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.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

I'll admit my curiosity is present concerning alternate matching methods on this antenna. When you consider all of the various way to match antennas, it's somewhat of an art to determine what method is really the best for a given application or design goal. I've tried a few different ways to match this design. If your goal is to achieve maximum gain over a relatively narrow frequency range (+ or - 5% of the tuned frequency) a well designed gamma match has shown me the most gain so far.

Other matching networks could show improved bandwidth however, one would expect this to come at the slight expense of gain over the wider bandwidth. If the goal was to cover 10 and 11 meters and the loss in gain was a few tenths of a db, this would be excellent design practice. Someone that stays parked on one frequency might think otherwise.

My main question would be what are you trying to achieve by using other matching networks? Without knowing this, I can't even begin to speculate on how successful any variation in design would be. From just looking at this picture, there is one detail that you could change to improve performance in your project. Add the fourth radial to the coaxial cone.

Since the radiation currents on the radials are divided equally into the total number of radials, adding another will not increase the total amount of constructive radiation emitted from the cone. The fourth radial does a better job at confining the deconstructive currents that would be radiated from the bottom 1/4 wave of the vertical radiator.

<blockquote data-quote="Shockwave" data-source="post: 284696" data-attributes="member: 10882">I&#039;ll admit my curiosity is present concerning alternate matching methods on this antenna. When you consider all of the various way to match antennas, it&#039;s somewhat of an art to determine what method is really the best for a given application or design goal. I&#039;ve tried a few different ways to match this design. If your goal is to achieve maximum gain over a relatively narrow frequency range (+ or - 5% of the tuned frequency) a well designed gamma match has shown me the most gain so far. Other matching networks could show improved bandwidth however, one would expect this to come at the slight expense of gain over the wider bandwidth. If the goal was to cover 10 and 11 meters and the loss in gain was a few tenths of a db, this would be excellent design practice. Someone that stays parked on one frequency might think otherwise.My main question would be what are you trying to achieve by using other matching networks? Without knowing this, I can&#039;t even begin to speculate on how successful any variation in design would be. From just looking at this picture, there is one detail that you could change to improve performance in your project. Add the fourth radial to the coaxial cone.Since the radiation currents on the radials are divided equally into the total number of radials, adding another will not increase the total amount of constructive radiation emitted from the cone. The fourth radial does a better job at confining the deconstructive currents that would be radiated from the bottom 1/4 wave of the vertical radiator.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shockwave, post: 284696, member: 10882"] I'll admit my curiosity is present concerning alternate matching methods on this antenna. When you consider all of the various way to match antennas, it's somewhat of an art to determine what method is really the best for a given application or design goal. I've tried a few different ways to match this design. If your goal is to achieve maximum gain over a relatively narrow frequency range (+ or - 5% of the tuned frequency) a well designed gamma match has shown me the most gain so far. Other matching networks could show improved bandwidth however, one would expect this to come at the slight expense of gain over the wider bandwidth. If the goal was to cover 10 and 11 meters and the loss in gain was a few tenths of a db, this would be excellent design practice. Someone that stays parked on one frequency might think otherwise. My main question would be what are you trying to achieve by using other matching networks? Without knowing this, I can't even begin to speculate on how successful any variation in design would be. From just looking at this picture, there is one detail that you could change to improve performance in your project. Add the fourth radial to the coaxial cone. Since the radiation currents on the radials are divided equally into the total number of radials, adding another will not increase the total amount of constructive radiation emitted from the cone. The fourth radial does a better job at confining the deconstructive currents that would be radiated from the bottom 1/4 wave of the vertical radiator. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom