• 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!

Using a 1/2 wave electrical line for tuning.

Marconi

Honorary Member Silent Key
Oct 23, 2005
7,235
2,374
343
Houston
Booty Monster, I think you've told us you have never used an analyzer to tune an antenna, right? The discussion is for anyone.

Have you ever used this electrical 1/2 wave idea successfully in the process of tuning your antenna using an SWR meter, or is what you sugrest here based on your reading the link you posted? http://www.dx-antennas.com/Coax.htm

Did you apply this idea when you tuned your Vector antenna you recently built?

Could we discuss this idea a bit in light of your experience.

I have tested this idea using a dummy load and my Autek VA1, and I find what I think is a flaw in this CB idea working backward to tune and unknown load...as apposed to what the theory describes in this case.

BTW, is my memory correct, that right after you got you Vector type antenna built and checked your tune, that the antenna presented a bad tune to start? If so, that would be a good reason to need a re-tune or a fix to the matcher and a good place to start.
 
Last edited:

no , i haven't used it . i just comment/parrot on it when it's bought up and supply a link to what is IMO a good source of information on it . FWIU , if the antenna is tuned to 1.1 on a good meter the length doesn't matter so i haven't cut my 50 ft piece of coax . but my new location is gonna be a longer run and when i put the antenna up with 8 E1/2WL's of 8x . as long as i can get below 1.5 i figure i'm fine . 1.2 or 1.3 is usually easily done IF i have everything else close enough . iirc , on the vector the ideas i used for the gamma insulator didn't do what i wanted , so i used pex based on homerbb's success with it . i found some info (again from what i think is a good source) on pex a lil bit ago and posted about it here in case some folks might be interested in it and so there was something more than just a few folks on a forum saying it had worked for them .

http://www.worldwidedx.com/home-brew/145761-pex-insulation-material.html

so some is stuff i've done and some is stuff that is in my understanding is true .
 
no , i haven't used it . i just comment/parrot on it when it's bought up and supply a link to what is IMO a good source of information on it . FWIU , if the antenna is tuned to 1.1 on a good meter the length doesn't matter so i haven't cut my 50 ft piece of coax . but my new location is gonna be a longer run and when i put the antenna up with 8 E1/2WL's of 8x . as long as i can get below 1.5 i figure i'm fine . 1.2 or 1.3 is usually easily done IF i have everything else close enough . iirc , on the vector the ideas i used for the gamma insulator didn't do what i wanted , so i used pex based on homerbb's success with it . i found some info (again from what i think is a good source) on pex a lil bit ago and posted about it here in case some folks might be interested in it and so there was something more than just a few folks on a forum saying it had worked for them .

http://www.worldwidedx.com/home-brew/145761-pex-insulation-material.html


so some is stuff i've done and some is stuff that is in my understanding is true .

In my comments above, I was just curious if when you first checked it you saw a bad match and if you did we could start the discussion about using an electrical 1/2 wave line there. I just missed the discussion about Pex. I don't recall your having a construction problem with your gamma, and that of course would not be pertinent to such a discussion.

So, you did not use a tuned electrical 1/2 wave jumper to tune and now you indicate you will use a 8x multiple wavelength when you reinstall your antenna at your new location, so why don't we wait until then and start the discussion if you have time. A lot will depend on your hands on results using a tuned line in the beginning.

IMO, the 1/2 wave theory is not easily understood or should I say, it is easly missunderstood. My idea is not easy to say in words. Else I would just put down some words on the subject and see if we could get a discussion going that way.

I may find in discussion that my idea is wrong headed, but if it is not... maybe with your help, I could get the point out and maybe have it understood by some who care about the issue, or change my thinking.

In the meantime I am looking on the Internet for a description of the electrical 1/2 wave theory to quote, but thus far it alludes me. Maybe some of you guys out there can help find the words to describe the 1/2 wave theory as it concerns feed lines. I have found a couple of quotes in Maxwell's Reflections II, but I will use them later as necessary.

BM, let me know when you get started on your new install. My first question will be how did the match look using your 8x tuned feed line the first time you checked it. Since you have already tuned it earlier, then you might find the match to be the same, but just on the chance it's not...then keep me posted.
 
Last edited:
i just tuned the gamma . it wasn't as easy to adjust the lengths of the elements on the deck next to the pool as i had hoped . i would have had to totally disconnect the antenna from the mast and given the weight/sturdiness of it's construction and my bad back and knee it wasn't a priority since IMO it got low enough tuning wise for me . i the used the 50 ft piece of coax and checked with a 3 ft and then a 6 ft piece of coax they varied within about .2 on the meters i used . all 8x coax .
 
i just tuned the gamma . it wasn't as easy to adjust the lengths of the elements on the deck next to the pool as i had hoped . i would have had to totally disconnect the antenna from the mast and given the weight/sturdiness of it's construction and my bad back and knee it wasn't a priority since IMO it got low enough tuning wise for me . i the used the 50 ft piece of coax and checked with a 3 ft and then a 6 ft piece of coax they varied within about .2 on the meters i used . all 8x coax .

I don't wish to stress you back. I didn't know that was an issue.

Let me tell you now that my point about using an electrical 1/2 wave line will not necessarly produce a perfect match, that is not my point.

Maybe you can recall close to how much SWR change you saw in you meter when you went from the bottom of CB to the top.
 
i don't recall , i'll make written notes and share them when i put it back up if you like . but with xmas next month i wont have any extra money for the new coax and new post/mounting system , so it'll be a few months before it's back up .

i understand the velocity factor in coax can vary and that getting a perfect electrical half wave length (and multiples) may not be possible just using math and specs . but it'll give me the warm fuzzy feeling that i tried to reduce possible skewing on my simple vswr meters .
 
In my opinion the electrical 1/2 wave isn't a tuning aid but merely a way of getting more accurate readings of swr/impedance from remote locations like in the house.

It simply is an impedance repeater so what you get at one end you get at the other minus a small loss due to the cable return loss inherent in all cables.

Its no substitute for getting your ass up to the antenna feed point and measuring it there where it SHOULD be measured,but if your using good quality cable the remote reading will be very much In the ball park.

Ie with good coax and say a 7 x 1/2 wave run where swr is 1.1:1 at the feedpoint I'd expect to see approx 1.2 +r 1.3:1 in the remote location,

you use any other line length then depending on that length you could see swr just about anywhere on the scale.

So yes tuning in the shack can be made to look worse or better by varying the line length, but nothing you do away from the antenna will ever change the true feed swr/impedance,unless of course you remodel the whole neighbourhood which is hardly likely to happen in the real world.


Consider the halfwave repeater an aid to those who can't get up and down all the time to a problematic antenna system,it is definately handy to know about but is most definately not a swr/impedance transformer like the 18 foot 3/4 wave lengths you guys have been fobbed of with for years that is an impedance inverter and designed to hide bad antenna designs or give better readings on vehicles with insufficient ground planes, if you read tune this antenna with x amount of coax its a pish poor design,the only exception would be when co phasing antennas.


Bottom line is nothing you do away from the antenna will change the real feedpoint swr/impedance


I use 1/2 wave repeaters all the time but never for matching,just to give me a semi accurate reading in the vehicle/shack, but then I always use quality coax too. When I want to match something I get my arse into gear and pull masts up and down as often as is neccessary, do I look fot 1.0:1, do I hell because no-one will ever notice it and by the end of this post and many others I've made you'll soon realise I love talking and time trying to fix things that have nothing wrong is time wasted making friends on air.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
An electrical 1/2 wave section can certainly come in handy. It isn't a 'cure all' by any means, but it sure is handy. One of the things that it can 'cure' is you affecting the match your analyzer will see if you are close to the antenna. Oh well. If it makes thing convenient, then why not.
- 'Doc
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
What jazzsinger said.
jazzsinger said:
In my opinion the electrical 1/2 wave isn't a tuning aid but merely a way of getting more accurate readings of swr/impedance from remote locations like in the house.

It simply is an impedance repeater so what you get at one end you get at the other minus a small loss due to the cable return loss inherent in all cables.

So, with respect to being able to tune accurately at your chosen center frequency, the e1/2 jumper makes sense to me. I do not think it aids in any way to reduce losses, nor make the antenna work any better except as an aid in getting the match set more accurately when the antenna is originally set up. I have found that long coax runs are friendlier to SWR readings than a hooker on Friday night. Operationally, nothing substitutes a good feed line quality as close to the shack as is possible. Someone correct me if possible.

From MFJ-259b Analyzer Manuals

MFJ said:
Antenna hints:

Display readings (of the analyzer display)* are the SWR, impedance and resonant frequency of the antenna system at the point in the
system the MFJ-259B is connected. The impedance and resonant frequency (frequency where reactance crosses
zero) at the point where this unit is connected might not be the resonant frequency of the antenna itself.
This unit (or any other impedance measuring device) displays the antenna’s impedance, 50 ohm SWR, and
resonant frequency as modified by transmission line “transformer” actions of the feedline and other components
between the antenna and the MFJ-259B. If the line is 50 ohms, this unit will always display the antenna’s true
SWR, with the exception of a slight reduction in SWR with longer or more lossy feedlines.

1.) RESONANT FREQUENCY is where reactance is zero ohms, or in some cases as close to zero ohms as the
MFJ-259B indicates. Since resistance has nothing to do with resonance, the resonant frequency is NOT
always at the point of lowest indicated SWR (although they certainly can be the same). The most desirable
load is almost always the load with lowest SWR, even though it may not necessarily be the point of no
reactance (resonance).

2.) An IMPEDANCE of 50 ohms can be composed both resistive and reactive components. If the impedance is
50 ohms, but the SWR is not 1.0 to 1, the likely cause is reactance makes up part or all of the impedance.
Contrary to popular (but very incorrect) misconceptions, it is impossible to obtain a perfect 1 : 1 SWR when
the load is reactive, even if the complex impedance is 50 ohms.
A good example is a 50 ohm nearly pure reactance load. The MFJ-259B LCD will indicate R=0 X=50, while the
impedance meter reads 50 ohms. The SWR would overflow (SWR>25), since the reactive 50 ohm impedance
load absorbs almost no power from the source and has a nearly infinite SWR.

3.) Even if a perfect transmission line is cut to an exact electrical half-wave (or a multiple thereof ) it is a true
half-wave multiple only on one frequency in that band. On a slightly different frequency the line will not
represent the true feedpoint impedance of the antenna. The line is only “impedance transparent” when
lossless and when an exact multiple of 1/2 wl. The longer the transmission line in wavelengths, the “more
length critical” it becomes and the less accurate measurements become.

4.) If the feedline is not an exact multiple of 1/4 wl, the resonant frequency of the antenna might be shifted higher
or lower by the transmission line. A mismatched non-quarter wave multiple feedline adds reactance that can
cancel antenna reactance at frequencies where the antenna is not resonant.
Multiple antenna and feedline combination resonances commonly occur with dipoles, where reactance
crosses zero (indicating resonance) at some frequency other than the antenna’s actual resonant frequency.
This is a normal effect.

5.) If the line is a 50 ohm line, has no radiation or parallel currents, and if the line has minimal loss, moving the
analyzer to another point on the line will NOT change SWR reading. Impedance and resonant frequency
might change from line transformation effects, but the SWR will not change.

6.) If SWR changes with coaxial line length, line placement, or line grounding (any distance away from the
antenna) changes, the feedline has one or more of the following shortfalls:

a.) The feedline is carrying common mode current and radiating.
b.) The feedline is not a 50 ohm line.
c.) The feedline has high loss.

A common misconception is that changing a feedlines length will change SWR. If the
impedance of a feedline is 50 ohms and the load impedance is 25 ohms the SWR will remain
2:1 as the feedline length changes. If line loss is low it is perfectly acceptable to make SWR
measurements at the transmitter end of the feedline. The feedline does not have to be any
particular length. However, as line loss increases, and as SWR increases, more error is
introduced into the SWR reading. The error causes the measured SWR reading to appear
better than the actual SWR at the antenna.

*added by Homer for clarity.
 
I have found that long coax runs are friendlier to SWR readings than a hooker on Friday night. Operationally, nothing substitutes a good feed line quality as close to the shack as is possible. Someone correct me if possible.

This is correct.

ARRL 2013 Handbook said:
For example,, RG-213 solid-dielectric coax cable exhibits a matched-line loss at 28 MHz of 1.14 dB per 100 ft. A 250-ft length of this cable has a matched line loss of 1.14 x 250/100 = 2.86 dB. Assume that we measure the SWR at the load end as 6:1, the total mismatched line loss from equasion 11 is 5.32 dB.

The additional loss due to a 6:1 SWR at 28 MHz is 5.32 - 2.86 = 2.46 dB. The SWR at the input of the 250-ft line is only 2.2:1, because line loss has masked the true magnitude of SWR (6:1) at the load end of the line.

A little further down:

ARRL 2013 Handbook said:
A 250-ft length of RG-58A has a total matched line loss of 7.0 dB. With a 6:1 SWR at the load, the additional loss due to SWR is 3.0 dB, for a total loss of 10 dB. The additional cable loss due to the mismatch reduces the SWR measured at the input of the line to 1.33:1. An unsuspecting operator measuring SWR at his transmitter might well believe that everything is just fine, when in truth only about 10% of the transmitter power is getting to the antenna!

It then continues with good advice:

ARRL 2013 Handbook said:
Be suspicious of very low SWR readings for an antenna fed with a long length of coaxial cable, especially if the SWR remains low across a wide frequency range. Most antennas have narrow SWR bandwidths, and the SWR should change across the band.

Just remember that everything between the meter and the antenna affect the results displayed on the meter. While there are uses to a half wavelength of coax it does have an effect on the readings, however little it may be. That being said, if I can't take a measurement at the antenna itself a half wavelength of coax is often the next best thing.


The DB
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
marconi , can you share what you found with your Autek VA1 ?

Well Booty that is possible if I was up to doing all the iterations I've done before using my VA1. However I wanted to try, with your help, to make my point without confusing the discussion with analyzer stuff.

My idea came from considering all this using the analyzer, but I think there is proof to be had using an in line SWR meter as well. I'm not up to that either. This is why I asked for your help as long as you would be doing the work anyway.

That analyzer process is a bit complicated and detailed, so I've considered to do a video, and thus far that has not turned out like I wanted. I finished the analyzer to dummy load information where I tested the load results attached directly to my VA1 and then using my tuned 1/2 wave line, a 3' foot jumper, and a 150' feed line, as posted below.

View attachment Dummy Load Report 112212.pdf

However, when I got to this point in the video, where I was going to test the analyzer connected through my tuned 27.205 mhz 1/2 wave line, using my 49.9 ohm 1% and 150 ohm 1% resistors, I ran into trouble with my shaking hands trying to making a good connection to the other end of the coax jumper with these little resistors. I may have to take one connector off of one end so I can make a good connection with these small alligator clips.

Value of R.JPG
Resistive value "R"

Value of X.JPG
Reactive value "X"

This high value is likely due to the added length of the connections, and the extra wire on the load. However with that said note how good the value of Z still remains. With this kind of load results one might still see a good match at the transmitter end of the line. You'll have to really think about that one, but I think TheDB pointed this out in one of his ARRL items even if his point had to do with a long feed line hiding the true SWR.

IMO, a good resistive value can generate a good SWR indication, regardless of the reactive mismatch an antenna can manifests. IMO, this theory for the EL1/2 wave line is more complicated than the typical CB idea presents. I also think it is as easy to tune using a random feed line to get close to the antenna feed point...as it does using a tuned jumper. Just my opinion.

Value of Z.JPG
Z value "Z"

This is not the way I wanted to present my idea, and for sure it is not complete or conclusive, but you asked for what my analyzer showed. I also had to change batteries in the middle of this work, so that too is likely to have an effect.
 
Last edited:
FWIW I always use a 1/2 wave of coax whenever possible when tuning an antenna. I have cables made up just for that purpose. I have electrical 1/2 wave cables made up for 6,10,15,20,40, and 80m. Cable is simply some cheap RG-8X I bought when Radio Shack was dumping it for $0.05/foot. I bought a couple 500 foot rolls. This technique has never failed me. If I can get an antenna up at least an electrical half-wavelength high for tuning the end result in the air is always within jack-squat of the reading obtained nearer the ground. It is impossible to take meaningful readings of the majority of directional antennas when they are in their final operating locations as it is often impossible to reach the feedpoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
i don't understand analyzers as much as i'd like to . but i get the impression that fine tuning on typical monoband cb antennas with a analyzer vs. a vswr meter doesn't make a difference that's detectable buy most users if the vswr meter was pretty happy to start with . they do look like a fun tool/toy though .

i'm sorry i can't help you ATM and also sorry you're having trouble testing things yourself . i know it sucks when things hurt or don't work the way they used to !!!! maybe there's someone/folks here that can help with testing your ideas and sharing their results ...... when i get my stuff back up i'll be willing to help too .
 
FWIW I always use a 1/2 wave of coax whenever possible when tuning an antenna. I have cables made up just for that purpose. I have electrical 1/2 wave cables made up for 6,10,15,20,40, and 80m. Cable is simply some cheap RG-8X I bought when Radio Shack was dumping it for $0.05/foot. I bought a couple 500 foot rolls. This technique has never failed me. If I can get an antenna up at least an electrical half-wavelength high for tuning the end result in the air is always within jack-squat of the reading obtained nearer the ground. It is impossible to take meaningful readings of the majority of directional antennas when they are in their final operating locations as it is often impossible to reach the feedpoint.

CK, I've done the same may times, but I just never found a big difference with the results I got, or trouble using a random feed line length to get to the same point.

But that said, I always went a step farther to make sure I was resonant too, and I didn't just depend on a good match that I found somewhere...even when using an SWR meter. Of course I found, on most occasions, that using an analyzer was a much better tool...when used for more than just looking for a good SWR reading.

I've also heard reports that it is not a good idea to use a resonant feed line of any length. I know the claims for doing so, but I have not experience bad results, as a consequence, I don't think.

So, I'm not too sure about that idea either.
 

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!!!!!