|
 |
Whip it is it? - RF Cafe Forums
|
| attenuator
|
|
Post subject: Whip it is it?
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:36 pm
|
|
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005
7:29 pm Posts: 13 |
|
I am involved with a RC car club. A typical RC car
consist of a battery, a few servo's for steering
and control functions, and a receiver for accepting
input signals sent by the users hand held control
pad. The receiver in this case operates in the 27
MHz band. Now here is my question. I have noted
a few things that seem inconsistent with standard
text book design practices. The power leads from
the battery to the receiver are very long and of
a small gauge. Ground connections are only from
the battery to the receiver. There is no ground
connection to the metal chassis and this puzzles
me. Should there not be a ground plane for the antenna?
The antenna was the most puzzling of all. It is
a piece of wire with a length of 18 inches. This
length would be something like a 1/18th wave. I
looked up as much info as I could find on the subject
of antenna's to see if I could determine what type
of antenna it is. So what kind of antenna would
a fractional wave piece of wire with no ground plane
be? Would grounding the metal chassis to the battery
ground improve performance? Is there a practical
method to test and verify any modifications?
I appreciate any help you can provide, and thank
you for your time.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
kanling |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:13 am
|
|
| |
| Colonel |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005
4:31 pm Posts: 32 Location: Baltimore, MD
|
|
I think the antenna you are describing is one missed
by many textbooks. It's the "ultra cheap antenna".
I think at that freq. it is impractical to have
a proper tuned antenna without the company spending
a ton of money on r&d. I think they feel the
range is adequate as is.
Your best bet would
be to experiment with different designs and see
which work best. Test equip, such as a network analyzer
might help, but you really don't know the characteristics
of the receiver itself.
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
attenuator |
|
Post subject: The Cheapo antenna debockle
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:40 am
|
|
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005
7:29 pm Posts: 13 |
|
Well I pretty much realized the cheapo approach
that they use. Still wonder though If I were to
tie the Battery ground to the chassis, would my
receiver performance improve? Also would a Base
load help much? If so how would one go about determining
the proper load to use.
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
Kirt Blattenberger
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:09 am
|
|
| |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003
2:02 pm Posts: 308 Location: Erie, PA
|
Greetings attenuator: You appear to have
at least a Ham's knowledge of antennas (not to say
that a Ham's knowledge is trivial), so why don't
you try out the modifications you mention and report
back to us with the results? Experimental confirmation
is where the rubber meets the road (pun intended
- RC car, get it?

). I fly RC airplanes and helicopters, and
before every flight, I have the system turned on
and walk away from the model (with someone holding
it for safety) with the transmitter antenna collapsed
and verify that the operational range is sufficient
both with and without the engine or motor running.
Electric-powered craft are particularly harsh on
RC receivers (although the new breed of brushless
motors is minimizing that problem). My electric-powered
helicopter, operating at 72 MHz, has a wire receiver
antenna that is wrapped several times around one
of the landing skids. It surely violates every rule
of antenna efficiency, yet for the distances at
which the small heli is operated, the controllable
range is fine. The same is probably true for your
car example. One difference with RC cars,
though, is that people are usually racing them while
standing in close proximity with as many as 8-10
other guys who could be just one channel away. In
that case, the bleed-over from a transmitter on
an adjacent channel could cause a poorly tuned antenna
to be susceptible to interference. Anyway,
I and others on this forum would surely be interested
in your results.
_________________ - Kirt Blattenberger
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
attenuator |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:35 pm
|
|
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005
7:29 pm Posts: 13 |
I appreciate your input Kirt. The only involvement
with HAM that I ever had is on holidays when I would
eat it.

Actually my background is Digital Hardware design.
My last position was at Qualcomm. I left because
I was tring to make a career change. Big mistake.
Anyways I made the following mods, on my RC car.
I shortened the power cables as much as I could.
The tiny molex plugs impose a restriction on wire
size, so I opened my receiver and soldered a large
gauge wire from the ground pin on the receiver to
a brass plate that I bolted to the top cover of
the radio box. I then soldered another wire to the
brass plate with the other end terminating to the
aluminum chassis through a lug and was held with
a nut and bolt. I had to use a dremel rotary tool
to clear away the paint around the nut to ensure
a good ground connection. Prior to making this change
I had noted that the car servos were twitchy and
would jitter whenever I touched any metal part on
the car, most notably the car gas engine. After
grounding the electronics the above mentioned problem
was eliminated. My theory as to why is this. Without
a ground plane the electromagnetic waves couple
to the metal parts of the car such as the engine.
This would then make the engine act as an emitter
and a source of EMI. Other things I think was that
the ground plane acts as a mirror of the whip, and
help the whip antenna appear closer to the correct
length. I will be going to a RC race this weekend.
So I will be able to determine if problems with
EMI occur. I really don't see anyway real way that
I can test this, as all I have is a scope. So I
am basing my assumptions on the fact that by design
the performance should be better. Let me know what
you think.
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
Whitebird |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:03 pm
|
|
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005
1:51 pm Posts: 8 |
|
Hi attenuator,
Did you have a look at the
base of the antenna to see if there isn't any coil
attached to it?
If yes this antenna is a
short whip. It's only 1/18 wave length long but
the coil is here to cancel the capacitive effect
due to short length. Of course the efficiency is
very poor compared to a 1/4 wave antenna.
|
|
Posted 11/12/2012
|
 |
|
|