Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

630m (472 kHz) - 10 m (29 MHz) antennas, propagation, operating, etc
Post Reply
VK4GHZ
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:39 pm
Contact:

Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK4GHZ »

From Randy, K7AGE:
K7AGE wrote:The Technician class has access to a part of the 10 meter amateur radio band. They can operate CW, digital and phone.
Antennas for 10 meters are small and easy to build. A dipole antenna is one of the easiest antennas to build.
The length of the dipole is 468/ frequency in MHz. I made this antenna for 28.3 MHz, which made the antenna 16.5 feet long.
Australian Foundation Calls, take note!
You have access 28.000 - 29.700 MHz, AM, CW, SSB, FM :popcorn:

VK6ZGO
Forum Novice
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:57 pm

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK6ZGO »

I don't think "F"calls should get used to magic formulas like 468/f in MHz which give the length in feet.

We are a metric country,so it is more instructive to use 300/f in MHz, halve it,multiply it by 0.95 for "end effect",& you have it.
After all,it's a halfwave dipole on "10metres",so there is a fair chance it will be around 5metres long.

Back in the day,the "magic formulas" were useful,as they saved some Maths,& the oldtimers were well aware of the relationship between frequency & wavelength,but these days,it is easy to do it "the long way" using a calculator,or an "App",with the advantage that it reinforces your knowledge.

All that said,it is interesting to see how much more generous the allocation to Oz Foundation Hams are,compared to that of the
sorely misnamed "Technician" calls in the USA.
VK2AAH
Forum Diehard
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:23 pm

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK2AAH »

If we are such a metric country why do I wear shoes on my feet?
User avatar
VK3ALB
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:56 am
Location: Geelong

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK3ALB »

VK6ZGO wrote:I don't think "F"calls should get used to magic formulas like 468/f in MHz which give the length in feet.

We are a metric country,so it is more instructive to use 300/f in MHz, halve it,multiply it by 0.95 for "end effect",& you have it.
After all,it's a halfwave dipole on "10metres",so there is a fair chance it will be around 5metres long.
I agree that we should be using 300/f MHz as that is exactly what is in the foundation manual however there's probably plenty of F calls that are quite comfortable with imperial measurements especially if they were born in the 60's or earlier.

There are many designs on the internet and in books that use 468/f but it's easy to convert.

Google tells us that 1 foot = 304.8mm or rounded up = 305mm

So, using the measurements in the video we apply the following

305 x 8.25 = 2516mm rounded down

compared to the nicer alternative of 300/f in MHz

((300/28.3) x 0.95)/4 = 2518mm rounded up

We shouldn't be surprised that the mathematics works.

An F call and I went out with little preparation to participate in a HF contest. We took an untested dipole with us that was "guaranteed" to work on 80m. I also took a 100m roll of building wire with me "just in case".

Well, the gifted dipole didn't present a good VSWR on 80m and in fact looked like it was cut for 4.5MHz. Anyway, with 90 minutes to go we had to get something working on 80m. Applying the method outlined above we had a 80m dipole strung up in 20 minutes that worked a treat.

The F call was amazed that it was so simple to get an antenna going on HF.

So great work Randy. I know there are many hams out there of all classes that don't know or don't trust themselves enough to do something like this. I smile when I see folks singing the praised of their new $300 wire antenna - it ain't that hard to do something with wire for much cheaper.

P.S. I found out later that the other dipole was supposed to be some kind of G5RV. Note to self, don't take untested gear into the field.
Lou - VK3ALB

Being right doesn't excuse bad behaviour
User avatar
VK3YE
Forum Diehard
Posts: 494
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK3YE »

It puzzles me why so many use and tolerate antenna measurements in feet and inches while wavelengths are universally expressed in metres.

Using both units introduces an unneeded complication and obscures the relationship between an antenna's physical length and the wavelength of the band it covers.

Yet this relationship is core to understanding antennas, including scaling them to different frequencies, impedance matching and phasing for directivity.
The same goes for towers and and antenna heights due to radiation patterns varying with height.

Using imperial measurements for tower and antenna lengths is neither professional nor amateur. Instead it's just amateurish. The practice belongs in the bin.
-------------------------
Peter VK3YE http://www.vk3ye.com

NEW FOR 2019! Illustrated International Ham Radio Dictionary. 200 page Kindle ebook. $AU $5.99. Get yours at http://home.alphalink.com.au/~parkerp/dictionary.htm
VK4GHZ
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK4GHZ »

There is space below, after clicking the "Post Reply" button for all the metric experts to post THEIR OWN VIDEO PRODUCTION about building a dipole for 10M! :wink:
VK2AAH
Forum Diehard
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:23 pm

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK2AAH »

So pilots who work in knots are unprofessional to you Peter? I'm sorry, love your work, but on this one I think you are nuts... if I can drive around the US using miles per hour, then cross into Canada and drive using kilometres per hours, why on earth is using imperial measurements and formulae "amateurish"? Many of us grew up learning 468/f(MHz) and the fact that we then convert this into centimeters just goes to show we are adept at mathematics as well... the antenna doesn't work any worse. And as for towers... well many towers were built to imperial measurements... sounds like nothing more than Metric Nazism to me...



Richard
VK2AAH
User avatar
VK3YE
Forum Diehard
Posts: 494
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK3YE »

Ignoring Godwin for a moment, the metric version, length = 143/f, is as easy to remember as 468/f

It also relates better to the half wavelength formula - ie 150/f

It can readily be mentally calculated that 143 is close to 5% less than 150

This gives satisfaction knowing that it's close to the alternative half-wavelength minus 5% approach (which in turn is linked to 300/f in the book for a full wavelength)

The occurrence of such 'aha' moments, when you find that two different methods are merely alternative descriptions of the same thing, is not to be underestimated since it rewards learning. This makes the mountain of radio theory less forbidding, more surmountable and encourages progress.

Sticking to metric avoids unneeded unit conversions, which assists clarity. This is especially worthwhile when you want to train people to confidently build not just one antenna but many for different frequencies at different times.
-------------------------
Peter VK3YE http://www.vk3ye.com

NEW FOR 2019! Illustrated International Ham Radio Dictionary. 200 page Kindle ebook. $AU $5.99. Get yours at http://home.alphalink.com.au/~parkerp/dictionary.htm
VK4TI
Forum Diehard
Posts: 708
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:25 am

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK4TI »

Peter you are showing your youth


many of us were around before the 1960's and work equally badly in both ft and inches and this metric thingy ( it wont last)
also we have both types of music


country and western
VK3UH
Forum Novice
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:03 am

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK3UH »

The best system depends on which measuring tape you can find in the shed when you need it!
VK3BSF

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK3BSF »

I Tried to get telescoping aluminium rods in metric....still can't visualise 190 cm height and... WW2 was won in imperial measurements...so there!
VK6ZGO
Forum Novice
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:57 pm

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK6ZGO »

VK4TI wrote:Peter you are showing your youth


many of us were around before the 1960's and work equally badly in both ft and inches and this metric thingy ( it wont last)
also we have both types of music

country and western
I was born in the 1940s,so that doesn't work with me.

The "Exercise Books" we used in School in the 1950s had both Imperial & metric (mkS--way before SI) information on the back.
The conversions were easy enough if you had an Exercise Book handy! :D

The Oldtimers in the '20s & '30s were well aware of the conversions,& could do them,but they were arduous.
They had to live in a partially Imperial world,so it was just easier to develop the "magic formulas" in order to save time.

It now makes very little sense to convert to Imperial (which is what the formulas do,after all) then have to re-convert to metric because our tape measures are in that system.

Anyway,enough of this -------I'll see you on 800 inches or thereabouts! :D

73,VK6ZGO
VK6ZGO
Forum Novice
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:57 pm

Re: Video: Building a Dipole for 10M

Post by VK6ZGO »

VK3BSF wrote:I Tried to get telescoping aluminium rods in metric....still can't visualise 190 cm height and... WW2 was won in imperial measurements...so there!
But which Imperial measures?
Our 44 gallon drums are 55 gallons in the USA!

We weren't even consistent with the use of one system------Rolls-Royce specified the cubic capacity of the mighty Merlin in "cubic centimetres",or sometimes,in litres.
Post Reply