Homemade dipole antennas for 2.4ghz

Was looking over this post because I wanted to check out the repair I did to my broken dipole. When I got the complete opposite results, not only on the repaired one but also on all my other dipoles. They all had continuity at all points checked, no zero ohms. Come to realize the dipole you made was a "simple dipole" and the one we started talking about in the other thread (the $50 one) was a Bazooka dipole antenna. Wired completely differently, something like this.
doublebaz.GIF


Ahh. I see. This is how the "Birdside version 2" are wired up also. It is also known as a "folded dipole". Thanks for sharing.

Folded_dipole.gif
 
Great work. My cable will be here tomorrow and I have Tuesday off work, so you know what I'll be doing. LOL

I wanted to do a "before" test tonight, out over the lake..... but it's crazy foggy here today. I just drove home 3 miles and you couldn't even see 20 feet in front of the truck. Very unusual for my area.
Anybody know if it would be ok to continue making dipoles like this.
The cable has no jacket but the outer shield is like a solid tube that i can solder to. Would make for far more accurate construction.
Does the outer shield need to have a jacket and would it cause any problems not having one.

Thanks in advance.
1493842983052.jpg
1493842990175.jpg
 
Yes, they will work fine like that.
Thanks for confirming that pal.

A **** up with the post had me waiting 3 months for the cables. I ordered when this thread was active and they just arrived today and guess what, murphys law,chinaRF put replacements in the post... TODAY.
Not even sure if i want to install them now
 
Anybody know if it would be ok to continue making dipoles like this.
The cable has no jacket but the outer shield is like a solid tube that i can solder to. Would make for far more accurate construction.
Does the outer shield need to have a jacket and would it cause any problems not having one.

Thanks in advance.View attachment 81577View attachment 81578

Agree it's fine. In fact we often go beyond and use rigid coax for constructing our reference antennas.
The only risk, in rare cases, is shorting to other circuits in some applications due to the lack of external insulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shanek
Agree it's fine. In fact we often go beyond and use rigid coax for constructing our reference antennas.
The only risk, in rare cases, is shorting to other circuits in some applications due to the lack of external insulation.
Sorry to keep reviving an old thread but i need more info. I quoted you no17rw in the hope youll reply.
Is there a maximum thickness i can make the shield of my dipoles/will thicker shields reduce effectivness?

The first ones i made are quite flimsey,a piece of cable tie heatshrinked along the antennas to keep them in line, so i made more a more sturdy set,
Hot glued antenna to cable tie then larger,thicker heatshrink and when heated the glue and heatshrink kinda combined to give a solid shield around the antenna.
Do you see any issues with this regarding penetration?

Thanks for any replies
 
Sorry to keep reviving an old thread but i need more info. I quoted you no17rw in the hope youll reply.
Is there a maximum thickness i can make the shield of my dipoles/will thicker shields reduce effectivness?

The first ones i made are quite flimsey,a piece of cable tie heatshrinked along the antennas to keep them in line, so i made more a more sturdy set,
Hot glued antenna to cable tie then larger,thicker heatshrink and when heated the glue and heatshrink kinda combined to give a solid shield around the antenna.
Do you see any issues with this regarding penetration?

Thanks for any replies

So long as the materials are non-metallic it's not a problem. Anything can be overdone but this should be fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shanek
One year old BUMP! Matt are you still making these?
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic