Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Slim Jim v J Pole
On Jul 15, 12:33*pm, Baron
wrote: Peter Inscribed thus: Hi all I have just modelled both the Slim Jim antenna and J Pole antenna using MMANA-GAL at the same frequency (145MHz) all other parameter equal and was some what surprised that they appear exhibit the same gain and radiation pattern. Based on an article I read in a English magazine many years ago I have always believed the Slim Jim had a slight edge over the J Pole. Wonder if others had a similar view and if my modelling is correct are there any advantages with the Slim Jim design? The difference is negligible. They both suffer from unbalanced feed currents and thus feeder radiation. *There is or was a commercial design that attempted to reduce that. 73's -- Best Regards: * * * * * * * * * * *Baron. I only did it once but the j-pole design papers often call for the feedline to be coiled tightly -- a few turns -- just below the feed point. I have made and used several of these "choke baluns" for HF because failure to use a balun seems to screw up my VSWR readings. Does this strictly apply to 2m j-poles, too? I don't know. "Sal" (KD6VKW) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Slim Jim v J Pole
On 7/15/2010 9:52 PM, Sal M. Onella wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:33 pm, wrote: Peter Inscribed thus: Hi all I have just modelled both the Slim Jim antenna and J Pole antenna using MMANA-GAL at the same frequency (145MHz) all other parameter equal and was some what surprised that they appear exhibit the same gain and radiation pattern. Based on an article I read in a English magazine many years ago I have always believed the Slim Jim had a slight edge over the J Pole. Wonder if others had a similar view and if my modelling is correct are there any advantages with the Slim Jim design? The difference is negligible. They both suffer from unbalanced feed currents and thus feeder radiation. There is or was a commercial design that attempted to reduce that. 73's -- Best Regards: Baron. I only did it once but the j-pole design papers often call for the feedline to be coiled tightly -- a few turns -- just below the feed point. I have made and used several of these "choke baluns" for HF because failure to use a balun seems to screw up my VSWR readings. Does this strictly apply to 2m j-poles, too? I don't know. "Sal" (KD6VKW) I have used 7 turns on 1 inch PVC about an inch below the feedpoint on the Arrow style J Poles I have built. I see no significant change in the SWR when coupling my hand to the feedline over the first 2 meters below the feedpoint on the 2 meter band. Per my version of "significant". For best results, follow Roy's advice. tom K0TAR |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Slim Jim v J Pole
Sal M. Onella Inscribed thus:
On Jul 15, 12:33Â*pm, Baron wrote: Peter Inscribed thus: Hi all I have just modelled both the Slim Jim antenna and J Pole antenna using MMANA-GAL at the same frequency (145MHz) all other parameter equal and was some what surprised that they appear exhibit the same gain and radiation pattern. Based on an article I read in a English magazine many years ago I have always believed the Slim Jim had a slight edge over the J Pole. Wonder if others had a similar view and if my modelling is correct are there any advantages with the Slim Jim design? The difference is negligible. They both suffer from unbalanced feed currents and thus feeder radiation. Â*There is or was a commercial design that attempted to reduce that. 73's -- Best Regards: Baron. I only did it once but the j-pole design papers often call for the feedline to be coiled tightly -- a few turns -- just below the feed point. I have made and used several of these "choke baluns" for HF because failure to use a balun seems to screw up my VSWR readings. Does this strictly apply to 2m j-poles, too? I don't know. "Sal" (KD6VKW) A few (2 - 4) ferrite beads, the sort used on the glass computer monitor video lead, works very well slipped over the co-ax just below the bottom of the J. Best of all you can get them for free... -- Best Regards: Baron. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Slim Jim v J Pole
I've seen a couple of postings so far recommending a single balun at the
feedpoint. While this takes care of conducted common mode current, it doesn't eliminate current induced on the feedline from mutual coupling. All the single balun does is to insure that the current is near zero at the single point where the balun is inserted. Current is still induced on the feedline, and you end up with a current maximum a quarter wavelength down the line -- the distribution looks just like it does on an antenna (which the feedline has actually become), with the balun location being the end of the "antenna". The balun can even make the induced current worse if the effective common mode open circuit at the balun insertion point results in a more nearly resonant feedline length. The only way to really effectively reduce the induced current to a low level is to break up the resonance of the feedline by inserting a second balun about a quarter wavelength below the feedpoint as I recommended earlier. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Slim Jim v J Pole
On Jul 16, 4:09*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
I've seen a couple of postings so far recommending a single balun at the feedpoint. While this takes care of conducted common mode current, it doesn't eliminate current induced on the feedline from mutual coupling. All the single balun does is to insure that the current is near zero at the single point where the balun is inserted. Current is still induced on the feedline, and you end up with a current maximum a quarter wavelength down the line -- the distribution looks just like it does on an antenna (which the feedline has actually become), with the balun location being the end of the "antenna". The balun can even make the induced current worse if the effective common mode open circuit at the balun insertion point results in a more nearly resonant feedline length. The only way to really effectively reduce the induced current to a low level is to break up the resonance of the feedline by inserting a second balun about a quarter wavelength below the feedpoint as I recommended earlier. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Does the velocity factor of the coax come into play when locating the second choke or does the outer shield behave like an open wire, VF ~ 1.0? Perhaps I am slicing the baloney too thin for an average sandwich ;-) "Sal" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Slim Jim v J Pole
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Slim Jim v J Pole
In article ,
Owen Duffy wrote: In fact, the antenna structure lends itself to an effective integral balun. If you take the feed coax through the bottom wall of the U section, bonding the shield to the tube, and up one side (doesn't matter), exiting at the appropriate point. At this exit, trim the shield and bond it to the tube, and take the inner horizontally across to the other tube and connect it. .... and take *real* care to waterproof the point at which the cable exits from the tube and the shield is bonded! Buy a tube of non-acid-containing (metal-safe, "neutral cure") silicone sealant, and apply it very thoroughly here... squeeze and press plenty of it into the braid and then form a layer which completely seals the exit point. If you don't do this, and leave even a small amount of braid exposed to the air, it will tend to "wick up" moisture into the braid every time it rains.. The water can even wick its way down to the bottom of the cable and you can find water dripping out of (or filling up) the connector at the bottom! Trust me, it really does happen... I found my lower N connector full of water, and what I swear appeared to be algae! -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Slim Jim v J Pole
Dave Platt Inscribed thus:
In article , Owen Duffy wrote: In fact, the antenna structure lends itself to an effective integral balun. If you take the feed coax through the bottom wall of the U section, bonding the shield to the tube, and up one side (doesn't matter), exiting at the appropriate point. At this exit, trim the shield and bond it to the tube, and take the inner horizontally across to the other tube and connect it. ... and take *real* care to waterproof the point at which the cable exits from the tube and the shield is bonded! Buy a tube of non-acid-containing (metal-safe, "neutral cure") silicone sealant, and apply it very thoroughly here... squeeze and press plenty of it into the braid and then form a layer which completely seals the exit point. If you don't do this, and leave even a small amount of braid exposed to the air, it will tend to "wick up" moisture into the braid every time it rains.. The water can even wick its way down to the bottom of the cable and you can find water dripping out of (or filling up) the connector at the bottom! Trust me, it really does happen... I found my lower N connector full of water, and what I swear appeared to be algae! I'll second that ! Having seen TV's and set top boxes damaged by ingress of water. -- Best Regards: Baron. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Slim Jim v J Pole
Owen Duffy wrote:
. . . (To preempt Roy, the velocity factor of the outside surface of the shield clad with a thin layer of vinyl will be close to 1, close enough for the purpose at hand.) I'll just add the reason -- the common mode current, which is what causes feedline radiation and what we're trying to suppress, is on the outside of the coax. The commonly specified velocity factor (around 0.66 for solid dielectric coax, a bit higher for foamed dielectric) applies to the field inside the coax where the differential mode current flows, not to the outside where the common mode current is. So you use a value near one as Owen says. And it's not at all critical for this purpose. A standing wave is present on an antenna or radiating feedline -- every half wavelength there's a current null, and offset a quarter wavelength from these are current maxima. For example, there are current nulls at the ends of a half wavelength dipole (or, an even better example, a Yagi parasitic element) and a maximum at the middle. When you insert a balun in a transmission line, it causes a current null at that location, so there'll be a maximum a quarter wavelength down and another minimum a quarter wavelength below that if current is induced by coupling and the length to ground supports that distribution. We want to make that distribution impossible, and inserting the second balun does that. This is easily observed by modeling, but you have to keep in mind that the actual path the current takes to the Earth along the outside of the coax can be considerably more complicated than most simple models represent. So models can tell you what *can* happen although maybe not necessarily what *is* happening in a given installation. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Help with slim jim nec model | Antenna | |||
J-Pole vs Slim Jim? | Antenna | |||
Slim Jim vs. EZNEC | Antenna | |||
Helical wound slim jim? | Antenna | |||
Anyone here of a "SLim Jim" antenna? | Antenna |