Talk:T2FD antenna

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I can't understand why the claim that the T2FD is relatively immune to local electrical noise is 'disputed'. Any balanced-feed antenna will by definition 'phase-out' local electromagnetic noise - at least from the broadside direction. This antenna works, by the way. The small size (and especially the resistor) make it look like a dummy load on paper, but it isn't, (and I don't know why either! :-). It works even better if you stick a big piece of insulating tape over the 'S' meter and just listen. Chris G4PDJ (Contact via qrz) 08:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Removed technically naive qualification re. ATU as passband filter"

Hmmm...A bit of a sudden removal, but I won't bother putting it back in. I still think that (although not essential) the use of an ATU is worthwhile, especially with modern-day solid state rigs. The T2FD is very broadband, but can still present a considerable SWR at certain frequencies (mine ranges between about 2:1 and 3.5:1, which is not 'high', but still enough to cause some PA protection circuits to 'throttle back'). Obviously an ATU is not going to do as good a job of harmonic suppression or recieve preselection as a proper tuneable band-pass filter would, but it's better than nothing, as this antenna will by definition radiate just about anything that comes up the feeder. A fairly cheap and cheerful coaxial ATU will do (maybe even replace the 'Ant' socket with a 75 Ohm connector for that finishing touch). In most cases the SWR should be low enough to fall within the range of an auto-tuner too. (ChrisG4PDJ) 160.84.253.241 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris, I stand my ground. ATUs are not designed as passband filters. Even in a lowpass-type ATU like an unbalanced pi-section with capacitance to ground and inductance on the signal path, you may end up with a great match that adds nothing in term of filtering. If the match is good to start with (not granted, but possible with this antenna, a low C - low L - low C, i.e. an almost-bypass setting would give you good SWR. Another matter: lots of people equate mismatch woth harmonics - yes, there is indeed a relationship on various levels, yet it's a weak one. You can have horrendous SWR but no harmonics, and also plenty of harmonics but not enough mismatch to look worrisome at the SWR bridge. Even worse, I have a very effective 26-30MHz t-section ATU with L to ground and C's in and out - that's a HIGH pass filter. The edit I removed even contained an indication that a broadband antenna is more likely to radiate spurs such as harmonics compared to a resonant one. Apart from being an inefficient way of suppressing harmonics, relying on antenna response to do so would even be illegal in some jurisdictions. Having said that, I occasionally DO use an ATU for transmitting with a T2FD, not for harmonics only but to protect an extremely old and fragile non-self-throttling solid state rig - just as you said. :-)

Regarding the folded dipole picture I just removed (July 14, 2008) - T2DF is broadband, folded dipole is resonant - the depicted folded dipole showed a roughly 300-Ohm BALANCED antenna connected to an UNBALANCED, and generally lower impedance coaxial cable, both very bad ideas (impedance mismatch), and worse (poor antenna-coax insulation) the higher the operating frequency, so even as a folded dipole proper, it's a technically misleading drawing.

To be totally nitpicking, both should be referred to as antenna + feed systems, although it's normal to use the part (antenna) for the whole. In both cases the antenna proper is just the wire portion, and lead, balun, resistor, insulators, wires etc. are just the things you add to keep the wire in the right shape and to properly bring the electric signal to the antenna or away from it.

Sorry! The two names are rather false friends, although the two antennas look much the same.

DOES ANYONE HAVE A T2FD DRAWING WITH AN APPROPRIATE COPYRIGHT SITUATION? Spamhog (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You dear Spamhog. I understand your point perfectly, and agree/know/and have done since the 1960s that an ATU will obviously not do anything like as good a job as a bandpass filter. I just have difficulty understanding your logic ("Don't use anything because an ATU is not as good as a bandpass filter"). It's a 'Counsel of Perfection' like 'Walk, and never drive a Ford because a Ferrari is better'. In the real world, and in this day and age, we all know that it shouldn't really be necessary to use anything to suppress harmonics, because a modern-day transmitter should hardly emit any in the first place. But even a first-day SWL knows that 'wanted' signals increase in strength if you adjust the ATU and 'unwanted' signals get weaker. So (unless somebody has invented electricity that works differently in different directions) there must be some degree of attenuation. I was just tailoring my words to suit modern-day reality...Most Hams who would feel the need to consult a 'semi-layman' page like this are just looking for a quick-and-easy guide as to how to knock together a T2FD before simply hooking their ready-made Japanese box up to it via an auto-tuner. So...lets not get bogged-down by a disagreement about harmonics which shouldn't even be there in the first place, but just say that "The use of an ATU may be beneficial with modern solid-state transmitters". ChrisRed (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. For indoor receive-only T2s; a 1k Carbon-Track (i.e. not wirewound) Pot, superglued at 390 Ohms from track to wiper works just fine. Likewise a standard 300-to-75 Ohm TV balanced line balun like this [[1]] (GB£2 or US$3). Don't forget to use 75 Ohm TV Co-ax, not 50 Ohm. Don't bother with an ATU for receive-only. (G4PDJ) ChrisRed (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Spamhog...Sorry, I haven't checked into this page for a year or two, but that photo you added is magnificent. I've been off the air for a few years owing to living in a succession of rented accommodation, but now I'm 'back in civvy street' will open up the big cardboard box called 'radio stuff' and be coming back on the air soon with CW, PSK31 and a T2FD, whoopee! :-) (G4PDJ / ChrisRed)86.170.182.192 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found another use for ye olde T2FD. Where I am living at the moment there is a lot of electrical noise. I am a QRP operator, and when 'digging-out the weak ones' on 80m CW, I have found that using the outdoor inverted 'L' wire for transmit and the (attic/loft) T2FD - with its lower noise floor - for receive really works. The signals are not massive, but the noise is even less. You can compensate by 'upping' the AF gain and even switching-in the preamp with the T2, which would be excruciating when receiving on the inverted 'L'. It means a quick flick of the ATU antenna selector every time you 'over', but you only need to do it for the really weak ones. Also good for no-antennas 'clandestine' operating - i.e. use the loft T2FD on 7MHz-to-28MHz PSK31/Olivia etc during the day, and 'throw-out' a secret 80m transmitting wire after dark :-) Maybe someone can think of a shorter wording and put it on the page. (Chris G4PDJ/G6CSL) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.2.15 (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Another factor contributing to its fall in popularity was the increasing use of low-impedance 50 Ω antenna feedline, which requires impedance matching at the T²FD feedpoint." Historical non sequitur. 50 ohm coax is of US military derivation. "RG" stands for radio guide. Already in WW2 50 ohm coax was the norm. Imagine the endless fun of distributing a signal via 450 ohm balanced ladder line inside the metallic bowels of a naval vessel. Yes, such a ladder line is a good match to the antenna. Except I bet no one ever used it that way in the navy in the 1940s. Ladder line was rarely, exclusively used for high power transmitting antennas. The most common TX ant was a monopole, generally fed via a step up un-un, low Z coax (high voltage maybe, a hardline), and an ATU. The T2FD was conceived with coax in mind from the start. At best there might have been a balun in a metal box bolted outside the superstructure, ladder on one side, coax on the other. There even are complaints voiced in the ham community in the 40's and 50s for HAVING to use low Z unbalanced on surplus mil gear while the ham tradition was open line to a "doublet". Spamhog (talk)