Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 30, 9:07 pm, wrote:
Back in Nov 2005 there was a thread comparing coax withbalanced feedlines. At that time I held the viewpoint that coax was "better" thenbalanced feedlines for almost every receiving application. In the last few months I have been experimenting with antennas other then the common "long" wireantennafed to coax with a 9:1 transformer. Forbalancedantennas like active dipoles, significant reduction in noise engress can be obtained withbalancedover coax if a true balan is used at the typical unbalanced HFantennainput. I have noted significant reduction in common mode, requiring much less ferrite, withbalancedversus coax. For the "long" wireantennawith a 9:1 I have not found a suitable wiring scheme forbalancedto work better then coax. Care must be taken in constuction to insure as much physical symetry in the active dipole as well as the balun at the receiver end. While I am not a fan of loops, I suspect that with proper attention to construction and wiring, loops to could benefit frombalancedfeedlines. Acitve loops will require great attention to the power/RF combiner to insure that no un-balance is added.From my limited experience, active loops are not a good choice for balanced for this reason. In direct comparsions an actve dipole outperformed an ALA 1530 and a WL1030. So except for my ancient MaKay Dymek DA5, which I keep for sentimental not practical reasons, I have decided to not investigate loops any further. Single ended active antennas and other unbalanced antennas will, in general, be better with coax instead ofbalanced. When the weather moderates I intend to compare some special "tightly twisted" audio cable with plain zip cord. Terry I've been thinking of making a triple dipole fed by three pairs of a CAT5 or CAT6 cable with a switcher at the receiver(s) to select any one, any pair or all three, with phase reversals on each, feeding a balanced/unbalanced antenna tuner. The three dipoles would be electrically short, concentric, mutually orthogonal - one horizontal and two as an X in the vertical plane. Might provide some directional and polarisation selectivity. Mounted high and away (with short elements it is easily away compared to a 1/2 wave dipole), it gets away from the residential noise and interference sources and the balance should be fair. Attenuation may be excessive - here's Belden's 1300A for outdoor use: MHz - dB/100 m 1 2.0 4 4.1 8 5.8 10 6.5 (vs 3-5 dB for RG-59/58) 16 8.2 20 9.3 25 10.4 31.25 11.7 Might have to go to an open wire line. Check out this dp5t balanced switcher: http://cgi.ebay.com/ _W0QQitemZ280068890746 Tom |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stupid question on twin feedline (air) | Antenna | |||
Balanced vs. Unbalanced Tuner | Antenna | |||
Shielded balanced feedline report | Shortwave | |||
Question running balanced line | Antenna | |||
Balanced feedline for vertical antenna? | Antenna |