Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51   Report Post  
Old September 19th 05, 02:10 AM
David
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy,

The model I used for the open stub J-pole was not the same as your 3
element col.

I used a vertical long element and vertical short element. They were
joined by a horizontal element at the base. The source was set at 50%
along the horizontal bar as per your diagram.

I changed the model for free space rather than over real ground but this
has not helped the directional aspects of the plot.

The dimensions were scaled form those shown for a 150MHz open ended
J-pole shown on Arrow Electronics site

http://www.arrowantennas.com/j-pole.html



Roy Lewallen wrote:
David wrote:

Thanks for the model, I'll try it.

What is the diameter of the elements. I understand you can also vary
the feedpoint impedance by changing element diameter ? (Zo = 276
log(2S/d)



Open the EZNEC file. In the main window, click the Wires line to open
the Wires Window. Find the Diameter column, where you'll see the
diameter of each conductor.

The equation you give is approximately the characteristic impedance of a
transmission line, not the feedpoint impedance of a J-pole. The
relationship between the two is very tenuous and complex.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

  #52   Report Post  
Old September 19th 05, 03:11 AM
Roy Lewallen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Two other cautions for anyone modeling a J-pole with any NEC-2 based
program:

1. Be sure to read the EZNEC manual section "Closely Spaced Wires" --
you'll find it in the index.
2. Run an Average Gain test. (See "Average Gain, Detecting source
placement problems" in the manual index.) The small loop in closed-ended
J-poles can be a problem for NEC-2. If the Average Gain test shows a
problem, using the double precision calculating engine (available in
EZNEC+) might help.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

David wrote:
Roy,

The model I used for the open stub J-pole was not the same as your 3
element col.

I used a vertical long element and vertical short element. They were
joined by a horizontal element at the base. The source was set at 50%
along the horizontal bar as per your diagram.

I changed the model for free space rather than over real ground but this
has not helped the directional aspects of the plot.

The dimensions were scaled form those shown for a 150MHz open ended
J-pole shown on Arrow Electronics site

http://www.arrowantennas.com/j-pole.html

  #53   Report Post  
Old September 22nd 05, 08:44 PM
Steve Nosko
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jerry Martes" wrote in message
news:b%NWe.1010$9a2.584@trnddc04...

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"The 180 deg. phase reversing coil is the tricky part."

For UHF, you might prefer to use a 1/4-wave short-circuited stub in
place of a coil to reverse the phase. My 19th edition of the ARRL
Antenna Book shows such an antenna, "the super J-pole on page 16-25. At
other frequencies, this might be called a "Franklin Antenna". It`s a
1/2-wave in-phase with another 1/2-wave, one mounted directly over the
other. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZZI


Richard


Two half waves in phase, colinear. The 1/4 wave shorted "stub" is perhaps
the easiest way to get a 'good" 180 degree shift to get the segments in
phase. Used from early antenna design times...
73, Steve, K9DCI



  #54   Report Post  
Old September 22nd 05, 08:58 PM
Steve Nosko
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy,
I'd appreciate your further comment on this. I 'know', from history,
that the spacing of two collinear half waves in phase affects the gain and
that there is an optimum spacing for gain that places the two collinear
elements apart (not close enough for a 1/4 wave shorted stub to be used for
a common feed). I had theorized that this "optimum" spacing results in the
most compressed lobe (without excessive secondary lobe formation) which is
simply due to the far-field phase summation of the two elements radiation.
Is this different than the mutual coupling to which you refer, or is this
another effect?

73, Steve, K;9.D,C'I




"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Jerry Martes wrote:

I'd have expected the "gain" to be closer to 4 1/2 db over the 1/4

wave
stub over a ground. is it easy to show where i've missed something?


I think it should be more like 3 dB, but hadn't said anything until I
had a chance to model it. ...
Roy Lewallen, W7EL



  #55   Report Post  
Old September 22nd 05, 11:28 PM
Roy Lewallen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Nosko wrote:
Roy,
I'd appreciate your further comment on this. I 'know', from history,
that the spacing of two collinear half waves in phase affects the gain and
that there is an optimum spacing for gain that places the two collinear
elements apart (not close enough for a 1/4 wave shorted stub to be used for
a common feed). I had theorized that this "optimum" spacing results in the
most compressed lobe (without excessive secondary lobe formation) which is
simply due to the far-field phase summation of the two elements radiation.
Is this different than the mutual coupling to which you refer, or is this
another effect?

73, Steve, K;9.D,C'I


It's actually the same effect.

If we assume no loss (a reasonable assumption for this kind of antenna),
all the power applied to the antenna is radiated. So any change in gain
is accompanied by a change in pattern -- if there's a single major lobe,
the more gain you have the narrower the lobe is. But if the element
currents are in phase, there will always be a maximum broadside to the
array regardless of the spacing, because the fields from the elements
will always add in phase in that direction.

But why is the gain different for different element spacings? You get
different gains for different spacings, which means that the sum of the
fields changes as you change spacing -- and this means that the field
from each element changes as you change the spacing. If you put 100
watts into the array, each element will radiate 50 watts, again
regardless of the spacing. So why does the 50 watts produce a larger or
smaller field broadside to the array as you change the spacing? What's
happening?

As the spacing changes, the mutual coupling between elements changes.
This alters the feedpoint resistances (and reactances, which aren't
important to this discussion) of the elements. And this in turn modifies
the amount of current flowing on each element for that 50 watts of
applied power. (It can be more reasonably argued that the mutual
coupling changes the current, and that changes the resistance. Or that
the mutual coupling produces a feedpoint voltage which alters the
current and resistance. But you reach the same conclusion via any of
those paths.) The essential fact is that the field gets stronger or
weaker as the element current increases or decreases as a result of
mutual coupling. The combination of the changed pattern shape due to
spacing and the changed maximum pattern size due to mutual coupling
always result in all 100 watts being radiated.

Chapter 8 of the ARRL Antenna Book has a graph of gain vs spacing for
two half wave elements placed end-to-end, compared to a single half wave
element. The gain peaks at about 3.2 dB at a spacing of about a half
wavelength. When the elements are very close, as they are in the super
J-pole, the gain is only about 1.6 dB greater than a dipole. That's why
I felt the J-pole gain wouldn't be as high as claimed.

Note: The current distribution on the elements also changes as a result
of mutual coupling -- see
http://eznec.com/Amateur/Articles/Current_Dist.pdf. But I don't believe
the effect is very significant on a collinear array with thin elements.
Anyone wanting to find out for sure, though, can do so with EZNEC or a
similar program.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The "TRICK" to TV 'type' Coax Cable [Shielded] SWL Loop Antennas {RHF} RHF Shortwave 23 November 3rd 04 02:38 PM
Antenna Advice Chris Shortwave 5 September 20th 04 02:04 AM
Help Please! Extremely Poor Reception In Turkey Rich Shortwave 12 December 30th 03 11:43 PM
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 12 October 16th 03 07:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017