**Next message:**Ted Kell: "Where is Errata #1"**Previous message:**Walt_Englund-RRGT70@email.sps.mot.com: "[1]QRP-L digest 133"**In reply to:**Mont Pierce: "Re: Is RG-59 ok for feedline?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*> When I first became a ham, 20 years ago, we always used RG-59 for dipoles
*

*> and RG-58 for verticals. If I remember right, a straight dipole is
*

*> actually about 72 ohms impedance. Then, as the dipole elements change
*

*> angles, the impedance lowers. A Vertical antenna with radials at 90
*

*> degrees is actually about 34 ohms impedance.
*

There's two issues. Probably the most important one is that, as you point

out, modern transistor rigs are designed for a fixed 50-ohm load, which implies

50 ohm coax coming out of the rig (though 75-ohm coax is only 1.5:1 SWR!).

Next, the impedance of a dipole *in free space* is 72 ohms; closer than about

4 wavelengths to a ground plane (like the ground) the impedance changes,

starting out around 20 ohms for around 1/8 wave above ground, peaking around

100 ohms at some height I've forgotten, and then oscillating around 72 ohms

with lessening amplitude until you get sufficiently far away. (There's a

diagram of this in the ARRL Handbook.) The usual rule of thumb is that a

dipole at "typical" amateur elevations is actually around 50 ohms, but I

think that's just an excuse to validate calling it 50 ohms; that's the most

height-sensitive portion of the curve, and I don't recall the requisite height

for exactly (or even nearly) 50 ohms being any more obviously typical than

any other impedance (in fact, for 10 meters, I think well above 72 ohms is

not out of the question for many perfectly reasonable installations!).

72 ohm coax feeding a "50" ohm antenna to a "50 ohm" rig might end up

presenting the rig with an embarassingly reactive load; if you can get your

dipole WAY up in the air, 72 ohm coax to a 72 ohm antenna from a "50 ohm"

rig will be a better match than many people achieve using 50 ohm coax and hope.

72, John, WB7EEL

**Next message:**Ted Kell: "Where is Errata #1"**Previous message:**Walt_Englund-RRGT70@email.sps.mot.com: "[1]QRP-L digest 133"**In reply to:**Mont Pierce: "Re: Is RG-59 ok for feedline?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

**[
QRP-L Archive |
] [
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
] **