"Cecil Moore" wrote
I suspect the half-wave helical wouldn't require as good a
radial system as the standard 1/4WL monopole since the
current maximum point is halfway up the helical.
_______________

Quoting from Antenna Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition by Johnson and Jasik,
page 13-18: "For a normal-mode helix whose dimensions are small compared to
a wavelength, the current distribution along the helix is approximately
sinusoidal."

John Kraus also assumed sinusoidal current distribution along the helix in
his Fig 8-72 (see clip).

This current sinusoid exists along the aperture of the helix, and not along
the spiral conductor itself. Therefore it is unclear as to the source of
this belief that current would be maximum at the center of "1/2-WL" helix
whose end-end length is 1/4-WL. In reality the current maximum would be at
the base of the radiator, just as it is for a 1/4-wave linear monopole.

The current distribution along the aperture of both of these forms of
radiators has a sinusoidal shape. The current at the top of both of these
radiators must be zero. The portion of a sinusoidal waveform at the
operating frequency, beginning with zero current at the top, that can exist
along the aperture of radiators that are physically short in terms of
wavelength, as in my NEC comparison, appears to be a straight line with zero
current at the top and maximum current at the base of the radiator.

With essentially identical current distribution along the aperture of both
radiator forms, it should be expected that the helix and linear monopoles in
this discussion should have essentially identical radiation resistances and
patterns.

This has been shown to be true in the NEC comparison in the OP, and is
supported by the quoted statements from well-respected authors of antenna
engineering textbooks.

On 3/29/2011 5:35 PM, Richard Fry wrote:

The current distribution along the aperture of both of these forms of
radiators has a sinusoidal shape. The current at the top of both of
these radiators must be zero. The portion of a sinusoidal waveform at
the operating frequency, beginning with zero current at the top, that
can exist along the aperture of radiators that are physically short in
terms of wavelength, as in my NEC comparison, appears to be a straight
line with zero current at the top and maximum current at the base of the
radiator.

Yes. This is shown in various editions of the ARRL Antenna Handbook and
the ARRL Handbook itself.

With essentially identical current distribution along the aperture of
both radiator forms, it should be expected that the helix and linear
monopoles in this discussion should have essentially identical radiation
resistances and patterns.

This has been shown to be true in the NEC comparison in the OP, and is
supported by the quoted statements from well-respected authors of
antenna engineering textbooks.

Thanks, Richard.

73,
John

John - KD5YI wrote:
On 3/29/2011 5:35 PM, Richard Fry wrote:

The current distribution along the aperture of both of these forms of
radiators has a sinusoidal shape. The current at the top of both of
these radiators must be zero. The portion of a sinusoidal waveform at
the operating frequency, beginning with zero current at the top, that
can exist along the aperture of radiators that are physically short in
terms of wavelength, as in my NEC comparison, appears to be a straight
line with zero current at the top and maximum current at the base of the
radiator.

Yes. This is shown in various editions of the ARRL Antenna Handbook and
the ARRL Handbook itself.

With essentially identical current distribution along the aperture of
both radiator forms, it should be expected that the helix and linear
monopoles in this discussion should have essentially identical radiation
resistances and patterns.

This has been shown to be true in the NEC comparison in the OP, and is
supported by the quoted statements from well-respected authors of
antenna engineering textbooks.

Thanks, Richard.

73,
John


The next step would be to run it plugging in some reasonable number for
the wire resistivity. The patterns should be quite similar. I theorize
that it will show that for same power in at the feedpoint, the "gain"
will be slightly less for the helically loaded one (because there's a
longer wire, so more resistance, for essentially the same current
distribution in the wire).

Then, the question would be whether the helically loaded unit has a
lower loss in a matching network at the base.

On Mar 29, 5:35*pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
Quoting from Antenna Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition by Johnson and Jasik,
page 13-18: "For a normal-mode helix whose dimensions are small compared to
a wavelength, the current distribution along the helix is approximately
sinusoidal."

But John, a helix that is 180 degrees long electrically is not small.
It is electrically double the size of a 1/4WL monopole.

Therefore it is unclear as to the source of
this belief that current would be maximum at the center of "1/2-WL" helix
whose end-end length is 1/4-WL. *In reality the current maximum would be at
the base of the radiator, just as it is for a 1/4-wave linear monopole.

Not true. Any monopole that is electrically 180 degrees long will have
the current maximum point in the middle and a normal mode helix is no
exception. You can easily model such with EZNEC. For any 180 degree
antenna, at the feedpoint, the reflected voltage will arrive in phase
with the forward voltage. The reflected current will arrive 180
degrees out of phase with the forward current.

Zfp = (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor-Iref) is a current minimum

Take your NEC helical model and adjust the frequency to approximately
double the resonant frequency and take a look at the current
distribution.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Mar 30, 7:01*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Mar 29, 5:35*pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
But John,

Richard, I'm sorry. I have no idea why I typed "John" there. Maybe a
senior moment?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote

Take your NEC helical model and adjust the frequency to
approximately double the resonant frequency and take a
look at the current distribution.

I have already done an illustration based on the currents in the NEC
comparison posted earlier, showing a helix and a linear monopole each about
6 degrees in aperture (link below).

This link shows that even though the length of wire used in the helix is
3.14 X the length used in the linear monopole, the current distribution
along their apertures essentially is the same, as will be the directivity
and radiation pattern of both versions.

This same equivalence would apply to the current distribution, directivity
and pattern of a linear, 1/4-WL monopole and a helically-wound monopole that
was 1/4-WL in aperture, but contained 1/2-WL of coiled wire.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...le_Current.gif

On Mar 30, 10:28*am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
I have already done an illustration based on the currents in the NEC
comparison posted earlier, showing a helix and a linear monopole each about
6 degrees in aperture (link below).

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Please forget about
your previous posting. We are not talking about 6 deg. electrically
short helicals. We are talking about comparing an 180 degree
electrically long monopole to a 90 degree long RESONANT monopole.
Here's how to accomplish what we are talking about:

1. Wind a helical that is 90 degrees long, i.e. the feedpoint
impedance is R1+j0. That helical is 1/4WL long electrically and
resonant. It may be ~1/8WL (45 deg) long physically.
2. Now increase the frequency until the helical is 180 degrees long
electrically. At something like double the frequency, it will be 1/2WL
long electrically and the feedpoint impedance will be R2+j0 where
R2R1. It may be ~1/4WL long physically.

John said his 180 degree helical outperformed his resonant 90 degree
helical. His statement has nothing to do with electrically short
helical monopoles because they are resonant.

The current maximum for a 90 degree resonant helical will be at the
base feedpoint just as it is for a 90 degree stub. The current maximum
for a 180 degree helical will be halfway up the antenna just as it is
halfway up a 180 degree stub.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
On Mar 29, 5:35 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
Quoting from Antenna Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition by Johnson and Jasik,
page 13-18: "For a normal-mode helix whose dimensions are small compared to
a wavelength, the current distribution along the helix is approximately
sinusoidal."

But John, a helix that is 180 degrees long electrically is not small.
It is electrically double the size of a 1/4WL monopole.


"small" in Kraus's book means "physically" small, not electrically small.


Therefore it is unclear as to the source of
this belief that current would be maximum at the center of "1/2-WL" helix
whose end-end length is 1/4-WL. In reality the current maximum would be at
the base of the radiator, just as it is for a 1/4-wave linear monopole.


Take your NEC helical model and adjust the frequency to approximately
double the resonant frequency and take a look at the current
distribution.



This is no different than taking the "non-helical" antenna and feeding
it at twice the frequency.

I would imagine that the pattern of the helically loaded and the
unloaded will be quite similar at ANY frequency, until you get to where
the *diameter* of the assembly starts to be a significant fraction of a
wavelength.

What might change more is the resistive losses, although I suspect
they'll scale in proportion too. Whether you've strung 10 meters, 20
meters or 30 meters of wire in a physical 10 meter length doesn't change
the *radiation* properties a huge amount.

On Mar 30, 11:31*am, Jim Lux wrote:
I would imagine that the pattern of the helically loaded and the
unloaded will be quite similar at ANY frequency, until you get to where
the *diameter* of the assembly starts to be a significant fraction of a
wavelength.

A helical longer than a few degrees will exhibit transmission line
effects. A helical that is electrically 180 degrees long will have
essentially the same standing wave current envelope as a 180 degree
long open-circuit transmission line stub. EZNEC agrees.

John said his 180 degree electrically long helical outperformed his
electrically long 90 degree helical. The standing-wave current
envelope for the 90 degree helical is a cosine with the current
maximum at the feedpoint. The standing-wave current envelope for the
180 degree long helical is a sine wave with the current maximum point
in the middle of the helical. They would not have the same radiation
patterns. EZNEC agrees.

Again, I have modeled these conditions using EZNEC and I am reporting
the results. The "Currents" button will give the current magnitude/
phase for each segment in the helical.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote
The standing-wave current envelope for the 180 degree long helical
is a sine wave with the current maximum point in the middle
of the helical.

That is true ONLY if the end-to-end length (height) of a normal-mode helical
monopole occupies about 180 degrees of a free-space wavelength.

If that helix occupies only about 90 degrees of a free-space wavelength,
then no matter how much linear wire length is contained in the coils of the
helix, that helical radiator will have the radiation resistance, pattern and
directivity characteristics of a 90-degree linear monopole of the same
end-to-end height.

The length of coiled wire in a helix of any physical length makes very
little difference in the current distribution along its aperture, its
directivity, or its radiation patterns.

Please forget about your previous posting. We are not talking about 6 deg.
electrically short helicals.

Rather than suggesting that my previous posting(s) on this subject should be
forgotten, perhaps they should be re-read -- especially the link to
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...le_Current.gif .