Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Never having had a 160m dipole I don't know what sort of bandwidth to
expect. Does anyone have any direct experience of a single band 160m dipole? I just measured the garden at 60m long but taking into account the width I could bend in a full size dipole without it getting too silly looking. Maybe just need to bend back five metres on each end. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gordon Hudson wrote:
Never having had a 160m dipole I don't know what sort of bandwidth to expect. Does anyone have any direct experience of a single band 160m dipole? I just measured the garden at 60m long but taking into account the width I could bend in a full size dipole without it getting too silly looking. Maybe just need to bend back five metres on each end. The bandwidth mainly depends on the height and the wire diameter of the dipole. Some examples, a quick simulation with MMANA: (The bandwidth is the SWR 2 bandwidth, with reference to the impedance at resonance. Note that it is very low at low dipole heights. For example at 10m height and resonance, the input impedance of the dipole is about 8 Ohms only. The given bandwidth assumes that you somehow match that to your transmitter.) Straight 160m Dipole over average ground, no losses, SWR2 BW in kHz height diam 10m 15m 20m 1mm 9 23 37 2mm 10 24 40 4mm 11 25 43 8mm 12 27 46 This sounds pretty narrow, now the same with copper wi height diam 10m 15m 20m 1mm 17 29 44 4mm 14 28 46 This first surprised me: The bandwidth of the 1mm diameter dipole is higher than the 4mm diameter dipole. Only at a height of 20m, the thicker dipole has a better bandwidth. The reason is, that the low dipoles with a low radiation resistance have mich higher currents on them, and by P = I^2*R, the copper losses are higher for the thinner wire. More losses = less Q = more bandwidth. (The above measurements don't take into account that the resonance frequency varied with the height and the diameter of the dipole. All BW figures with respect to resonance frequency.) So, as you see, there is not one easy answer to your question... 73, -- Fabian Kurz, DJ1YFK * Dresden, Germany * http://fkurz.net/ Online Log: http://dl0tud.tu-dresden.de/~dj1yfk/log.html |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 10, 6:26�am, Fabian Kurz wrote:
Gordon Hudson wrote: Never having had a 160m dipole I don't know what sort of bandwidth to expect. Does anyone have any direct experience of a single band 160m dipole? I just measured the garden at 60m long but taking into account the width I could bend in a full size dipole without it getting too silly looking. Maybe just need to bend back five metres on each end. The bandwidth mainly depends on the height and the wire diameter of the dipole. Some examples, a quick simulation with MMANA: (The bandwidth is the SWR 2 bandwidth, with reference to the impedance at resonance. Note that it is very low at low dipole heights. For example at 10m height and resonance, the input impedance of the dipole is about 8 Ohms only. The given bandwidth assumes that you somehow match that to your transmitter.) Straight 160m Dipole over average ground, no losses, SWR2 BW in kHz height diam 10m 15m 20m 1mm 9 23 37 2mm 10 24 40 4mm 11 25 43 8mm 12 27 46 This sounds pretty narrow, now the same with copper wi height diam 10m 15m 20m 1mm 17 29 44 4mm 14 28 46 This first surprised me: The bandwidth of the 1mm diameter dipole is higher than the 4mm diameter dipole. Only at a height of 20m, the thicker dipole has a better bandwidth. The reason is, that the low dipoles with a low radiation resistance have mich higher currents on them, and by P = I^2*R, the copper losses are higher for the thinner wire. More losses = less Q = more bandwidth. (The above measurements don't take into account that the resonance frequency varied with the height and the diameter of the dipole. All BW figures with respect to resonance frequency.) So, as you see, there is not one easy answer to your question... 73, -- Fabian Kurz, DJ1YFK * Dresden, Germany *http://fkurz.net/ Online Log:http://dl0tud.tu-dresden.de/~dj1yfk/log.html Just as a quick, rough comparison, the bandwidth of a lower- frequency dipole is the inverse of the ratio of higher frequency to lower frequency. Not absolutely accurate but close enough. 73, Len AF6AY |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "AF6AY" wrote in message oups.com... On May 10, 6:26?am, Fabian Kurz wrote: Gordon Hudson wrote: Never having had a 160m dipole I don't know what sort of bandwidth to expect. Does anyone have any direct experience of a single band 160m dipole? I just measured the garden at 60m long but taking into account the width I could bend in a full size dipole without it getting too silly looking. Maybe just need to bend back five metres on each end. The bandwidth mainly depends on the height and the wire diameter of the dipole. Some examples, a quick simulation with MMANA: (The bandwidth is the SWR 2 bandwidth, with reference to the impedance at resonance. Note that it is very low at low dipole heights. For example at 10m height and resonance, the input impedance of the dipole is about 8 Ohms only. The given bandwidth assumes that you somehow match that to your transmitter.) Straight 160m Dipole over average ground, no losses, SWR2 BW in kHz height diam 10m 15m 20m 1mm 9 23 37 2mm 10 24 40 4mm 11 25 43 8mm 12 27 46 This sounds pretty narrow, now the same with copper wi height diam 10m 15m 20m 1mm 17 29 44 4mm 14 28 46 This first surprised me: The bandwidth of the 1mm diameter dipole is higher than the 4mm diameter dipole. Only at a height of 20m, the thicker dipole has a better bandwidth. The reason is, that the low dipoles with a low radiation resistance have mich higher currents on them, and by P =^2*R, the copper losses are higher for the thinner wire. More losses =ess Q =ore bandwidth. (The above measurements don't take into account that the resonance frequency varied with the height and the diameter of the dipole. All BW figures with respect to resonance frequency.) So, as you see, there is not one easy answer to your question... 73, -- Fabian Kurz, DJ1YFK * Dresden, Germany *http://fkurz.net/ Online Log:http://dl0tud.tu-dresden.de/~dj1yfk/log.html Just as a quick, rough comparison, the bandwidth of a lower- frequency dipole is the inverse of the ratio of higher frequency to lower frequency. Not absolutely accurate but close enough. 73, Len AF6AY Thanks both, I suspected it would be quite narrow. Gordon GM4SVM |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tweaking 80 meters on multi-band dipole | Antenna | |||
Narrow Band FM bandwidth and channel spacing | Equipment | |||
Multi-band dipole question | Antenna | |||
All Band Coax-fed Dipole ?????????? | Antenna | |||
Adding a 2:1 balun to a multi-band dipole | Antenna |