I need DIY plans for an antenna
 

I bought a RS TRC-458 Navaho base station at a garage sale this weekend
for
ten dollars and I have a twenty foot mast and I would like to build my own
antenna, to save $$$.

The pattern needs to be at least 180 degrees as I live on the coast of
Florida. I plan to run barefoot (till I can buy some power) so I need some
efficiency.

if you're interested in saving costs, antenna gain is way less expensive
than amplifier gain.

a simple dipole would be a good start, two 10' wires, and a balun.
suspend from 10' poles in the yard, and trim the wires to best match, or
best resonance, if you can borrow an analyzer.
people do it without the balun, but it's no longer a dipole, and the
radiation pattern is different.

a two element beam can be made with wire, if you don't have to turn it.
it's not too directional, but it may serve your needs.

a full wave loop is another low cost, gain antenna. a bit harder to support
though, since it's 9' on a side, and ideally should be vertical. this is
another one that wants a balun on it's feed.

Hmmm Google is one link with a four element 11 meter antenna and 300 links
to comercial sites.

br549

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:37:50 GMT, "nocents" wrote:

Sorry if I am redundant, this is the fist time on this group, I am using
Central Florida Road Runner and their NG retention is about 48 hours, so
I
can't search the old posts.

Uh, Google? ...but, anyway...

I bought a RS TRC-458 Navaho base station at a garage sale this weekend
for
ten dollars and I have a twenty foot mast and I would like to build my
own
antenna, to save $$$.

Ten bucks, huh? Hmmm...

The pattern needs to be at least 180 degrees as I live on the coast of
Florida. I plan to run barefoot (till I can buy some power) so I need
some
efficiency.

Another reply was for a dipole or loop antenna (good & cheap)

How about a J-pole? This one is for 10m; you can recalculate for the
portion of 11m you want to work.

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/5002016.pdf

Thanks,

Hey, at least you got some assembly instructions...

BR549

Thanks


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:37:50 GMT, "nocents" wrote:

Sorry if I am redundant, this is the fist time on this group, I am using
Central Florida Road Runner and their NG retention is about 48 hours, so
I
can't search the old posts.

Uh, Google? ...but, anyway...

I bought a RS TRC-458 Navaho base station at a garage sale this weekend
for
ten dollars and I have a twenty foot mast and I would like to build my
own
antenna, to save $$$.

Ten bucks, huh? Hmmm...

The pattern needs to be at least 180 degrees as I live on the coast of
Florida. I plan to run barefoot (till I can buy some power) so I need
some
efficiency.

Another reply was for a dipole or loop antenna (good & cheap)

How about a J-pole? This one is for 10m; you can recalculate for the
portion of 11m you want to work.

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/5002016.pdf

Thanks,

Hey, at least you got some assembly instructions...

BR549

Dave,
Just so you will know in the future, the dipole is
a dipole, balun or no balun. It's still a balanced
antenna, but fed with an unbalanced feed line.
Both the dipole and a vertical full wave loop will
work just fine without a balun. It does make a slight
difference in the shape of the radiation pattern but
you will never know it. Do you really mean a balun,
or do you mean a coaxial choke? At HF either will work.
'Doc

"'Doc" wrote in message ...
Dave,
Just so you will know in the future, the dipole is
a dipole, balun or no balun. It's still a balanced
antenna, but fed with an unbalanced feed line.

no, it's not.

in order to be a dipole, it has to be fed with two signals, 180 degrees out
of phase, and equal ampliude.

otherwise, it's a monopole, with a counterpoise.
do you not see the difference between a driven, and a passive element


Do you really mean a balun,
or do you mean a coaxial choke? At HF either will work.
'Doc

whichever way you do it, you need to feed it balanced.

Dave VanHorn wrote:

"'Doc" wrote in message ...
Dave,
Just so you will know in the future, the dipole is
a dipole, balun or no balun. It's still a balanced
antenna, but fed with an unbalanced feed line.

no, it's not.

in order to be a dipole, it has to be fed with two signals, 180 degrees out
of phase, and equal ampliude.

otherwise, it's a monopole, with a counterpoise.
do you not see the difference between a driven, and a passive element

---------------
Take a look at any standard text (Kraus's "Antennas" for
example) and
you will see your definition isn't correct. Among other
characteristics,
a dipole antenna (also called a doublet) has two 'elements'
which are
equal in length (and commonly accepted to be 1/2 wave length
long). Doesn't
really matter is it's horizontal, vertical, an 'L', or some
randomly shaped
thingy, it's still a dipole.
Having used dipole antennas for over 30 years, I can't think
of a single
instance when I've fed one with two signals, no matter what mode
of use. I
~have~ fed them with a single signal and each 'element' of the
antenna be
180 degrees out of phase, but that's normal with any antenna fed
in the center.
Except for commercial and military applications, I can't think
of a single
multiplex amateur or CB example (two signals to the same
antenna).



Do you really mean a balun,
or do you mean a coaxial choke? At HF either will work.
'Doc

whichever way you do it, you need to feed it balanced.
------------------
Also not true. At HF there is very little reason to worry
about using
a balun unless you have to do impedance transformations or are
feeding a
directional antenna. The primary result of an unbalanced signal
to a
balanced antenna is a very slight skewing of the radiation
pattern. Except
for directional antennas (beams) that 'skewing' of the radiation
pattern
isn't noticable (and not very noticable even with a directional
antenna).
If you will notice, I qualified all of the above to HF. At
higher frequencies
there is a more noticable change in radiation patterns because
of a balanced
to unbalanced condition. The example you furnished for baluns
is for the
VHF/UHF spectrum where pattern skewing ~is~ more noticable and
important.
Baluns are fine for when/where they are of use. At HF they are
at best
just another point of failure that isn't strictly needed.
'Doc

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:00:40 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:


"'Doc" wrote in message ...
Dave,
Just so you will know in the future, the dipole is
a dipole, balun or no balun. It's still a balanced
antenna, but fed with an unbalanced feed line.

no, it's not.

Yes it is.

A dipole antenna is a straight electrical conductor measuring 1/2
wavelength from end to end and connected at the center to a
radio-frequency (RF) feed line. This antenna, also called a doublet,
is one of the simplest types of antenna, and constitutes the main RF
radiating and receiving element in various sophisticated types of
antennas. The dipole is inherently a balanced antenna, because it is
bilaterally symmetrical.

Ideally, a dipole antenna is fed with a balanced, parallel-wire RF
transmission line. However, this type of line is not common. An
unbalanced feed line, such as coaxial cable, can be used, but to
ensure optimum RF current distribution on the antenna element and in
the feed line, an RF transformer called a balun (contraction of the
words "balanced" and "unbalanced") should be inserted in the system at
the point where the feed line joins the antenna.

in order to be a dipole, it has to be fed with two signals, 180 degrees out
of phase, and equal ampliude.

otherwise, it's a monopole, with a counterpoise.

So I can feed my Ground plane or quad with a balun, then its a
dipole?

do you not see the difference between a driven, and a passive element

You think the end thats fed with the shield of the coax is passive?
Come on over and grab the end of my dipole, (fed with coax and no
balun), when I have 1Kw running to it. You will change your mind
about it being passive.



Do you really mean a balun,
or do you mean a coaxial choke? At HF either will work.
'Doc

whichever way you do it, you need to feed it balanced.


You will notice very little, or more likey no difference between a
dipole fed with or without a Balun.

So I can feed my Ground plane or quad with a balun, then its a dipole?

no, it's not. be careful, you're making my case.

for a pair of quarter-wavelength wires to act as a dipole, several things
must be true.
physical arraingement, and feed are both important. your broken dipole is
somewhere between a real dipole, and the ground plane. basically, a
monopole, with a counterpoise.

if you significantly bend the wires, or re-arrainge them physically, then it
is no longer a dipole.

if we remove three radials from your ground plane, /i'm assuming it's fed
with unbalanced line directly, as it should be/ and straighten out the
remaining radial relative to the driven element, then we have your broken
dipole again.

there's another class of antenna, called a bicone, that has significantly
different charachteristics, but is conceptually very close to the dipole.
it's got broader bandwidth, and is commonly used in part 15 testing for that
reason. the discone is another very close relation, somewhere between the
bicone, ground plane, and a feedhorn.

this stuff does matter. when you make changes, they have effects, even if
your particular arrangement is too sloppy to notice them. when you make a
change that should have an effect, and it dosent, this is telling you that
you have other problems.

do you not see the difference between a driven, and a passive element

You think the end thats fed with the shield of the coax is passive?
Come on over and grab the end of my dipole, (fed with coax and no
balun), when I have 1Kw running to it. You will change your mind
about it being passive.

no, i won't. where did you get the idea that passive elements wouldn't have
current flowing in them. and where pray tell, is that current coming from

grab the director on a beam, and see what you get. that's a simple wire
sitting in space, with no connection to the coax at all.. is it a passive
element, absolutely.. has it got rf current flowing in it, you'd better
believe it.

your two wires fed in the middle with coax, are not a dipole.
the best name i can give it, is a monopole with counterpoise.
throw it into mininec, and see if you get the same results as a properly
constructed dipole.
that's freeware, a little limited, but it can do simple antennas like
dipoles with no problems.

you've also got a lot of rf current on your shield, which is making the
shield an active part of the antenna. you didn't think that this current on
your non-driven element magically stopped at the connector, did you.. why
would it stop there.. there is one possibility, that your feedline is an odd
number of quarter wavelengths long, so that this pont is high impedance. but
that only works at particular frequencies. in this case, it's still not a
dipole, /half the antenna isn't driven/ but it will work better than an
identical antenna with feedline an even number of quarter wavelengths long.

You will notice very little, or more likey no difference between a
dipole fed with or without a Balun.

like i said, errors in one area can obscure results in another area.

almost any damn thing will radiate and be tuneable.
a quick look at the antenna wall in the local truck stop will tell you that.

a proper dipole is resonant, given a balanced feed, and therefore does not
put significant signal onto the coax shield. /or it's fed with ladder line,
from a balun in your tuner/

Dave,
There is a big difference between the current flowing on
the inside of the shield of coax and any current flowing on
the outside of the shield. The current flowing on the inside
of the coax shield is the same current that flows in the
center conductor (not the same polarity/phase). Ideally, there
will be no current flowing on the outside of the coax shield,
but you very seldom ever run across the 'ideal' situation. The
current flowing on the outside of the shield is what makes the
feed line radiate.
'Doc

Dave,
Keep at it, you'll figure it out eventually. Jerry and
I don't agree on several things, which is neither here nor
there. And a lot of his research is useless, for any practical
use. Ask him, he'll tell you the same thing.
There is a big difference between what is done in a lab for
testing or research purposes and what is done in the 'real'
world. Most, or at least some of the things done in the lab
are just not needed with 'practical' antennas and radio
stations.
I'm afraid you will have to pass your certifications by your
self. I quit taking them a long time ago...
'Doc

"'Doc" wrote in message ...


Dave,
There is a big difference between the current flowing on
the inside of the shield of coax and any current flowing on
the outside of the shield. The current flowing on the inside
of the coax shield is the same current that flows in the
center conductor (not the same polarity/phase). Ideally, there
will be no current flowing on the outside of the coax shield,
but you very seldom ever run across the 'ideal' situation. The
current flowing on the outside of the shield is what makes the
feed line radiate.
'Doc

exactly.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:15:05 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:


So I can feed my Ground plane or quad with a balun, then its a dipole?

no, it's not. be careful, you're making my case.

No, you said:

in order to be a dipole, it has to be fed with two signals, 180
degrees out of phase, and equal ampliude.

Be careful, your hurting your case, so by what you posted any antenna
can be a dipole if it meets the requirement of being fed two 180 out
of phase signals of equal amplitude?


a proper dipole is resonant, given a balanced feed, and therefore does not
put significant signal onto the coax shield. /or it's fed with ladder line,
from a balun in your tuner/



So, we all use improper dipoles, big deal. They are still dipoles,
spend some time building and using them, in real on the air tests, not
in your lab. Balun manufacturers won't make claims of significant
signal gains.

I'll keep building my dipoles without a balun, fed with coax, and be
very happy with how well they work.

Thanks everybody, after I sort out all this info I will have a PHD in Dipole
Antennas


Regards,
br549


"nocents" wrote in message
om...
Sorry if I am redundant, this is the fist time on this group, I am using
Central Florida Road Runner and their NG retention is about 48 hours, so I
can't search the old posts.

I bought a RS TRC-458 Navaho base station at a garage sale this weekend
for
ten dollars and I have a twenty foot mast and I would like to build my own
antenna, to save $$$.

The pattern needs to be at least 180 degrees as I live on the coast of
Florida. I plan to run barefoot (till I can buy some power) so I need some
efficiency.

Thanks,

BR549

In , "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:


So I can feed my Ground plane or quad with a balun, then its a dipole?

no, it's not. be careful, you're making my case.

for a pair of quarter-wavelength wires to act as a dipole, several things
must be true.
physical arraingement, and feed are both important. your broken dipole is
somewhere between a real dipole, and the ground plane. basically, a
monopole, with a counterpoise.

Wrong. The only requirements for a dipole are that it has max current in the
center, and has two ends with max voltage but opposite polarity (hence the
origination of the term 'DI-POLE'). The only way to do this is to locate the
ends in polar opposition, and to use a frequency on which it is resonant (any
multiple of 1/2 wavelength). As I said in another post, a dipole can be nothing
more than a single wire fed at the center with coax and a gamma match. A dipole
is therefore not necessarily a doublet, nor does it necessarily need to be fed
from a balanced line or balun. In fact, a 1/4 wave vertical groundplane antenna
is really a dipole -- the groundplane (or 'counterpoise') functions as one pole
of a two pole (dipole) antenna. It meets all the criteria: the two ends are in
polar opposition, it is resonant on a specific frequency (the length of the 1/4
wave vertical being calculated as half the length of a dipole), has max current
at the center (the base of the vertical), and max voltage on the ends (the top
of the vertical).

And BTW, a 'doublet' only means the antenna has two elements. That's all.

if you significantly bend the wires, or re-arrainge them physically, then it
is no longer a dipole.

if we remove three radials from your ground plane, /i'm assuming it's fed
with unbalanced line directly, as it should be/ and straighten out the
remaining radial relative to the driven element, then we have your broken
dipole again.

there's another class of antenna, called a bicone, that has significantly
different charachteristics, but is conceptually very close to the dipole.

That's probably why it's also called a biconical dipole.

it's got broader bandwidth, and is commonly used in part 15 testing for that
reason. the discone is another very close relation, somewhere between the
bicone, ground plane, and a feedhorn.

The discone is a non-resonant antenna that works nothing like a dipole.

this stuff does matter. when you make changes, they have effects, even if
your particular arrangement is too sloppy to notice them. when you make a
change that should have an effect, and it dosent, this is telling you that
you have other problems.

do you not see the difference between a driven, and a passive element

You think the end thats fed with the shield of the coax is passive?
Come on over and grab the end of my dipole, (fed with coax and no
balun), when I have 1Kw running to it. You will change your mind
about it being passive.

no, i won't. where did you get the idea that passive elements wouldn't have
current flowing in them. and where pray tell, is that current coming from

grab the director on a beam, and see what you get. that's a simple wire
sitting in space, with no connection to the coax at all.. is it a passive
element, absolutely.. has it got rf current flowing in it, you'd better
believe it.

your two wires fed in the middle with coax, are not a dipole.
the best name i can give it, is a monopole with counterpoise.

It's the same thing.

throw it into mininec, and see if you get the same results as a properly
constructed dipole.

By that definition, any dipole that doesn't behave like an ideal dipole can't be
a dipole, including any dipole that doesn't exist in free space. Since there is
no place on earth that is equivalent to free space, it is therefore -impossible-
to build a "properly constructed" dipole!

that's freeware, a little limited, but it can do simple antennas like
dipoles with no problems.

you've also got a lot of rf current on your shield, which is making the
shield an active part of the antenna. you didn't think that this current on
your non-driven element magically stopped at the connector, did you.. why
would it stop there.. there is one possibility, that your feedline is an odd
number of quarter wavelengths long, so that this pont is high impedance. but
that only works at particular frequencies.

That doesn't work at all. The point where the coax shield meets the antenna is a
point of low impedance, and if the coax is an odd number of wavelengths long
with the radio end RF grounded, the result is an detuned mess. And if the radio
end -isn't- RF grounded, that's what puts RF in the shack and burns your lips.
But that doesn't mean the antenna isn't a dipole -- it's just a dipole that has
been poorly implemented.

in this case, it's still not a
dipole, /half the antenna isn't driven/ but it will work better than an
identical antenna with feedline an even number of quarter wavelengths long.

You will notice very little, or more likey no difference between a
dipole fed with or without a Balun.

like i said, errors in one area can obscure results in another area.

almost any damn thing will radiate and be tuneable.
a quick look at the antenna wall in the local truck stop will tell you that.

a proper dipole is resonant, given a balanced feed,

Wrong again. A dipole is resonant with or without the feed line.

and therefore does not
put significant signal onto the coax shield. /or it's fed with ladder line,
from a balun in your tuner/

Hit the books and look up "gamma match". Look up "dipole" while you are at it.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dave,
And the idea of 'half' of a dipole as being a 'passive'
element. In which half of a signal's cycle is the shield
side of the dipole passive? The 'positive' or 'negative'
half cycle? And since current is still moving in the
'passive' half of the antenna, it's also still being
radiated. How does that fit in with your 'passive' element
description? If it radiates, it ain't 'passive'.
I can follow your thinking, but your thinking will lead
you into making very confusing statements as you've done.
Why not stick to the 'standard' or common way of describing
what you mean? It'll save a lot of confusion and bandwidth.
'Doc

Have you ever built and used a dipole with a balun, without a balun
and used them on CB or the HF bands?

absolutely.

i haven't done base station cb work since the late 70's but physics hasn't
changed.
these days, i'm up on 40-10, and 6-902.
many dipoles, over the years. both ways.

How does that fit in with your 'passive' element
description? If it radiates, it ain't 'passive'.

the passive elements on a yagi have current flow in them, and they are
indeed passive elements.
passive dosen't mean 'no current flow' in this context, it means not driven
from the feedline.

I can follow your thinking, but your thinking will lead
you into making very confusing statements as you've done.
Why not stick to the 'standard' or common way of describing
what you mean? It'll save a lot of confusion and bandwidth.
'Doc

i didn't coin the term 'passive element'

Be careful, your hurting your case, so by what you posted any antenna
can be a dipole if it meets the requirement of being fed two 180 out
of phase signals of equal amplitude?

no, there are several conditions, balanced feed is only one of them.


So, we all use improper dipoles, big deal. They are still dipoles,
spend some time building and using them, in real on the air tests, not
in your lab. Balun manufacturers won't make claims of significant
signal gains.

a balun isn't a gain device. neither is wire, but combine them, and you get
a gain device, which is a system called an antenna.

I'll keep building my dipoles without a balun, fed with coax, and be
very happy with how well they work.

ok

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:14:30 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:

a balun isn't a gain device. neither is wire, but combine them, and you get
a gain device, which is a system called an antenna.

Really? How much gain? If I have a dipole fed without a balun, how
much gain will I get when I add a balun to it?

Does it have to be a gain device to be able to call it an antenna
system?

You have already been given the definition of a dipole by several
people. If you prefer to call it something else, call it what ever
you want . It shouldn't take you more than a couple of weeks to
change all the text books and technical references to your definition
of a dipole.

If I have any questions on the correct way to build a dipole, I'll ask
Frank or Doc. They understand how to build them.

Dave,
----snipped--------
passive dosen't mean 'no current flow' in this context, it means not driven
from the feedline.


And the 'passive' element of a dipole antenna ~isn't~ fed
from the feed line? Confusing'er and confusing'er. I thought
both 'halves' of a dipole were fed by the feed line, certainly
every one that I've made, or seen have been.

----snipped---------

i didn't coin the term 'passive element'

No, I'm aware of that. But are you the one who 'minted' the
"two signal" way of looking at a single signal? Like some other
types of esoteric thinking you have to be very careful where
they
are applied, and how. If you aren't careful, they deteriorate
into nonsense as has happened here. If how you think about a
dipole antenna helps you with what you're doing, then fine, have
at it. That doesn't make it 'correct' or the 'right' way of
doing
things, though, and it is very confusing to someone who isn't
familiar with that particular 'theory' of operation. If you
want to
call a dipole by another name, that's fine too. But it don't
make
it so. Aunt Martha wasn't born with wheels, so she really isn't
a Buick... no matter what she thinks.
'Doc

"'Doc" wrote in message ...


Dave,
----snipped--------
passive dosen't mean 'no current flow' in this context, it means not
driven
from the feedline.


And the 'passive' element of a dipole antenna ~isn't~ fed
from the feed line? Confusing'er and confusing'er.

i've been maintaining that a properly implemented dipole does not have a
passive element.
both halves should be driven. in the case where it's fed directly with
coax, it isn't clear to me wether the shield connected element is getting
current from the inside of the shield, or by illumination from the center
connected element. i suspect both are true, to some degree.
certainly the rf on the feedline now couples into the system, and makes
things even fuzzier.

I thought both 'halves' of a dipole were fed by the feed line, certainly
every one that I've made, or seen have been.

No, I'm aware of that. But are you the one who 'minted' the
"two signal" way of looking at a single signal? Like some other
types of esoteric thinking you have to be very careful where
they
are applied, and how.

i wasn't as clear as i intended to be.
you can view the output of a balun as two out of phase signals, at half the
input power, or a single balanced signal. i wasn't sure if the fellow i was
talking to at that point, knew what you get at the output of a balun.

If you aren't careful, they deteriorate
into nonsense as has happened here. If how you think about a
dipole antenna helps you with what you're doing, then fine, have
at it. That doesn't make it 'correct' or the 'right' way of
doing
things, though, and it is very confusing to someone who isn't
familiar with that particular 'theory' of operation. If you
want to
call a dipole by another name, that's fine too. But it don't
make
it so.

no, the point i was making is that a dipole, is designed to be fed from a
balanced source, and it does make a difference. the magnitude of the
difference, in gain, radiation, and rf on the feedline /when feeding it
unbalanced/ is debatable.

Aunt Martha wasn't born with wheels, so she really isn't
a Buick... no matter what she thinks.
'Doc

beep beep /vbg/

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
In , "Dave VanHorn"

wrote:


And BTW, a 'doublet' only means the antenna has two elements. That's
all.

any two elements, anywhere in space?

Pretty much.

i think not.

Then why don't you explain why you think not?

maybe by purist definition, but putting the second element at a significant
distance makes it more an independent antenna, than part of a system with
the first one.
also, placing them very close together and in parallel would make them
essentially one element.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:19:28 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:

i wasn't as clear as i intended to be.
you can view the output of a balun as two out of phase signals, at half the
input power, or a single balanced signal. i wasn't sure if the fellow i was
talking to at that point, knew what you get at the output of a balun.

Yeah, that was that Dave Vanhorn fellow you were talking to. I don't
think he quite understands what a balun is or what it does.

In , "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
In , "Dave VanHorn"

wrote:


And BTW, a 'doublet' only means the antenna has two elements. That's
all.

any two elements, anywhere in space?

Pretty much.

i think not.

Then why don't you explain why you think not?

maybe by purist definition, but putting the second element at a significant
distance makes it more an independent antenna, than part of a system with
the first one.

Not necessarily. Sometimes a doublet is used for direction-finding by using the
phase relationship between the two elements while they are a significant
distance apart. In that case, "wider is better". And just for the sake of
discussion, a pair of TV 'rabbit ears' is considered a doublet. Even though it
uses balanced transmission line, it is not a dipole because it doesn't function
as a dipole.

also, placing them very close together and in parallel would make them
essentially one element.

Not even that -- they would no longer be elements of an antenna, but two
conductors of a transmission line.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In , "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:

snip
no, the point i was making is that a dipole, is designed to be fed from a
balanced source, and it does make a difference.

If you are saying that a balanced load should be fed from a balanced source,
I'll buy that. But don't forget that a dipole doesn't necessarily need to be
balanced. It's just as easy, if not easier, to shift the feedpoint (gamma match)
as it is to wind a balun.

the magnitude of the
difference, in gain, radiation, and rf on the feedline /when feeding it
unbalanced/ is debatable.

I dunno... I've pegged my FSM more than a few times holding it next to a coax.
But that may not be such a bad thing if you want some vertical polarity while
using a horizontal dipole.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

This thread has not got out of hand, opinions are like asshole every body
has one, it seams that I have the Gods of the group in a heated discussion,
let it go on, do not kill a good thread.

br549

"Swan Radioman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:03:03 GMT, "BR549" wrote:

Thanks everybody, after I sort out all this info I will have a PHD in
Dipole
Antennas


Regards,
br549



Mitch;
Sorry this thread has gotten out of hand. Dipoles are one of the
easiest antennas to build and get working. Plus its a lot of fun to
play with.

Here is a link that will help you calculate the length of the wires.

http://www.qsl.net/w4sat/calc.htm