Hmmmm. The top had does NOT seem to be such a good idea, at least not in
combination with the helical coil--with total element length as a helical
and evenly spread out.
If I just move a wrench in the yard around the antenna I get wide SWR
swings! (OK, maybe that is exaggerating a bit--but you get my meaning.)
The top hat seems to give the antenna an almost "magical ability" to couple
into any metal object of sufficient size, cars are noteworthy examples!!!

Regards,
John
--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:22:38 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

it should be sufficient to just ask you to cease... But, you have
convinced me that is out of the realm of possibility.

Hi Brett,

You must've had some great difficulty with those kill file
instructions. I'm sure if you posted them again, someone might help
you. Perhaps if they were written in assembler. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:14:38 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Hmmmm. The top had does NOT seem to be such a good idea, at least not in
combination with the helical coil--with total element length as a helical
and evenly spread out.

Hi Brett,

If it's not a good idea, it's not a bad idea either. A top hat is
simply a means to an end - or in terms of good and bad, it makes the
best of a poor situation.

If I just move a wrench in the yard around the antenna I get wide SWR
swings! (OK, maybe that is exaggerating a bit--but you get my meaning.)
The top hat seems to give the antenna an almost "magical ability" to couple
into any metal object of sufficient size, cars are noteworthy examples!!!

You may have a future in Home security and monitoring electronics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Your sense of humor is greatly enjoyed

Warmest regards,
John

--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:14:38 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Hmmmm. The top had does NOT seem to be such a good idea, at least not in
combination with the helical coil--with total element length as a helical
and evenly spread out.

Hi Brett,

If it's not a good idea, it's not a bad idea either. A top hat is
simply a means to an end - or in terms of good and bad, it makes the
best of a poor situation.

If I just move a wrench in the yard around the antenna I get wide SWR
swings! (OK, maybe that is exaggerating a bit--but you get my meaning.)
The top hat seems to give the antenna an almost "magical ability" to
couple
into any metal object of sufficient size, cars are noteworthy examples!!!

You may have a future in Home security and monitoring electronics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

John Smith wrote:
If I just move a wrench in the yard around the antenna I get wide SWR
swings!

Use a different length wrench. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Use a different length wrench. :-)

==================

Or use one made of well-varnished dry wood.

I am planing on side mounting a 2 meter J-Pole part way up on a tower.
How far from the tower should I mount the antenna? I do plan on making
the final adjustment of the feed point with the antenna mounted up a few
feet on the tower. The radiation pattern is not a big concern. In fact
I would prefer that it favor one quadrant.

Thanks for any advice.

Ron - K0QVF
http://www.southslope.net/~ronton/

Ron, K0QVF wrote:
"How far from the tower should I mount the antenna?"

Supposing you want the least effect on the pattern and impedance, place
the antenna as far as possible from the tower.. Satisfaction is obtained
with much closer spacing. The tower is non-resonant. Its reactance will
impede induced current from a radiator which is really close by. If
there is little induced current there is little re-radiated energy to
foul the pattern.

The 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" has a graph on page 350 of gain in
field intensity versus spacing from a flat reflector. At 0.5 wavelength
the gain is 0 dBi. That`s less than the resonant 1/2-wave antenna alone
which has about 2.14 dB gain over an isotropic.

The graph shows a gain of about 2.14 dBi with a spacing of only 0.1
wavelength spacing. So, anything greater than 0.1 wavelength from the
tower should be fine. That`s 20 cm in the 2-meter band, or about 8
inches. More distance means less coupling and should be better.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

The only way to get 0 dBi maximum gain from a lossless antenna is to
have a perfectly circular pattern in all azimuths and elevations. It's
not possible to have a maximum gain (that is, gain in the best
direction) less than 0 dBi unless loss is present. This is something
everyone with a basic understanding of antennas should know.

So it seemed to me very unlikely that a dipole spaced a half wavelength
from a reflector would have a perfectly circular pattern and, therefore,
it must have gain greater than 0 dBi in some direction. I don't have
Kraus' third edition (yet), but there's a diagram on p. 546 of the
second edition which I suspect is the same as the one Richard is
referring to. The caption under the graph clearly says that the gain at
0.5 wavelength is 0 dB *relative to a half wave dipole in free space*,
or about 2.15 dBi, not 0 dBi.

If the third edition really says that the gain of a half wave antenna
spaced 0.5 wavelength from a reflector is 0 dBi, it's an error and
should be brought to the editor's attention so it can be corrected.

I also believe that while you might draw some possible parallels, you
can't directly apply the characteristics of an antenna in proximity to
an infinite reflecting plane (as in Kraus) to those of an antenna in
proximity to a tower.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Harrison wrote:
. . .
The 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" has a graph on page 350 of gain in
field intensity versus spacing from a flat reflector. At 0.5 wavelength
the gain is 0 dBi. That`s less than the resonant 1/2-wave antenna alone
which has about 2.14 dB gain over an isotropic.

The graph shows a gain of about 2.14 dBi with a spacing of only 0.1
wavelength spacing. So, anything greater than 0.1 wavelength from the
tower should be fine. That`s 20 cm in the 2-meter band, or about 8
inches. More distance means less coupling and should be better.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Roy Lewallen wrote:

I also believe that while you might draw some possible parallels, you
can't directly apply the characteristics of an antenna in proximity to
an infinite reflecting plane (as in Kraus) to those of an antenna in
proximity to a tower.


Roy is gallantly trying to be non-commercial about this, so someone else
had better say it:

Download the free demo version of any NEC-based antenna modeling
program, and model the effects of the actual tower geometry. It's the
only way to see what's really happening.

You'll get a good first approximation by modeling the tower as its three
very long vertical legs. Since you're only interested in the effects of
the tower on the J-pole's omnidirectional pattern, you can use any kind
of vertical omni to model the antenna itself - a center-fed dipole for
simplicity.


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

I agree, although I have joked with Roy, his EZNEC 4.0 is a serious and
"state of the art" application. Although my experience with applications of
this nature is limited (I have not examined EVERY one) it is a well designed
and thought out work. His efforts are notable...

Regards,
John

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
The only way to get 0 dBi maximum gain from a lossless antenna is to have
a perfectly circular pattern in all azimuths and elevations. It's not
possible to have a maximum gain (that is, gain in the best direction) less
than 0 dBi unless loss is present. This is something everyone with a basic
understanding of antennas should know.

So it seemed to me very unlikely that a dipole spaced a half wavelength
from a reflector would have a perfectly circular pattern and, therefore,
it must have gain greater than 0 dBi in some direction. I don't have
Kraus' third edition (yet), but there's a diagram on p. 546 of the second
edition which I suspect is the same as the one Richard is referring to.
The caption under the graph clearly says that the gain at 0.5 wavelength
is 0 dB *relative to a half wave dipole in free space*, or about 2.15 dBi,
not 0 dBi.

If the third edition really says that the gain of a half wave antenna
spaced 0.5 wavelength from a reflector is 0 dBi, it's an error and should
be brought to the editor's attention so it can be corrected.

I also believe that while you might draw some possible parallels, you
can't directly apply the characteristics of an antenna in proximity to an
infinite reflecting plane (as in Kraus) to those of an antenna in
proximity to a tower.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Harrison wrote:
. . .
The 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" has a graph on page 350 of gain in
field intensity versus spacing from a flat reflector. At 0.5 wavelength
the gain is 0 dBi. That`s less than the resonant 1/2-wave antenna alone
which has about 2.14 dB gain over an isotropic.

The graph shows a gain of about 2.14 dBi with a spacing of only 0.1
wavelength spacing. So, anything greater than 0.1 wavelength from the
tower should be fine. That`s 20 cm in the 2-meter band, or about 8
inches. More distance means less coupling and should be better.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI