-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
Okay, Here's Your Challenge: A 6mhz Bandwidth 10~11M Vertical
- Thread starter Wire Weasel
- Start date
- Status
Nahh, don't be. Antennas and amps discussions ALWAYS brings out the best of the worst in people along with a lot of truth versus false but popular thinking. I'll shut up now and back away and just watch from a distance.
op:I was being sarcastic because I figured you knew all about it. I have read posts of yours in the past and am aware you pretty much know what you are talking about.
Perhaps I mistook the tone of one of your posts in this thread. It read to me like there was an I'm better than you attitude in your messages. My tone was as it was because you seemed to be challenging me, right up from your response to my first post in this thread. They seemed to be worded that way to me anyway. Berating findings was never my intention, as a matter of fact it seemed to me the opposite was happening. Mind you we were talking about two separate specific antenna installations built with likely two separate goals in mind.
And, just to clear things up, when it comes to time spent figuring things out, I have nothing but respect for that. I have spent quite a bit of time doing this myself. I wish I had more time and resources to put towards this, not to mention a bigger yard to play in. Unfortunately I have what I have. Just because I don't have the resources or time spent as you does not mean my goals are not the same. I was pretty much defending what I was saying from what appeared to be an attempt to berate me. I never once badmouthed you or changed away from the topic at hand.
I agree with this statement 100%. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure I have written a line very similar to this one on this or another forum.
Ahh yes, the proper length of coax snake oil. I have challenged that line of thinking many time in the past on this and other forums, and will likely do it again.
Not trying to get to far away from the op's question here, but a question. How is tuning an antenna by adding radials until it is at a 50 ohm impedance not related to tuning for an SWR match, which happens at exactly the same impedance they are adding radials to get (assuming a 50 ohm transmission line)?
I never once claimed 50 ohms was a target, I just noted that point as an SWR match and noted how the impedance continued to drop. In that installation the antenna, which is not of proper length, and not a perfect install (admittedly), is actually at 25 ohms of impedance. This is not unheard of in mobile installations. That being said, I think you would be hard pressed to find even 1% of mobile installations that couldn't be made better in some way. Inefficiency here is the norm, and most people don't know how inefficient their setup actually is.
We likely agree on far more than just this.
The DB
I don't deny the possibility of me reading more into the effects of chrome than what actually happens. That being said, I have on more than one occasion replaced chromed components on an antenna and had it make a difference. Because I have seen this happen more than once I am hesitant to discount the possibility, although I do acknowledge that it is also possible that something else is at play.
The DB
Nahh, don't be. Antennas and amps discussions ALWAYS brings out the best of the worst in people along with a lot of truth versus false but popular thinking. I'll shut up now and back away and just watch from a distance.
Don't apologize for this just because people are curious as to the goals/intentions. Also don't apologize just because it sparks a heated discussion. Neither of these are necessarily bad things. If you or anyone else learned something then in the end it is all good.
The DB
Bravo!Captain Kilowatt said:
For folks like me, who see a conundrum of possibilities, there is a simple answer - because. Some people make antennas just to talk on them. Some make them to make them and see if they can talk on them. I am like that car salesman who drives every car on the lot just because one of them gets boring beyond a day or two.The DB said:
And just because folks say so is not enough for empiricists like me. I learn better by trying things.
The DB said:
If I may, I see the distinction here. Granted the effect is the same to a point. However, when one believes that the point of resonance occurs only when the antenna operates at 50 Ohms, whereas CK has made a case in the thread for some situations where it is not, ie 1/4 wave @ 35 Ohms, then the distinction is that those adding the radials are searching for the 50 Ohm point, not the 1.1:1 point. In fact, this could result in the SWR reading of other than 1.1:1 when they get the 50 Ohm reading.
Captain Kilowatt, don't pick up your toys and go home. It is just getting fun . . .
Last edited:
That is a reason I can respect. Even if it is just to see if it can be done is a good reason and one that I have used in the past. I was just curious as to what the goal was as a challenge was issued without anything as to why the op wanted to see it done, or any conditions other than the bandwidth and it being a vertical antenna. If there were a specific reason or circumstance I needed to account for I may proceed differently than if there were none.
The DB
All you had to do was directly ask me.
I had thought that the technology present in the Hustler Base antenna could be transferred to a lower frequency range. I see by the discussion here that it cannot.
Why the need?
Because there are many Ham/Cb'ers who use most or all a 6mhz spread across 10~11 meters and would love to have a gain Vertical antenna with perfect resonance from say 25~31 mhz. A 6 mhz spread centered on 28.000. If it doesn't exist then it doesn't exist. Fair enough.
WW, thanks for posting the thread.
Whether there is such a possibility or not, there is value to this discussion.
Several points have been made, or remade, in this thread that are very educational to many.
1. What the maximum efficient bandwidth is on 10/11 meters.
2. What extreme bandwidth is likely to represent - serious ground losses.
3. What the actual point of resonance on a well bonded, well tuned 1/4 wave mobile antenna should be (perhaps open to more discussion - quite interesting).
and
4. There are still some passionate antenna-philes on WWRF
Whether there is such a possibility or not, there is value to this discussion.
Several points have been made, or remade, in this thread that are very educational to many.
1. What the maximum efficient bandwidth is on 10/11 meters.
2. What extreme bandwidth is likely to represent - serious ground losses.
3. What the actual point of resonance on a well bonded, well tuned 1/4 wave mobile antenna should be (perhaps open to more discussion - quite interesting).
and
4. There are still some passionate antenna-philes on WWRF
Last edited:
DB:
Far too much info posted since my last post to quote and respond specifically so I will just make a couple general points.
First off It's all good. I suspect that we both know what we were talking about but failed to convey that completely to the other. Sarcasm is very hard to read into on the internet BTW hence my response to it.
Never meant to convey any form of "better than you" attitude. Just stating experience and knowledge gained over the last 35 years doing this crap. I just hate it when some false info is accepted by the masses simply because it is the popular opinion and try to correct it. Sometimes people take that to be a holier than thou attitude. Again, not the intent.
As for the question:" How is tuning an antenna by adding radials until it is at a 50 ohm impedance not related to tuning for an SWR match, which happens at exactly the same impedance they are adding radials to get (assuming a 50 ohm transmission line)?" Symantics. You say "tuning the antenna by adding ground radials" and I say "eliminating ground return losses by adding ground radials." Adding radials does not tune the antenna as the resonant frequency does not change. Just the overall impedance does.
HomerBB: I have no intentions of taking my toys and going home. I just wanted to step back and see where this was going without my input considering that it was looking like there was some controversy. In that case it is best to step back and watch.
Now I gotta go and find out why I nearly burned up my trailer brakes last night after taking the trailer for a little test run after wiring the brake controller. Funny thing is it was just one side.
Far too much info posted since my last post to quote and respond specifically so I will just make a couple general points.
First off It's all good. I suspect that we both know what we were talking about but failed to convey that completely to the other. Sarcasm is very hard to read into on the internet BTW hence my response to it.
Never meant to convey any form of "better than you" attitude. Just stating experience and knowledge gained over the last 35 years doing this crap. I just hate it when some false info is accepted by the masses simply because it is the popular opinion and try to correct it. Sometimes people take that to be a holier than thou attitude. Again, not the intent.
As for the question:" How is tuning an antenna by adding radials until it is at a 50 ohm impedance not related to tuning for an SWR match, which happens at exactly the same impedance they are adding radials to get (assuming a 50 ohm transmission line)?" Symantics. You say "tuning the antenna by adding ground radials" and I say "eliminating ground return losses by adding ground radials." Adding radials does not tune the antenna as the resonant frequency does not change. Just the overall impedance does.
HomerBB: I have no intentions of taking my toys and going home. I just wanted to step back and see where this was going without my input considering that it was looking like there was some controversy. In that case it is best to step back and watch.
Now I gotta go and find out why I nearly burned up my trailer brakes last night after taking the trailer for a little test run after wiring the brake controller.
Funny thing is it was just one side. No offense taken. It takes more then a heated discussion to get me to not pay attention to something that someone says that has shown he knows what he is talking about. I would love to get an apprentice position under someone like yourself who has been working with antennas professionally for nearly as long as I've been alive. I made the mistake of taking a different path in college and am now regretting it.
The DB
The DB
Like I said, I am not going anywhere. I just had something else to do. Just got the brakes on the trailer fixed. It was a broken wire on one side resulting in all the braking power being applied to the other side only. That and the fact I had the brake controller set too sensitive resulted in an overheated brake drum on the one side. That new truck of mine just walks away with the trailer even with the trailer brakes half on. :laugh:
I didn't see any mention of thick conductors. Often antenna are made with a sort of cage to make them effectively very thick and increase the bandwidth. A six wire cage with 12 inch diameter makes a very wide band antenna. Even at 80 meters the entire band can be covered with less than 2:1 SWR. When scaling the antenna, don't forget to include conductor width. Bandwidth may not be 6MHz, but it should be a comparable percentage of the new frequency. At 150MHz, 6MHz is 4%. However, at 30MHz, 6MHz is 20%.
There are antennas designed for very wide bandwidth. For starters, check out a conical monopole and a discone. A fan dipole is another option.
There are antennas designed for very wide bandwidth. For starters, check out a conical monopole and a discone. A fan dipole is another option.
- Status