• 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.
  • Click here to find out how to win free radios from Retevis!

Re: worth discussing

HomerBB

Sr. Member
Jan 4, 2009
3,934
2,662
273
68
Rogers, Ar
I read through this locked thread - This Ought To Be Worth a Discussion (apparently someone was bad), and found the capacitor tube/tuning ring interesting. I am not trying to reopen that thread. I am expressing some thoughts it stimulated for me.

I was especially perplexed by capacitor tube/tuning ring matcher use on a 5/8 wavelength antenna when it is commonly held that more matching network complexity results in unnecessary potential losses. :confused:
As for the 1/2 waves I've done with the cap/inductor network, it is the only way I know how to transform a self-supporting 1/2 wave end fed omni.

Nevertheless, I was intrigued by it, so using stuff in the garage I put one together. It isn't very pretty, but works.
I hope to refine it and do it better, and I hope the next generation will be smaller, cleaner, and less ugly.

F6087.jpg


F6084.jpg


It is built onto the bones of the .64 wave I made last Spring (I reuse everything to keep my experimenting cost as low as I can. The bottom of the antenna is the bottom sections of the .64, the top is a fishing pole with a wire up through it that was a 1/4 wave GP in a former life.

F6086.jpg


Why bother?

I have looked over some end fed networks made-to-order and without exception they employ ferrite core donuts. All of them refer to power limits based on the the limits inherent to the ferrite wound inductors and vari-caps utilized.
I am not a power oriented operator by any stretch, but there are those whose investments in amplifiers are likely to cause them to pass up opportunities to operate portable because of the apparently delicate components in those matching boxes.
I have also read of folks wanting stealth antenna systems - ie wire - that have special challenges who might find a well crafted, or easily duplicated sturdy end fed wire antenna matching system the best solution over the venerable middle fed wire dipole. A good power handling EFHW wire match box could make this quicker and easier.

Many operators do not know how to properly make a ferrite core transformer. And despite the ease with which some Amateurs grasp the particulars of the craft, I can attest to how confusing things can be that only begin to make sense when the previous building blocks of understanding are in place. An immediate need can not always wait on a growing education. Furthermore, without a good local resource for a large variety of ferrite cores of various types, being able to put something together in a hurry isn't possible using those methods.

I may be missing something, and I am sure my ignorance shows.

If anyone has any thoughts about any of this speak to them. I have a long way to go.
 

When you did your EFHW vertical, the coil had a tap on it, was that the same type of tapped coil used in this 5/8, or was the tap simply to vary the inductance? (I'm thinking the latter but am not 100% sure)

As I have recently been informed in another thread adjusting the tap point doesn't change the resonant frequency on a tapped coil antenna such as this one. What I see happening on a 5/8 is instead of tuning the length to resonance, you can set the length to the optimum radiating length for whichever frequency you wish to use, then use the capacitor to fine tune the resonance, and you can still use the tap point to tune impedance.

I would say that this design appears to be an attempt to be able to keep that perfect .64 wavelength and be able to adjust both resonance and impedance independently of adjusting the antenna length.

I would think this design would be less efficient than just a straight tapped coil and adjusting antenna length for resonance, but the radiation pattern would be changed slightly as well. Personally for a 5/8 I would go with efficiency side as the difference even going from .625 (5/8) wavelength to .64 wavelength is small enough of a difference that anyone receiving the signal would not notice.

That being said, as you pointed out, if someone wanted a high power handling version of an antenna such as your EFHW I could definitely see a use for it there or any other design that would require a capacitor.


The DB
 
I wasn't clear about the photos posted.
This photo series is an EFHW. It is built from old parts of other bygone antennas.
I agree with the choice for an 5/8 or .64 being to use only a tapped inductor, or some other matching system that doesn't utilize the capacitor. I know no other way to match a self-reliant 1/2 wave fed from the end.

TheDB said:
When you did your EFHW vertical, the coil had a tap on it, was that the same type of tapped coil used in this 5/8, or was the tap simply to vary the inductance? (I'm thinking the latter but am not 100% sure)
The latter, I believe.

The coils are boh inductors, but in my efforts to match a EFHW I have found the coils spun to the lengths/turns/diameters useful on a .625/.64 antenna to be useless, meaning they would not give me the necessary inductor length to find a SWR low point. Even when I lengthened the inductor some, the larger diameters, 3"+, were also less useable than those from 1-1/4" to 2" x 12/13 wraps by roughly 1:3.5 diameter to length ratios. Admittedly this could be because my network was/is inherently flawed in other ways.

I have always used the standard formulas for determining 1/2 and 5/8 wavelength dimensions. I have also found that there were limits to tuning the antennas to the exact point of resonance I was looking for by inductor tap alone, esp after I got the antenna analyzer. To that point, I have seen the math based formulas others more educated than I have used to determine lengths for an exact center frequency, and they are not always the same length. My conclusion has been that resonance for a given frequency is the product of length, and the matching network is about the impedance transformation between the antenna and the feed line. I never considered it a matter of debate (how could I being so young at all this although so old in years), but one of understanding what is being affected by which part of the system one is working with.

Because of my perspective on this, when making and matching an EFHW using the parallel cap/inductor matching network I have proceeded by setting the length to around 17.5' with room to move up or down, put the tap on the coil in the center of the inductor, and adjusted the cap to the best SWR reading I could get. I would then proceed to re-tap the coil for the best SWR, followed by readjusting the cap and inductor tap a few times until I had gotten as good as I could. I would then either go out with the length of the radiator, or in with the length as necessary until the x=0 was as near to my center frequency as I could get it, hopefully with R=50 following (not always so good for me).

So, resonance is a function of length, impedance of the transforming/matching network.

Coil for 5/8 and/or .64:

F0358.jpg


Coil for EFHW matcher:


tn.jpg
 
Last edited:

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ kopcicle:
    If you know you know. Anyone have Sam's current #? He hasn't been on since Oct 1st. Someone let him know I'm looking.
  • dxBot:
    535A has left the room.
  • @ AmericanEagle575:
    Just wanted to say Good Morning to all my Fellow WDX members out there!!!!!