Fan dipole radiation pattern
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm looking at dual band (2 m & 70 cm) antenna designs for my next project. A very interesting one to me is the Mighty Woof, which is essentially a fan dipole made of copper pipe.
Would the extra elements in this antenna affect the radiation pattern at all, or should it have essentially the same pattern as a regular dipole?
antenna-theory parallel-dipole
edited Nov 13 at 23:25
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
asked Nov 13 at 20:51
mrog
24519
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm looking at dual band (2 m & 70 cm) antenna designs for my next project. A very interesting one to me is the Mighty Woof, which is essentially a fan dipole made of copper pipe.
Would the extra elements in this antenna affect the radiation pattern at all, or should it have essentially the same pattern as a regular dipole?
antenna-theory parallel-dipole
edited Nov 13 at 23:25
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
asked Nov 13 at 20:51
mrog
24519
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm looking at dual band (2 m & 70 cm) antenna designs for my next project. A very interesting one to me is the Mighty Woof, which is essentially a fan dipole made of copper pipe.
Would the extra elements in this antenna affect the radiation pattern at all, or should it have essentially the same pattern as a regular dipole?
antenna-theory parallel-dipole
edited Nov 13 at 23:25
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
asked Nov 13 at 20:51
mrog
24519
I'm looking at dual band (2 m & 70 cm) antenna designs for my next project. A very interesting one to me is the Mighty Woof, which is essentially a fan dipole made of copper pipe.
Would the extra elements in this antenna affect the radiation pattern at all, or should it have essentially the same pattern as a regular dipole?
antenna-theory parallel-dipole
antenna-theory parallel-dipole
edited Nov 13 at 23:25
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
asked Nov 13 at 20:51
mrog
24519
edited Nov 13 at 23:25
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
asked Nov 13 at 20:51
mrog
24519
edited Nov 13 at 23:25
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
edited Nov 13 at 23:25
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
edited Nov 13 at 23:25
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
2,6572533
asked Nov 13 at 20:51
mrog
24519
asked Nov 13 at 20:51
mrog
24519
asked Nov 13 at 20:51
mrog
24519
24519
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The Mighty Woof article seems to indicate that those are 1/2WL fan dipoles. Two fan dipoles will interfere if one of the dipoles is resonant on both bands. Unfortunately, 144-148 times three is 432-444 so a 1/2WL dipole on 2m will be a resonant 3/2WL "dipole" in parallel with a 1/2WL dipole on 70cm. It would be akin to having a fan dipole for 40m/15m on HF which I just modeled and the radiation pattern is cloverleaf. Most hams don't attempt a 40m/15m fan dipole - they just use the 40m dipole on 15m and live with the cloverleaf pattern. Seems a 1/2WL horizontal dipole used on 2m would work on 70cm the same way. If it is rotatable, you would have to remember to aim it 45 degrees from broadside on 70cm. However, if this antenna is used as a vertical, it will suffer the same fate as using a 2m 1/4WL vertical on 70cm, i.e. the take off angle will be high, something that considerably reduces the effectiveness on VHF/UHF.
answered Nov 14 at 0:03
w5dxp
1864
New contributor
w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Great to see you active on SE, Cecil. You are a welcomed contributor.
– Glenn W9IQ
Nov 14 at 0:54
@w5dxp If I understand your answer correctly, it has basically the same radiation pattern as a traditional 2 m dipole. Is that accurate? I like that it has a low SWR on both bands and it's relatively compact, but I need an omnidirectional antenna I can use for working stations close to the horizon on both bands. Maybe I need to pick a different design like the DBJ-1.
– mrog
Nov 14 at 17:51
About 1/3 of the power goes into the 2m dipole on 70cm. That is enough to raise the take off angle to an undesirable value. It will "work" but not as well as a 70 cm dipole all by itself.
– w5dxp
Nov 15 at 2:36
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Basically, fan dipoles should have similar patterns, as only one dipole is resonant at a time.
However, individual dipoles in any arrangement where they all share a common feedpoint should be spaced far enough apart from each other so as to minimize the interaction between them. Whether the design that you mention has them far enough apart would have to be determined by modeling.
Note that in this case, they are nearly harmonically related (3*146.6=440).
answered Nov 13 at 22:39
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
There have been many questions about fan dipoles answered here. You may find one of them in this list of search results helpful.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:18
Here is a question I asked about modeling a fan dipole with some helpful answers along with a sample .ez file. Sorry I don't have time to do it.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:32
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The Mighty Woof article seems to indicate that those are 1/2WL fan dipoles. Two fan dipoles will interfere if one of the dipoles is resonant on both bands. Unfortunately, 144-148 times three is 432-444 so a 1/2WL dipole on 2m will be a resonant 3/2WL "dipole" in parallel with a 1/2WL dipole on 70cm. It would be akin to having a fan dipole for 40m/15m on HF which I just modeled and the radiation pattern is cloverleaf. Most hams don't attempt a 40m/15m fan dipole - they just use the 40m dipole on 15m and live with the cloverleaf pattern. Seems a 1/2WL horizontal dipole used on 2m would work on 70cm the same way. If it is rotatable, you would have to remember to aim it 45 degrees from broadside on 70cm. However, if this antenna is used as a vertical, it will suffer the same fate as using a 2m 1/4WL vertical on 70cm, i.e. the take off angle will be high, something that considerably reduces the effectiveness on VHF/UHF.
answered Nov 14 at 0:03
w5dxp
1864
New contributor
w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Great to see you active on SE, Cecil. You are a welcomed contributor.
– Glenn W9IQ
Nov 14 at 0:54
@w5dxp If I understand your answer correctly, it has basically the same radiation pattern as a traditional 2 m dipole. Is that accurate? I like that it has a low SWR on both bands and it's relatively compact, but I need an omnidirectional antenna I can use for working stations close to the horizon on both bands. Maybe I need to pick a different design like the DBJ-1.
– mrog
Nov 14 at 17:51
About 1/3 of the power goes into the 2m dipole on 70cm. That is enough to raise the take off angle to an undesirable value. It will "work" but not as well as a 70 cm dipole all by itself.
– w5dxp
Nov 15 at 2:36
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The Mighty Woof article seems to indicate that those are 1/2WL fan dipoles. Two fan dipoles will interfere if one of the dipoles is resonant on both bands. Unfortunately, 144-148 times three is 432-444 so a 1/2WL dipole on 2m will be a resonant 3/2WL "dipole" in parallel with a 1/2WL dipole on 70cm. It would be akin to having a fan dipole for 40m/15m on HF which I just modeled and the radiation pattern is cloverleaf. Most hams don't attempt a 40m/15m fan dipole - they just use the 40m dipole on 15m and live with the cloverleaf pattern. Seems a 1/2WL horizontal dipole used on 2m would work on 70cm the same way. If it is rotatable, you would have to remember to aim it 45 degrees from broadside on 70cm. However, if this antenna is used as a vertical, it will suffer the same fate as using a 2m 1/4WL vertical on 70cm, i.e. the take off angle will be high, something that considerably reduces the effectiveness on VHF/UHF.
answered Nov 14 at 0:03
w5dxp
1864
New contributor
w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Great to see you active on SE, Cecil. You are a welcomed contributor.
– Glenn W9IQ
Nov 14 at 0:54
@w5dxp If I understand your answer correctly, it has basically the same radiation pattern as a traditional 2 m dipole. Is that accurate? I like that it has a low SWR on both bands and it's relatively compact, but I need an omnidirectional antenna I can use for working stations close to the horizon on both bands. Maybe I need to pick a different design like the DBJ-1.
– mrog
Nov 14 at 17:51
About 1/3 of the power goes into the 2m dipole on 70cm. That is enough to raise the take off angle to an undesirable value. It will "work" but not as well as a 70 cm dipole all by itself.
– w5dxp
Nov 15 at 2:36
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The Mighty Woof article seems to indicate that those are 1/2WL fan dipoles. Two fan dipoles will interfere if one of the dipoles is resonant on both bands. Unfortunately, 144-148 times three is 432-444 so a 1/2WL dipole on 2m will be a resonant 3/2WL "dipole" in parallel with a 1/2WL dipole on 70cm. It would be akin to having a fan dipole for 40m/15m on HF which I just modeled and the radiation pattern is cloverleaf. Most hams don't attempt a 40m/15m fan dipole - they just use the 40m dipole on 15m and live with the cloverleaf pattern. Seems a 1/2WL horizontal dipole used on 2m would work on 70cm the same way. If it is rotatable, you would have to remember to aim it 45 degrees from broadside on 70cm. However, if this antenna is used as a vertical, it will suffer the same fate as using a 2m 1/4WL vertical on 70cm, i.e. the take off angle will be high, something that considerably reduces the effectiveness on VHF/UHF.
answered Nov 14 at 0:03
w5dxp
1864
New contributor
w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The Mighty Woof article seems to indicate that those are 1/2WL fan dipoles. Two fan dipoles will interfere if one of the dipoles is resonant on both bands. Unfortunately, 144-148 times three is 432-444 so a 1/2WL dipole on 2m will be a resonant 3/2WL "dipole" in parallel with a 1/2WL dipole on 70cm. It would be akin to having a fan dipole for 40m/15m on HF which I just modeled and the radiation pattern is cloverleaf. Most hams don't attempt a 40m/15m fan dipole - they just use the 40m dipole on 15m and live with the cloverleaf pattern. Seems a 1/2WL horizontal dipole used on 2m would work on 70cm the same way. If it is rotatable, you would have to remember to aim it 45 degrees from broadside on 70cm. However, if this antenna is used as a vertical, it will suffer the same fate as using a 2m 1/4WL vertical on 70cm, i.e. the take off angle will be high, something that considerably reduces the effectiveness on VHF/UHF.
answered Nov 14 at 0:03
w5dxp
1864
New contributor
w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Nov 14 at 0:03
w5dxp
1864
New contributor
w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Nov 14 at 0:03
w5dxp
1864
answered Nov 14 at 0:03
w5dxp
1864
1864
New contributor
w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Great to see you active on SE, Cecil. You are a welcomed contributor.
– Glenn W9IQ
Nov 14 at 0:54
@w5dxp If I understand your answer correctly, it has basically the same radiation pattern as a traditional 2 m dipole. Is that accurate? I like that it has a low SWR on both bands and it's relatively compact, but I need an omnidirectional antenna I can use for working stations close to the horizon on both bands. Maybe I need to pick a different design like the DBJ-1.
– mrog
Nov 14 at 17:51
About 1/3 of the power goes into the 2m dipole on 70cm. That is enough to raise the take off angle to an undesirable value. It will "work" but not as well as a 70 cm dipole all by itself.
– w5dxp
Nov 15 at 2:36
add a comment |
2
Great to see you active on SE, Cecil. You are a welcomed contributor.
– Glenn W9IQ
Nov 14 at 0:54
@w5dxp If I understand your answer correctly, it has basically the same radiation pattern as a traditional 2 m dipole. Is that accurate? I like that it has a low SWR on both bands and it's relatively compact, but I need an omnidirectional antenna I can use for working stations close to the horizon on both bands. Maybe I need to pick a different design like the DBJ-1.
– mrog
Nov 14 at 17:51
About 1/3 of the power goes into the 2m dipole on 70cm. That is enough to raise the take off angle to an undesirable value. It will "work" but not as well as a 70 cm dipole all by itself.
– w5dxp
Nov 15 at 2:36
2
2
Great to see you active on SE, Cecil. You are a welcomed contributor.
– Glenn W9IQ
Nov 14 at 0:54
Great to see you active on SE, Cecil. You are a welcomed contributor.
– Glenn W9IQ
Nov 14 at 0:54
@w5dxp If I understand your answer correctly, it has basically the same radiation pattern as a traditional 2 m dipole. Is that accurate? I like that it has a low SWR on both bands and it's relatively compact, but I need an omnidirectional antenna I can use for working stations close to the horizon on both bands. Maybe I need to pick a different design like the DBJ-1.
– mrog
Nov 14 at 17:51
@w5dxp If I understand your answer correctly, it has basically the same radiation pattern as a traditional 2 m dipole. Is that accurate? I like that it has a low SWR on both bands and it's relatively compact, but I need an omnidirectional antenna I can use for working stations close to the horizon on both bands. Maybe I need to pick a different design like the DBJ-1.
– mrog
Nov 14 at 17:51
About 1/3 of the power goes into the 2m dipole on 70cm. That is enough to raise the take off angle to an undesirable value. It will "work" but not as well as a 70 cm dipole all by itself.
– w5dxp
Nov 15 at 2:36
About 1/3 of the power goes into the 2m dipole on 70cm. That is enough to raise the take off angle to an undesirable value. It will "work" but not as well as a 70 cm dipole all by itself.
– w5dxp
Nov 15 at 2:36
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Basically, fan dipoles should have similar patterns, as only one dipole is resonant at a time.
However, individual dipoles in any arrangement where they all share a common feedpoint should be spaced far enough apart from each other so as to minimize the interaction between them. Whether the design that you mention has them far enough apart would have to be determined by modeling.
Note that in this case, they are nearly harmonically related (3*146.6=440).
answered Nov 13 at 22:39
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
There have been many questions about fan dipoles answered here. You may find one of them in this list of search results helpful.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:18
Here is a question I asked about modeling a fan dipole with some helpful answers along with a sample .ez file. Sorry I don't have time to do it.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:32
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Basically, fan dipoles should have similar patterns, as only one dipole is resonant at a time.
However, individual dipoles in any arrangement where they all share a common feedpoint should be spaced far enough apart from each other so as to minimize the interaction between them. Whether the design that you mention has them far enough apart would have to be determined by modeling.
Note that in this case, they are nearly harmonically related (3*146.6=440).
answered Nov 13 at 22:39
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
There have been many questions about fan dipoles answered here. You may find one of them in this list of search results helpful.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:18
Here is a question I asked about modeling a fan dipole with some helpful answers along with a sample .ez file. Sorry I don't have time to do it.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:32
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Basically, fan dipoles should have similar patterns, as only one dipole is resonant at a time.
However, individual dipoles in any arrangement where they all share a common feedpoint should be spaced far enough apart from each other so as to minimize the interaction between them. Whether the design that you mention has them far enough apart would have to be determined by modeling.
Note that in this case, they are nearly harmonically related (3*146.6=440).
answered Nov 13 at 22:39
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
Basically, fan dipoles should have similar patterns, as only one dipole is resonant at a time.
However, individual dipoles in any arrangement where they all share a common feedpoint should be spaced far enough apart from each other so as to minimize the interaction between them. Whether the design that you mention has them far enough apart would have to be determined by modeling.
Note that in this case, they are nearly harmonically related (3*146.6=440).
answered Nov 13 at 22:39
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
edited Nov 13 at 23:20
answered Nov 13 at 22:39
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
answered Nov 13 at 22:39
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
answered Nov 13 at 22:39
Mike Waters♦
2,6572533
2,6572533
There have been many questions about fan dipoles answered here. You may find one of them in this list of search results helpful.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:18
Here is a question I asked about modeling a fan dipole with some helpful answers along with a sample .ez file. Sorry I don't have time to do it.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:32
add a comment |
There have been many questions about fan dipoles answered here. You may find one of them in this list of search results helpful.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:18
Here is a question I asked about modeling a fan dipole with some helpful answers along with a sample .ez file. Sorry I don't have time to do it.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:32
There have been many questions about fan dipoles answered here. You may find one of them in this list of search results helpful.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:18
There have been many questions about fan dipoles answered here. You may find one of them in this list of search results helpful.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:18
Here is a question I asked about modeling a fan dipole with some helpful answers along with a sample .ez file. Sorry I don't have time to do it.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:32
Here is a question I asked about modeling a fan dipole with some helpful answers along with a sample .ez file. Sorry I don't have time to do it.
– Mike Waters♦
Nov 13 at 23:32
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f12239%2ffan-dipole-radiation-pattern%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
