuner). Look at it this way 450 Ohms divided by 50 Ohms = 9 an 18:1 SWR at 450 ohms is only 2:1 at 50 ohms. Now, if I understand, the principle of the 130 foot dipole matching the rig is based on the length of 450 ohm twin-lead. The twin lead is always 1/2 WL long. NO SEE MY OTHER REPLY The coax and rig are 50 ohms, but according to the smith chart, the impedance of the various frequencies range from 20 to 100 ohms. This would make me wonder why I don't get the same impedances at my rig, or at least at my feed point of 50 ohm coax. Thanks -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
Buck wrote:
Thanks for the help, Wes. I will be looking for that additional thread. One of these days I'll get rich and famous and I can budget the cost of EZNEC and get the full copy. 20 elements is just not quite what I need for an antenna I am toying with in my mind. BTW, how closely does the program get the measurements for antennas? If I plot a dipole and EZNEC says the length should be 45 feet, will I need to trim the antenna to a different length or will it be within an inch or two? I sure encourage Wes and anyone else to post his experience with agreement or disagreement between modeling and measurement. But I've gotten a pretty good overview from the comments I've gotten in 15 years of selling EZNEC and its predecessor. These include reports from a spectrum of users ranging from amateurs who've measured what they can with the tools they have available, to professional users who have exceptionally good measurement equipment and access to high quality test ranges. With quite a handful of caveats, below, the program gives very accurate results(*). Here are the caveats. First, the antenna has to be just like the model. By "just like", I mean that anything materially affecting the antenna has to be in the model. Radiating feedlines are one of the most common elements overlooked by amateurs. I've also seen cases where the test meter itself is large and close enough to the antenna to change its impedance very significantly, and correspondence wasn't achieved until the meter was added to the model. Also, most people don't appreciate how much effect another antenna (or other resonant conductor) can have, even when surprisingly far away. Next are a handful of modeling traps. These include but aren't limited to making sure the model is within modeling guidelines (segmentation, choice of ground type, etc.), that the NEC engine isn't having any particular difficulty (average gain close to 1), and the model doesn't contain any features which are known to cause an error (e.g., connected wires of different diameters, particularly in a parsitic element). Serious geometry errors such as connecting a wire end to a segment midpoint on another wire appeared quite frequently in files sent to me by users, which prompted me to expend the considerable effort to develop a comprehensive geometry check for the EZNEC v. 4.0 release. But many errors can still be made. It takes a fair amount of care, knowledge, and experience to gain a high degree of confidence that all these conditions are met. Then, even when the model is correct, most people don't know just how difficult it is to make good measurements. Measurements made through feedline are subject to a host of errors including failure to account for the effect of even a small amount of loss, and line impedance that's different from its specification -- a very common situation. Measurements made without feedline often suffer from the effects of common mode current and the close proximity of the person making the measurements. And so forth. All that being said, it's really not hard to make a very decent model of a simple antenna -- or even a fairly complex one. But there are too many things I can't know about your modeling ability, how well you've suppressed feedline current in the real antenna, and how you'll be deciding that the antenna "works" to know if it'll come out within an inch or two. Based on past experience, some number of the readers will interpret what I've written to mean that it's impossible to make a good model, or that modeling doesn't give accurate results. Neither is true at all. But a careless model and casual measurement probably won't match very well, either. So my advice is to cut the antenna a bit long. Only after *you* have built and measured a few can you gain (or not gain) confidence in the ability of *your* models to match *your* measurements. (*) I can't and don't take credit for the accuracy of the program. That's solely due to its NEC calculating engine which was developed by others. I will take blame for any EZNEC results which differ from those given by NEC. Those would be bugs, and I'd appreciate very much if anyone seeing a difference would contact me so I can track it down and fix it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Thanks for the reply and comments.
I have been enjoying my time playing around with the program. I have notice that an antenna cut, trimmed and tuned at one location often has a different dip in another. As for the program, I would like to order the full version of eznec, but I can't possibly budget that in right now. Is there a similar program available without the 20 segment limit? I am thinking I saw one many months ago when I first tried playing with this one. Thanks, -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
Buck wrote:
Thanks for the reply and comments. I have been enjoying my time playing around with the program. I have notice that an antenna cut, trimmed and tuned at one location often has a different dip in another. As for the program, I would like to order the full version of eznec, but I can't possibly budget that in right now. Is there a similar program available without the 20 segment limit? I am thinking I saw one many months ago when I first tried playing with this one. Thanks, EZNEC-ARRL, a type of EZNEC v. 3.0, is included with the 20th Edition of the ARRL Antenna Book. It has a 500 segment limit when analyzing any of the several hundred EZNEC models included with the Antenna Book. You can modify any of those models and retain the 500 segment limit. However, if you save a modified model and open it again, the program will revert to the 20 segments of the demo version, since the saved file isn't one of the special ARRL files which relieve the segment limit. (Incidentally, all those several hundred models are recognized by standard EZNEC programs as ordinary EZNEC files, for those of you who have the standard program.) There are several other programs available which have higher segment limits that are free. A web search and/or recommendations from other people should lead you to some of them. NEC-2 itself is free and available on the web, although you'll probably find it relatively difficult to use. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:49:43 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: Buck wrote: Thanks for the reply and comments. I have been enjoying my time playing around with the program. I have notice that an antenna cut, trimmed and tuned at one location often has a different dip in another. As for the program, I would like to order the full version of eznec, but I can't possibly budget that in right now. Is there a similar program available without the 20 segment limit? I am thinking I saw one many months ago when I first tried playing with this one. Thanks, EZNEC-ARRL, a type of EZNEC v. 3.0, is included with the 20th Edition of the ARRL Antenna Book. It has a 500 segment limit when analyzing any of the several hundred EZNEC models included with the Antenna Book. You can modify any of those models and retain the 500 segment limit. However, if you save a modified model and open it again, the program will revert to the 20 segments of the demo version, since the saved file isn't one of the special ARRL files which relieve the segment limit. (Incidentally, all those several hundred models are recognized by standard EZNEC programs as ordinary EZNEC files, for those of you who have the standard program.) There are several other programs available which have higher segment limits that are free. A web search and/or recommendations from other people should lead you to some of them. NEC-2 itself is free and available on the web, although you'll probably find it relatively difficult to use. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Thanks, I reinstalled it. I had to uninstall everything and then install ARRL first before it would work. Now, however, I have a problem placing the folders where I want them. Is there a way to do this? I just finished experimenting with the ARRL version. I was able to modify any file as long as I don't save or quit, i can get about as elaborate as I want by hand entering all the data. -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW |
Buck wrote:
Thanks, I reinstalled it. I had to uninstall everything and then install ARRL first before it would work. Now, however, I have a problem placing the folders where I want them. Is there a way to do this? . . . Click Help, then Contents. This opens the EZNEC manual. Click the Index tab (key icon), then type "folders" (without the quotation marks) into the text box, or scroll down until you see "Folders". You'll find the answers to most of your questions in the manual. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Buck wrote:
As for the program, I would like to order the full version of eznec, but I can't possibly budget that in right now. Is there a similar program available without the 20 segment limit? I am thinking I saw one many months ago when I first tried playing with this one. You could try 4nec2 at www.wyger.nl/usr/4nec2. If you are familiar with EZnec, you should not have too much difficulties using 4nec2. However both programs have their pros and contras Success, Arie. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com