Need More R

[C2]

The antennas were built as drawn. The first actually used bare #12 and the second was insulated.

Consistently, the first antenna had lower receive than a straight dipole. I swapped them many times, and why would I need to quantify a 2 bar drop? Less is less and less is all I needed to know. This characteristic followed the first antenna around consistently in different environments over a period of time. What's the point in picking on the test? I'm only interested in qualifying a relative comparison and don't care so much about accurately measuring exactly how much. The effects of path loss is minimal and undected on the repeaters I've been listening to, at least I have not observed them fading in and out.

Like I said, perhaps the first antenna had a lossy impedance match or other problem, perhaps because of an error in construction or defect in some material.

Of course the design should out perform a dipole, but it did not, which is why I "tested" it in different situations. I've also tested various other antennas the same way and I have always gotten the expected result. I do agree with you that getting accurate quantitative data on antenna performance is difficult, but getting an indication one way or the other is not so hard.

 

[HiDef]

Like I said, perhaps the first antenna had a lossy impedance match or other problem, perhaps because of an error in construction or defect in some material.

OKAY then how about going over to the cb antenna section and change your post to reflect the possibility of lossy impedance match?

Here's a paste of what you said:

"I tried a 5/8 with a tapped coil and it did not work as well. It tuned up fine, but was not as sensitive as a dipole.

I redid the match to a simple series inductor and it worked much better than the dipole."

 

[C2]

OKAY then how about going over to the cb antenna section and change your post to reflect the possibility of lossy impedance match?

Here's a paste of what you said:

"I tried a 5/8 with a tapped coil and it did not work as well. It tuned up fine, but was not as sensitive as a dipole.

I redid the match to a simple series inductor and it worked much better than the dipole."

I went over the CB antenna section and looked for my aleged posts. I could not find that post there, but I said many similar things in this thread.

What would you have me say anyway? My observations were literally as I said. I offered a few suggestions of why that might be, all of which pointed to some flaw with the antenna.

But the point of this thread was to get ideas on how to increase R without affecting reactance.

A long time ago I asked on another forum about how to build a match for a 2 meter 5/8 wave antenna, and the first proposal came right out of the ARRL antenna book (which Doc actually pulled out of the blue at the start of this thread). The second was to use a simpler base loading coil. I built the first design as best I could and just reported my observation. It was not working as well as a dipole, for whatever reason, so I tried the second proposal and I reported my observation, however crude it may all have been.

 

[Simon004]

I went over the CB antenna section and looked for my aleged posts. I could not find that post there

I didn't have any trouble finding it...

I tried a 5/8 with a tapped coil and it did not work as well. It tuned up fine, but was not as sensitive as a dipole.

I redid the match to a simple series inductor and it worked much better than the dipole.

its right here, in the thread I started...

http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/35605-5-8-wave-coil.html

 

[bob85]

That is interesting, bob85, and I also found one-level-up quite useful as well.

I had considered copying the Maco V58 desing, with a single turn tapped coil...

Mobile antennas, short verticals, loading coil loss,and loading coil current

yes there are some interesting articles on w8ji's site.

 

[HiDef]

w8ji's take on radiation resistance, interesting.

Small antennas and radiation resistance

W8JI is really short.