Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 16th 14, 04:52 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,336
Default Antenna article

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:58:10 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://www.cvarc.org/tech/antenna_myths/antenna_myths.pdf
http://www.w8ji.com/end-fed_vertical_j-pole_and_horizontal_zepp.htm

Not really a criticism, but more of an oddity. Starting on Pg 10, the
author shows that a J-Pole driving the LONG element has 2.37dBi gain,
while the same antenna driving the SHORT element has -3.17dBi gain.

I've never really looked as which way is the correct way to connect
the coax cable. I also don't have any J-Poles around the house.
Skimming the available photos:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=j-pole
I find a mix of methods. Most seem to do it the right way, but there
are plenty doing it wrong.
http://forums.radioreference.com/scanner-receiver-antennas/208290-j-pole-discrepancy.html
http://wmarc.wildmidwest.org/slide_shows/J-Pole_Antenna_Build/images/GEN_3764.jpg

This one is interesting because the two drawings show the correct
wiring, but the photograph shows it built backwards.
http://www.iw5edi.com/technical-articles/144-430-dual-band-jpole-antenna
Sigh.

I hate to admit it, but I think I've built them backwards over the
years. Maybe that's why J-poles have such a lousy reputation and why
I think they suck?

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #2   Report Post  
Old February 17th 14, 11:04 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 317
Default Antenna article

In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:


I hate to admit it, but I think I've built them backwards over the
years. Maybe that's why J-poles have such a lousy reputation and why
I think they suck?


Jeff-

Please pardon my ignorance. I understood that a J-Pole is a half wave
antenna connected to a quarter wave stub. The transmission line is
connected to a low impedance point (50 Ohms?) on the stub.

In the literature, it is usually fed as an unbalanced antenna, but it is
not. Therefore, it should not matter which side has the center
conductor or shield - they are both wrong!

Fred
K4DII
  #3   Report Post  
Old February 18th 14, 04:43 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2013
Posts: 68
Default Antenna article


"Fred McKenzie" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:


I hate to admit it, but I think I've built them backwards over the
years. Maybe that's why J-poles have such a lousy reputation and why
I think they suck?


Jeff-

Please pardon my ignorance. I understood that a J-Pole is a half wave
antenna connected to a quarter wave stub. The transmission line is
connected to a low impedance point (50 Ohms?) on the stub.

In the literature, it is usually fed as an unbalanced antenna, but it is
not. Therefore, it should not matter which side has the center
conductor or shield - they are both wrong!

Fred
K4DII


I acknowledge the split opinion on the feed. I've often thought it
shouldn't matter, since the idea is to excite the stub (which is, itself, a
half-wave if you count both sides). I follow the crowd, frankly.

How would you change the feed method? I've had generally good performance
from my J-poles but I'll gladly improve what I do, if you have some ideas.

73,
"Sal"
(KD6VKW)


  #4   Report Post  
Old February 18th 14, 07:53 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2013
Posts: 46
Default Antenna article

In article ,
Sal salmonella@food poisoning.org wrote:

How would you change the feed method? I've had generally good performance
from my J-poles but I'll gladly improve what I do, if you have some ideas.


One of the older ARRL guides or antenna books shows a balanced method
of feeding a J-pole. A standard half-wave coaxial balun is used. The
two balanced outputs of the balun are tapped onto the two sides of the
J-pole matching section, some distance above the usual "50-ohms-or-
thereabouts" attachment point.

My understanding is that the impedances "seen" on the two sides of the
matching section won't be identical; the short side ends at an
open-circuit point and the other side "ends" at the beginning of the
half-wave section, where the impedance is high but not quite an open
circuit. Hence, you won't achieve complete balance this way - there
will probably be some current flow on the outside of the halfwave coax
balun section.



  #5   Report Post  
Old February 18th 14, 11:10 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 702
Default Antenna article


"David Platt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Sal salmonella@food poisoning.org wrote:

How would you change the feed method? I've had generally good performance
from my J-poles but I'll gladly improve what I do, if you have some ideas.


One of the older ARRL guides or antenna books shows a balanced method
of feeding a J-pole. A standard half-wave coaxial balun is used. The
two balanced outputs of the balun are tapped onto the two sides of the
J-pole matching section, some distance above the usual "50-ohms-or-
thereabouts" attachment point.

My understanding is that the impedances "seen" on the two sides of the
matching section won't be identical; the short side ends at an
open-circuit point and the other side "ends" at the beginning of the
half-wave section, where the impedance is high but not quite an open
circuit. Hence, you won't achieve complete balance this way - there
will probably be some current flow on the outside of the halfwave coax
balun section.


I don't know which one would be the best but I have seen 3 methods of
feeding the J-pole. If you insulate the bottom then you hook the feedline
to the bottom with the center of the coax to the long side. If you do not
insulate the bottom you tap up the matching segment so that you get a 50 ohm
(if that is the coax used) match with the center of the coax connected to
the long leg. Then there is the balun made out of coax that is hooked up to
the matching segment so that a low swr is obtained.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com



  #6   Report Post  
Old February 19th 14, 12:02 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2011
Posts: 182
Default Antenna article

Don't forget the Arrow Open Stub J-pole.

http://www.arrowantennas.com/osj/j-pole.html
  #7   Report Post  
Old February 19th 14, 12:26 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2013
Posts: 46
Default Antenna article

In article ,
W5DXP wrote:

Don't forget the Arrow Open Stub J-pole.

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


There is (or was) a nice writeup of this variety on Cebik's web
site. He refers to it as a "variant J-pole". The feed arrangement is
different (it's open at the feedpoint, rather than being fed a few
inches above a short), and the arm lengths are different than with a
"classic" J-pole. The current distributions are different, of course,
but the radiation pattern is only very slightly different than the
"classic" variety.

I have one of these dual-band types in my "go-kit" (it's actually a
knock-off, built locally based on the plans that Arrow used to have on
their web site) and it's served me well. I usually mount it at the
top of a two-or-three-segment aluminum mast, sitting in an old hefty
movie-camera tripod base.

Much too large and heavy for a vehicle, of course, but I imagine you
could build a somewhat-similar open-stub J-pole using much lighter
materials (e.g. fiberglass whips with wire fastened inside or
outside).


  #8   Report Post  
Old February 19th 14, 04:26 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,336
Default Antenna article

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:10:39 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

I don't know which one would be the best but I have seen 3 methods of
feeding the J-pole. If you insulate the bottom then you hook the feedline
to the bottom with the center of the coax to the long side. If you do not
insulate the bottom you tap up the matching segment so that you get a 50 ohm
(if that is the coax used) match with the center of the coax connected to
the long leg. Then there is the balun made out of coax that is hooked up to
the matching segment so that a low swr is obtained.


There's also the American Legion J-Pole or the Silicon Valley
Emergency Communications Systems J-Pole:
https://picasaweb.google.com/112916124640757906440/NonarthopodicAntenna#5459396072666399154
https://picasaweb.google.com/112916124640757906440/NonarthopodicAntenna#5459396111364421106
This design does one thing right that none of the other J-Pole
mutations seem to consider. The length of the wire between the coax
connector center conductor and the driven element is an inductor. In
order to tune out this inductance, one needs a series capacitor, with
the inductor and capacitor tuned to the operating frequency. In other
words, a gamma match. The series capacitor is formed by the insulated
turns of electrical wire wrapped around the driven element.

Another thing this design does right is use the zero current point at
the bottom of the antenna as a ground. The problem is that it also
extends the length of the center wire, which makes using a gamma match
all the more important. I think putting the 50 ohm feed point and the
corresponding ground close to each other were either to reduce the
inductance of the connecting wire, or some manner of mutation from
when it was fed by a balance line.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #9   Report Post  
Old February 20th 14, 05:16 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2013
Posts: 68
Default Antenna article


"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...


... The length of the wire between the coax
connector center conductor and the driven element is an inductor. In
order to tune out this inductance, one needs a series capacitor, with
the inductor and capacitor tuned to the operating frequency.


Yes.

I've been making copper pipe and 2-wire transmission line J-poles for almost
20 years. With pipe, I usually fasten the two feed points with clamps and
slide the connections up and down. I'll get a VSWR low-point in-band but
early-on, I discovered that the best VSWR was often about 1.7:1. I had read
about (but never built) a gamma match, so I'd heard about the series cap to
tune out the inductance. I tried a series cap at the feed and it helped.

70 - 100 pF seems to be about right at 2m and I can often get a 1:1 reading
somewhere in the band. Does such a 0.3 dB improvement matter? That's not
my call. When I'm essentially playing with the technology, I can take more
time than if I'm working, like to a deadline or a budget.

"Sal"


  #10   Report Post  
Old February 19th 14, 04:08 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,336
Default Antenna article

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:04:16 -0500, Fred McKenzie
wrote:

In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:


I hate to admit it, but I think I've built them backwards over the
years. Maybe that's why J-poles have such a lousy reputation and why
I think they suck?


Please pardon my ignorance. I understood that a J-Pole is a half wave
antenna connected to a quarter wave stub. The transmission line is
connected to a low impedance point (50 Ohms?) on the stub.


Yep, something like that.

In the literature, it is usually fed as an unbalanced antenna, but it is
not. Therefore, it should not matter which side has the center
conductor or shield - they are both wrong!

Fred
K4DII


Well, if it really were a balanced feed, I guess(tm) there should be
no difference in the pattern, gain, VSWR, etc between the two
unbalanced methods of feeding the antenna. Yet the author of the
original article shows large differences in the antenna models. See
Pg 10 thru 13:
http://www.cvarc.org/tech/antenna_myths/antenna_myths.pdf

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558


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
QST antenna article jawod Antenna 8 August 19th 08 08:25 PM
Nice MW antenna article grenner Shortwave 0 June 10th 08 03:14 PM
Nice MW antenna article RHF Shortwave 0 June 10th 08 03:31 AM
Nice MW antenna article Frank Shortwave 0 June 10th 08 01:49 AM
Old ferrite rod antenna article Henry[_2_] Antenna 8 June 8th 07 11:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017