Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The "TRICK" to TV 'type' Coax Cable [Shielded] SWL Loop Antennas {RHF} | Shortwave | |||
Antenna Advice | Shortwave | |||
Help Please! Extremely Poor Reception In Turkey | Shortwave | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna |