To: | towertalk@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [TowerTalk] Good vacation antenna |
From: | David Gilbert <ab7echo@gmail.com> |
Date: | Thu, 3 Jul 2025 19:34:53 -0700 |
List-post: | <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com> |
Use the "Currents" data from EZNEC to plot the current profile of a base loaded vertical and compare that to the "Currents" profile of a non-loaded vertical of the same length. Calculate the loss in the base loaded coil and subtract that from the drive level for the example without the base loaded coil. If you can't understand the effect of the difference between the two current profiles I don't know what to say. Or you can take the easy route and just don't believe me. I really don't care. Dave AB7E On 7/3/2025 6:27 PM, john@kk9a.com wrote: You're not alone Wes. I also do not understand how having an inductor at the tuner for an electrically short antenna has a different effect from putting the inductor at the antenna base. John KK9A Wes n7ws wrote: I'll confess some difficulty (probably my failing) in understanding your point(s). To try and simplify the situation to something my pea brain may understand, let's use a toroid at either location. Now tell me what the difference is. Wes N7WS On 7/3/2025 3:39 PM, David Gilbert wrote:Because whatever current is left after the loss in the tuner still makesit tothe antenna but doesn't have a major portion of it compressed inside thecoilwhere it matches and also suffers loss but doesn't radiate. Radiated RFis afunction of BOTH current and length. If it was otherwise we'd all beusingparallel tuned circuits with large coils on 40m instead of aluminum tubesandwires. Dave AB7E On 7/3/2025 2:11 PM, Wes Stewart via TowerTalk wrote:So you move the loading coil from the base of the antenna to insidethetuner in the radio (with some coax in between). How does that affect the radiation efficiency/? On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 01:57:33 PM MST, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:https://www.dxengineering.com/parts/cha-ss25That looks like a great solution, Dave! I strongly suggest against a loading coil for 40M, using a tuner built into the radio instead, with or without some top loading. Loss in short lengths of decent-size coax on 40M is pretty low, even with significant mismatch. An excellent study in QEX about ten years ago showed that inductive loading at the base greatly reduces the radiation efficiency, because it's at the current maxima! The study included the construction of multiple configurations of loading, and very rigorous measurements. 73, Jim K9YC_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [TowerTalk] Good vacation antenna, john |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [TowerTalk] source of interference, Mike Fatchett W0MU |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] Good vacation antenna, john |
Next by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] Good vacation antenna, Mike Fatchett W0MU |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |