There is also a cheap and cheerful SWR meter you can build for 5.8GHz which will allow you to test that theory.
You couldn't point me to the one you're thinking of?
Ah, right. The sticking point there is the directional coupler, which might spoil the notion of 'cheap'. Also opens the possibility of getting the wrong sort? Is there any particular thing I should be looking for (or avoiding)? What's a 'negative detector'? ('Directional coupler with negative detector')
Regarding the OP antenna being a DC ground short, that's not unusual for many antennas.
Having had a go at building some cloverleaf antennas myself I can say that the odds of it actually being tuned exactly where you want it is slim to nil. I haven't even found a commercially built one that was on frequency yet(note that I have not tried one from ibcrazy). They were all several hundred MHz from the ideal spot. Of course they still work, but not quite as well as they actually can. I doubt very few of the antennas sold commercially are ever tested on a proper machine, they just measure, cut, bend, solder and ship - hoping to get them in the ballpark. I did build a 2.4 GHz one that was nearly bang on - they are much more forgiving at lower frequencies.
My test device is a calibrated Agilent N1996A 6 GHz spectrum analyzer with built in return loss bridge and SWR measurement suite.
Having had a go at building some cloverleaf antennas myself I can say that the odds of it actually being tuned exactly where you want it is slim to nil. I haven't even found a commercially built one that was on frequency yet(note that I have not tried one from ibcrazy). They were all several hundred MHz from the ideal spot. Of course they still work, but not quite as well as they actually can. I doubt very few of the antennas sold commercially are ever tested on a proper machine, they just measure, cut, bend, solder and ship - hoping to get them in the ballpark. I did build a 2.4 GHz one that was nearly bang on - they are much more forgiving at lower frequencies.
My test device is a calibrated Agilent N1996A 6 GHz spectrum analyzer with built in return loss bridge and SWR measurement suite.
They can be tuned by increasing/reducing the feedpoint gap. The idea is to not cut the centre conductor too short until you've finished tuning.
I would caution that, if mere 5% errors in frequency are substantial in performance/characteristics, it's a dangerously precise and high Q antenna, and probably won't serve you well anyway for those reasons. A 1/4 wave whip will cover a much wider bandwidth (particularly with a relatively wide, or flared, element), and has only one element to tune.
Tim
Having had a go at building some cloverleaf antennas myself I can say that the odds of it actually being tuned exactly where you want it is slim to nil. I haven't even found a commercially built one that was on frequency yet(note that I have not tried one from ibcrazy). They were all several hundred MHz from the ideal spot. Of course they still work, but not quite as well as they actually can.
Second question; the silver will tarnish
The clover leaf is already modeled and verified to be a solid antenna, especially for FPV video uses at 5.8 GHz. The only real challenge is to build one that is properly tuned as some pretty detailed precision is needed.
The clover leaf is already modeled and verified to be a solid antenna, especially for FPV video uses at 5.8 GHz. The only real challenge is to build one that is properly tuned as some pretty detailed precision is needed.