The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polarization
from
John Wendt, WA6BFH
on
March 24, 2005
View comments about this article!
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polarization
By John Wendt, WA6BFH
While this article will primarily address the bands of 10 and 6 Meters, I will add some thoughts on other VHF and UHF wavelengths as we get into the meat of the issue.
Probably the first wavelength band that I need to address is in reference to my mention of 10 Meters! You see 6 Meters is often referred to as the “Magic Wavelength Band”; and this is because it often works like an HF wavelength band, when it is in fact a VHF band. Well 10 Meters, an HF band, often works like a VHF band in terms of its signal propagation. So I guess some of that magical pixie dust has just sprinkled on down frequency almost one octave!
Now with this next band, 6 Meters, I have lots of experience, about 38 years worth! It is a truly magic band, although I feel the same way about several bands above it! Anyway, 6 Meters will avail itself of all of these below listed forms of distant (DX) communication:
F-layer skip every 11 years at or near the Solar peak-- along with the HF spectrum.
E-layer skip, regularly at the Spring of every year, and other times; also seen on 10 Meters
Meteor Scatter (skip) several times each and every year (at regularly noted meteor showers.
Auroral Skip, at times when major solar events ionize the D-layer of the ionosphere.
Tropospheric Ducting, at weather plus maybe E, or F layer events.
Knife Edge Refraction over mountain tops, not too great for distance, but fun!
These are the physical elements that make the Magic! You see when you have bands of frequencies that can be propagated by ducts of differential air temperature, that’s pretty magic. When you can have bands of frequencies where signal propagation can be facilitated by the exhaust gasses of jet aircraft, that’s Magic, and of course I don’t mean that in a literal sense. My point is that it is fun and interesting to exploit these methods of signal propagation, and learn about them.
The counterpoint of this is when we run into people who will tell us that this is not important, fun, or that there are only certain ways that WE MUST PROCEED in these endeavors. Noted fables that I have heard through the years are:
1) You must use horizontally polarized antennas!
2) Cubical Quads don’t work on VHF!
3) Vertical omni-directional antennas will not work on 6 Meters for DX!
4) “J” or J-pole antennas are less efficient than Ground Plane antennas!
I think that part of the fun is to de-bunk such ideas! It is also fun to learn the perspective of any amount or shred of truth that might be contained in such broad statements! Let’s take a look at each one of these; and see what might have been meant by any negative aspersion, and lets see if we can benefit from the contrasting truths.
Why must you use a horizontal antenna? This is often done so as to improve “Signal to Noise Ratio”. It is true that much, or maybe even most, electrical noise has a vertical component. This is “pulse noise” generated by ignition sparkplugs, or other arc bursts of energy. Remember though that pulse noise is the easiest sort of electrical noise to effectively cancel!
In any case, while this noise is most notable, in larger cities, where overhead power lines are prevalent, horizontal noise will be the most obvious! It will be so predominant that it will virtually make a blanket of noise at relatively high signal levels. When this S3, S4, S5 or higher noise level exists, many radio signals or VHF band openings may get lost in the noise.
I know of many practical instances over the years when I with either a vertical quarter wavelength Ground Plane, or a home-made copper “J” antenna -- both of which don’t work on 6 Meters -- was able to work either E-layer openings, Meteor Scatter, Auroral,
or F-layer skip, before many ‘big gun’ horizontal Ham’s could hear the DX signals. Why was this?
A vertical antenna has a lower angle of radiation than does a horizontal antenna. That is in fact why horizontal Yagi’s etc must be raised to appropriate height to provide an optimum launch angle. Most 6 Meter Ham’s who are serious about working DX will have an antenna tower of some 60 feet or better, and one or more Yagi beam antennas of at least 1.5 wavelength booms. Or, perhaps better to say, they will try to at least provide a good 10 dBd of antenna gain. A 25-foot boom Yagi will do that, as will two 4 element Yagi’s on 12-foot booms.
So if a simple unity gain, or less than unity gain (the Ground Plane) antenna will work quite nicely for 6 Meter DX, after all, I worked 50 states and several countries with such verticals, what would be the best beam antenna configuration.
You can stack multiple beams on a tower and improve radiation angle. If you want to keep things simpler though, put two Yagi’s up vertically polarized. Two 4 element Yagi’s as I mentioned before will yield 11.2 dBd of gain. Subtract about 1 dB for transmission line loss, and you still have better than 10 dB’s at a very nice low angle of radiation. This also works with even shorter tower heights. A short tower will kill horizontal antenna performance but not when they are vertical!
How about that statement that Cubical Quads don’t work on VHF! This was said in all seriousness once at a VHF/UHF conference in the California town of Santa Maria. This conference even sponsored “an Antenna Gain Contest” on Sunday near the close of the conference. After the statement had been made, Saturday, a hasty visit to the local hardware store garnered some 12-gauge wire, some wooden furring strips, and an S-239 coax connector was obtained from somewhere.
After a few fevered hours of sawing, drilling, assembling and testing, the 4 element Quad was produced that you will see in the web posted article below. The winning entrant is that antenna that has the greatest gain, for the shortest boom length. That is the advantage of quads, they produce much higher gain, over relatively short boom lengths. They do unfortunately develop “I squared R” losses pretty quickly as well, such that after the 5th or 6th element, further gain is minimal. Yagi’s by contrast can be as long as is mechanically practical, and they will just keep developing gain!
This quad did won the contest by the way! The next best antenna a “KLM Band-pass Log Fed Yagi” produce 13 dB’s of gain but it was more than twice as long!
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2775/quad.html
I have already touched on vertical Omni’s but, I thought that comment about “J” or J-pole antennas being less efficient really tossed me for a loop. A “J” antenna is simply an end-fed dipole, with a Q-line matching device. There is no more efficient matching method other than the Q-line transformer! Take a nice vertical half-wave antenna, match it to any desired impedance -- with practically no loss -- how can that be bad!
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2775/6mjant01.html
What about the other bands? I’m not so certain, as I have not had nearly as much or as broad experiences on 2 Meters, 135, 70, 33, or 23 centimeters. Experience and self-learning is key! It would be nice to find out and test these concepts however. I guess most Ham’s don’t do this because they don’t want to take a chance. I’m getting to be a little long in the tooth, with gray chin whiskers, and legs that don’t climb antenna towers as easily as I used to. I know one Ham on 135 centimeters that tries things just to find out! Now to me, that’s what Ham radio is all about!
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by KB3GTY on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice article, however you failed to mention another comon misconception about vhf polarization, that you can only work dx on vertical. On hf the radiation pattern breaks up on skip making it random at the recieve end. On vhf however, the pattern remains fairly consistant, the problem is that casual (and some dedicated) vhf users don't understand that and will insist that it's not true. During band openings I routinely will copy weak dx stations that can not copy me when they are vertical (I use horizontal, and run qrp), but when I change polarization their signal comes way up and mine can be heard by them. Yet when I point out that until I changed polarization, we couldn't work. The other station always insists that there's another reason having nothing to do with polarization, but they never know what (I've heard some pretty wild guesses though).
kb3gty
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by NS6Y_ on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Lie in bed sometime with your HT and listen to the funny cops on VHF. Orient the HT at different angles and notice the HUGE effects of polarization. Nuff said!!
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by W3ZD on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB3GTY is on the right track. There is about 35 to 40 db polarization loss between two stations. VHF signals tend to retain their polartiy over greater distances. Hmmm how about a horizonal J pole on 10 meters?
Clayton W3ZD
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by NI0C on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John,
Thanks for the information concerning VHF antennas. I must admit that your enthusiasm for VHF, coupled with your advice based on knowledge and experience, is starting to get contagious. Although I have 248 countries confirmed on ten meters, I've never tried 6 meters. I'll have to give it a try some day. When I do so, I'll keep your thoughts in mind.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by K3GM on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I know of many practical instances over the years when I with either a vertical quarter wavelength Ground Plane, or a home-made copper “J” antenna -- both of which don’t work on 6 Meters -- was able to work either E-layer openings, Meteor Scatter, Auroral, or F-layer skip, before many ‘big gun’ horizontal Ham’s could hear the DX signals. Why was this?"
You got lucky. The propagation types you mention above are reflective propagation. The polarity has a tendancy to rotate with the above types. You might have caught him as the rotation of his signal aligned with your vertically polarized antenna. I've heard particularly severe rotation working someone on 10FM via F2. Sometimes the nulls are so deep they drop into the squelch. Switching over to the vertical brings him back to Q5 copy. I guarantee that if you were working another station at a distance on say, 2m or 70cm via tropo, you won't hear him if you were crossed polarized because there is little to no rotation of the signal with this type of propagation. Now, what percentage of your contacts on 2m or 70cm are with the propagation types you mentioned? Aside from aurora it's probably a small percentage as most contacts in this region are direct, non-reflective. You nailed it as to why weak signal operators use horizontal antennas; they're quieter, and that's why they're the "standard". If you can find another station who is vertically polarized. I have no doubt you have a successful, albiet noisier point to point QSO.
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by W0FEN on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In my experience in Ham Radio, two way, and broadcast, the higher the frequency the more the isolation between horizontal and vertical polarizations. By the time you get to C Band satellite frequencies 4 GHz, there is almost complete isolation from one polarity to the other. As the frequency goes down, the isolatoin gets less. At 6M and below there is barely any isolation compared to the Ghz frequencies. In other words at 6M you can tell there is some isolation from your vertical antenna to a horizontal antenna but the point is make the contact and worry about the polorization later.
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by K3UOD on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've made some nice contacts on 2M SSB with a Ringo Ranger. The other guys were horizontal.
Don't miss out on the fun just because you don't have an "optimal" antenna for the mode.
I'm very skeptical of the 35-40 dB loss figures for cross polarization. At least for frequencies under 1 GHz.
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by KG6GMT on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is interesting. Getting ready for my trip to the summer QTH in a campgroung as a host. Think I will put up a vertical dipole on 6 with a switch so I can change from my 5 element beam to the vertical. I made a 1000 contacts last summer on 6. this might get interesting. Still looking for HI.
Brock W6GMT
EN37 in the summer
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John, I have a friend, Dave Johnson, K4SSU-formerly
WA4SSU, in Cumming, Ga. Dave is a DX nut and 10 meter fan from long ago. I can remember Dave on 10 from over 30 years ago using an old MoonRaker CB
antenna that he had found and had modified and optimized for use on 10. Dave could work DX sooner
by have the ability to switch antenna polarity.
He would also work DX long after the band appeared closed to those who were stuck in one polarization.
Dave was also something of a stud in his younger days.
I have seen him assemble Rohn 25G towers without using a gin pole! The man had incredible upper body strength. Fortunately, Dave is a gentle and kind soul, even if he is a DXer! :-D (I'm smiling, Dave!)
My question for you, John, is when are you going to
give instructions for 160 Meter Patch and Slot antennas? ;-)
Another question, which MYTHBUSTER are you? Here lately I have been feeling more like "Buster" the
crash test dummy used on that show!
7 and a 3 from the East Side.
Cal K4JSR Trogluddite Command Center, Georgia
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What you are saying is: On any given operating day, your favorite antenna configuration may be as useful as a dummy load. The counter to that is: On any given operating day, your least favorite antenna configuration may be hot as Texas Chili.
Dennis / KG4RUL
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nothing wrong with a Quad. I've been toying with the idea of a 2 elelment 6 meter Quad, maybe even as a good attic antenna.
If you add some decoupling radials to the J-pole, the radiation pattern and gain will be considerably better. Not a lot of effort involved here....
73, Chris
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by WA4PTZ on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article , John, I have enjoyed 6 meter and
10 meter operating for many years. I have always
enjoyed experimenting with antenna designs using
6 meters and up as scaled models.
Just as some folks believe in ghosts, the myths
and erroneous info will persist. Truth is a
constant battle.
Thanks and 73,
Tim
|
|   |
|
RE: Decoupling radials
|
|
|
by KG4PTZ on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In response to WA1RNE's post, how do these 'decoupling radials' work? I've j-poles for 2m and 70cm and haven't used these before, and would like to see how well this would work for me. I only have FM capabilities, but I reckon it could still apply on those modes.
In response to the polarization issue, I would say that the cubical quad would be the better idea, except for portable operations, when size would become a rathe large issue (no pun intended).
73,
Kenny
KG4PTZ
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by AA4PB on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Certainly you can work horizontally polarized stations with a vertical. Sometimes with DX the polarization gets changed and you might even find on occassion that the vertical works better than horizontal. However, *most of the time* the polarization does not get changed and there will be many dB lost by using vertical polarization when the other station is using horizontal. Since most 6M SSB stations use horizontal polarization, it makes sense to me to use horizontal polarization if you can have only one antenna.
The other issue when comparing a yagi to a omni directional vertical is 1) that the yagi has gain and 2) that the yagi is directional and therefore minimizes noise received from other directions. For me that makes a huge difference. If I point my yagi towards the power lines I can have as much as an S9 noise level at times. Rotate the yagi and the noise level drops. Move it 45 degrees off the direction of the power line and I have an S1 noise level.
My recomendation for anyone starting out on 6M SSB would be to put up a horizontally polarized antenna. Put up a vertical too, if you can. I'll bet you spend most of the time on the horizontal.
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It’s one of those “Murphy’s Law” kind of things! The horizontal power-line noise will be right on that same azimuth vector as the DX signal is. So ya rotate that beam to kill the noise but, the DX signal disappears as well!
My main thought is, LISTEN ON THE VERTICAL omni, because it is always pointed in the best direction! Then if you can, switch to the horizontal antenna. If the horizontal is better, ok fine. For those first starting on 6 Meters, PUT UP A SIMPLE VERTICAL. Shoot, Arrow Antennas sells a real nice ¼ wavelength Ground Plane for $39.00 bucks. If after that the 6 Meter bug bites, put up a nice horizontal antenna also!
In response to some of the comments posted already, I just (sort of) finished another article on different points raised here. It will be oriented more toward the HF and even MF spectrum but, I think you fellows will have some fun with it!
73! de John
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by KA5DWI on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I second the comments of AA4PB.
You will have some success with vertical polarization, but in the long term, horizontal will give you the best success.
Still, I do wish that they made a 6-Meter version of the old Moonraker just to experiment.
I have worked a few short of 500 grids on 6 Meters.
Mostly on a 3 Element Yagi at 20-35 feet and under 150 watts. I worked 42 states and 143 grids one June contest weekend with a 4 element (horiz. polarized) Quad up 30 feet.
I don't think I would have even come close with vertical polarization and at least some forward gain.
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by G1YGJ on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is, I belive, a true story.............
Some years ago an old G3*** who had never worked anything but HF went to his local radio club on VHF night.
He listened with interest to all the talk about Yagi aerials & polarization.
After the talk he picked up a 2Mtr. yagi which was on display & pointed it at the ceiling & said " How the heck does this work then ?. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by W6EZ on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My very first 2 meter E-layer contact was on July 19, 1993 from my QTH in CM97 to N0LL in EM09.
I was using a Diamond X510 at 20" and 25 watts.
I suppose I was weak at my signal report was 5 and 3 but I still got the card.
So I would say go for it no matter what antenna you have.
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by K2WH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"A vertical antenna has a lower angle of radiation than does a horizontal antenna."
An absolutely false statement without clarification!
One simply has to raise a horizontal antenna to the correct height to achieve the same low angle of radiation that a vertical can have. At VHF and UHF frequencies, this height is easily acheivable by simply putting it on a mast or tower of the correct height.
In addition, the polarity of all RF signals (at any frequency), will rotate once they bounce off any reflecting surface and not just HF. Working 'E' skip DX on VHF will have the same effect as on HF and that is varying polarity. Ducting is a different story. It is very possible for the polarity to remain unchanging in its travel to the other end of the duct.
K2WH
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by W6TH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A yagi at half wavelength above ground has the same angle of radiation as a 1/4 wave ground mounted vertical. Which is 30 degrees for both. I would prefer the vertical for a starter and then for more gain go for the 3 or 4 elements to get from 7 to 8 1/2 dBd of forward gain. Yet, to have both would be ideal.
W6TH
.:
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K2WH, if you read the article again, I think you will see I SAID THAT!
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by W6TH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is information as to the horizontal yagi above ground for angle of fire:
1/4 above ground 45 degrees.
1/2 above ground 30 degrees
3/4 above ground 20 degrees
Full wavelength above ground: two lobes. One at 15 degrees and the higher lobe at 45 degrees.
I hope this will explain the low angles of take off for vertical angle of radiation.
I have not used the 6 meter band, but many years on the 5 meter band which also was fun.
W6TH
.:
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by W6TH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John mentioned this:
So if a simple unity gain, or less than unity gain (the Ground Plane) antenna will work quite nicely for 6 Meter DX, after all, I worked 50 states and several countries with such verticals, what would be the best beam antenna configuration.
====================================================
I say this:
1/4 wave vertical ground mounted has a gain of 3.8197 dBi above the isotropic. Also a gain of 5.82 dBd.
As a designer of antennas I would use the isotropic so all involved in RF transmisions will know the true gain in isotropic.
Also, ground mount the vertical with radials as easier to play with and experiment with.
W6TH
.:
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by W6TH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John asked:
"what would be the best beam antenna configuration"
====================================================.
John, for me and my use and from past experience on 10 meters I would go for the Quad antenna. A nice 2 element Quad will give you a much lower angle of fire for a lower heigth above ground. The Quad also has vertical and horizontal components and will stay longer with the station you will be working. Yagi's fade out much quicker and strange enough the Quad still hangs in there.
Of course the right and left circular antenna's work great and have much experimented with them both for myself and the gov't. There are many such as the slot antenna I worked with on missile guidance systems, but not to go overboard, I would stick with the Quad.
Hope I have been of some help. Need help? Maybe I can help you.
73, Vito W6TH
.:
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by KJ1Z on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First I want to comment on KA5DWI statement on the moonraker. You could modify an old moonraker I suppose to be used for 6 Meters by shortening up the elements appropriately. Now for me I have had decent luck with my Diamond V2000 vertical the one with the little 6M stub for tuning. It works good on FM and SSB (with tuner to get it to play in that range since it is designed for 52-54MHZ). For me I dont worry to much about polorization, if the band is open and I can hear them then I work them. It will be interesting though to compare once I move to the new QTH with vertical and horizontal and have both antennas to compare with. Now I wonder if anyone has tried circular polorization? I would think it would be the best of both worlds in on setup but maybe not.
Nice article by the way and some very constructive criticism from the group.
thanks Mike........KJ1Z
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by W6TH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mike........KJ1Z
You did not read my post just before yours.
Right and left circular work and work great. Do you have the time to build one? Are you into ham radio to construct one of each of these? How is your math and basic knowledge of antennas?
W6TH
.:
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by N9DG on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While the author focuses on 6M were polarization is not quite as critical IF the band is wide open. However if the band is not open and you are wanting to routinely work stations out to 400 miles or so polarization is CRITICAL. I so often hear the argument that you don't need much of an antenna on 6M because when it's open you can use just about anything for an antenna. Again partially true, but I guarantee it that you will miss many lesser openings because you won't hear much except for some of the others that are using the same polarization. In the case of vertical polarization it will be mostly other lower gain verticals. Most of the high performing antenna systems out there on 6M are horizontal. If you must use an inexpensive antenna take the time to make a cheap generic dipole for 6M, they are only about 8 ft long from tip to tip.
As for the higher bands like 2M and up it is again CRITICAL that you match polarization. The #1 mistake I see hams make shortly after buying that all band, all mode radio that covers bands from 160M to 70cm is that they inevitably go to the SSB part of the band with the same vertical omni they set up for FM work. Reality is that they don't work all that many people and come away from the experience with the conclusion that you can't do anything special with SSB on VHF. The real problem was that they defeated any real chance of their success on VHF SSB from the get-go by mismatching polarization.
Bottom line is that the need to match polarization of antennas on VHF and up is NOT a myth; it is very much a necessity. And for the so called "weak signal" modes on VHF+ running horizontal antenna polarization is the single biggest key to being truly successful or not. The next two biggest items are keeping the feed line losses to a minimum and the antennas in the clear as best you can.
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by W6TH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, polarization is very important in the use of 6 meters and high bands. It is very easy to design a two polarization for 6 meters. I don't recommend a Helix as most hams do not have the knowledge and background to build one, especially when it is left and right circular polarization. The need for phasing the two driven elements takes some knowhow.
I like to mount a vertical half wave and then a horizontal half wave and have them spinning. like the spokes on a wheel. I use 50 ohm coax and then two quarter wave 75 ohm coax to properly match both. I can get it down below 1.6;1.
I gave up my interests in 5 meters when it became 6 meters and all my home brew stuff had to be changed to the 6 meter band. Now there is no home brewing, not as much enjoyment when it is store bought. great for the new crowd I can see.
Oh well.
.:
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guys, another post, that both of you might have missed earlier, gave sort of ‘tongue in cheek’ observance to “E” and “H” plane antennas. He’s a real kidder, and probably often not taken seriously (enough)!
I think that any study that would TRACK polarization for given E-Layer, Meteor Scatter, Tropo events etc (ON EITHER 50 OR 28 MHz) would be a spectacular Ham project! One that -- by the way -- HAS NOT BEEN DONE!
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by NS6Y_ on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK let me enlarge on my "lie in bed with an HT and listen to the funny cops" comment.
The signal has to go through Goodness knows how many twists and turns to get to my HT, it's amazing it gets there at all!!
So, to become a "big gun" on 6m or 10m, why not set up an ant. system where you can change it to ANY polarization? Put it on some kind of mount where if the E-plane is at 37 degrees, you're right on it. Polarization makes a HUGE difference, and in mission-critical applications like satellite comms people know this, and come up with antennas that are at least pretty good at any polarization.
A good antenna is by far the cheapest way to add performance to a ham setup, and in 10m and up, it can be very cheap to add "dialable" polarization to the antenna and increase that antenna's performance on a QSO to QSO basic tremendously.
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought about doing just that when I was in High School. You will still see the beginnings of my 'rotatable 6M dipole' above the Industrial Arts Building at Anaheim Union High School.
My idea was to use a scope to track (sample) two polarizations, then turn the antenna to peak the signal.
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on March 24, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Alex, whats a good Op-amp, that would have a good slew up to 50 MHz, or a decent lower I.F?
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by NS6Y_ on March 25, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA6BFH - Google is your friend, first search on the first item brought up a whole page of TI tech notes on opamps meeting those requirements. Try it sometime!
First, I'd look at what other people are using and why. Radio designs, especially out of magazine archives like QEX and QST can be a big help.
Same goes for the whats and whys of lower IFs. I see a lot of 455kHz designs but that may be because parts are really easy to get for that. Again, google, QST, QEX, look at what others are doing and why, then go from there instead of reinventing the wheel.
I have not designed radios from the ground up yet, and neither have you - but at least I know how to look up how to if I need to.
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by KB3GTY on March 25, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you are looking for an antenna that will work both polarizations, an upright L is nice. While it is true that you will get less gain than a dipole, you can work horizontal or vertical without flipping your beam. In addition, you get an oval shaped radiation pattern which means less beam spinning, and it takes up very little space. Another antenna I like to use for vhf is a long wire. They have a Very strong vertical component off the ends. In fact I use one on 2m for ssb and to work distant repeaters.
73
Jef
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by W3ZD on March 25, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I previously stated a 30db or more loss between polarziations and perhaps that was a bit high. More research shows something on the order of 20db. I did find an interesting discussion on this subject at:
www.n1bug.net/operate/emepol-1.html
There quite a few discussions on the polarization loss on the web. I searched for "polarization loss".
Might be worth looking at. I do know this, theory works ONLY on paper, what we hams use defies almost all theory! hi hi
Use what works best for you is what I susbcribe to.
Clayton W3ZD
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on March 25, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My comments on the myths..
1) You must use horizontally polarized antennas!
No you don't. For local groundwave it's a must as VHF
matians polarization. For refracted, bounced, scatterd or otherwise non groundwave line of sight signals the rules are likely a punt. IF you don't have antenna A use B or anything you may have that loads! For 6m this is very true. For 2 less so but, note the lack of never and always in what I say.
2) Cubical Quads don’t work on VHF!
Work well and several designs are quite good. If built with fat wires (for 6m that would be 1/2" tube) they perform quite well.
3) Vertical omni-directional antennas will not work on 6 Meters for DX!
I have a W5, K7 and many other log haul contacts and their antenna was vertical. Mine wasn't!
4) “J” or J-pole antennas are less efficient than Ground Plane antennas!
Flat out NO. A 1/4wave ground plane is less efficient though good. A jpole is an end fed dipole. The rule
here is more metal is more signal. Jpoles are more metal. They work. It's possible to build better verticals than a jpole but rarely simpler.
I do a lot of my experimentation on 6M it includes antennas, radios and modes. My tower antennas include a vertical dipole, Jpole, 4 Element horizontal beam,
and a low (18ft up) 24' EDZ wire antenna for 6m all work and each has it's advantage for certain things. It's spooky to hear single hop stuff on the wire antenna that I can't find with any of the others!
So the second rule I give everyone is rule out nothing and try it at least twice.
Allison
KB1gmx
|
|   |
|
RE: Decoupling radials
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 25, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You can clean up the radiation pattern of a J Pole by installing 1/4 wave radials at the base of the antenna.
(not at the feedpoint's tuning slider!)
The 1/4 radials "decouple" the feedline from the antenna, reducing the normal current that spills over from the antenna.
Allthough this current is fairly small, it needs a place to go. Without the radials, it runs onto the shield of the feedline and radiates - instead of contributing to the main lobe radiating from the antenna.
73, Chris
|
|   |
|
RE: Decoupling radials
|
|
|
by WB6BYU on March 25, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It may be easier simply to use a balun at the feedpoint
of the J-pole, which could be simply coiling the feedline.
If the bottom of the matching stub on the J-pole is
grounded, then both sides of the stub where the feedline
is attached will be above ground. And if the coax shield
is attached above ground, then one would expect some
current to flow on it. I've often used a 4 : 1 coax
balun here and moved the matching point up the stub.
Using a balun is probably better than trying to add
radials - if they are attached to the antenna they won't
help much.
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on March 25, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Alex, I don’t want to build it! I thought I read that you like to design circuitry!
73! de John
PS
I think that GMX missed the point!
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by N0SP on March 25, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, after a long read on this topic I was somewhat disappointed that nobody got it right on the J-pole... decoupling radials?? Nonsense. They would be somewhat useful with many lousy designs in that they would reduce radiation of the coax, but they would not solve the hideous pattern that all of these J-poles produce. WB6BYU came close when mentioning a 4:1 balun, but he didn't develop it enough. There is a problem with J-poles, but it is NOT the antenna. The problem is that VERY few people know how to properly construct them. Nearly every J-pole design I've seen in recent years (either commercial offerings or design suggestions) use this silly feed system where the coax is connected across the line section near the base of the antenna. Yes, your SWR meter will be happy, (big woo) but the pattern will be awful. The Arrow Antenna J-pole is such a design. The owner of that company admitted to me "It does not model very well." He's a good guy and I give him credit for being honest. I've purchased beams from him, but the problem with this feed system is that the currents in the line section ARE OUT OF PHASE. They radiate significantly and distort the pattern terribly radiating most of the energy at a very high (useless) angle. The J pole is a VERY good antenna when properly constructed. When used in a mobile it exhibits much less fading (picket-fencing) and stronger signals than a top-mounted 5/8ths wave vertical. I have proven this going down the road switching instantly from one to the other. The difference was dramatic.
To convert the typical Ersatz J-pole to a real "High Performance J" (for 6 meters) you need to add about 3 inches to the long element and shorten the stub by approx. 1½ inches. (for 2 meters add an inch and and subtract 1/2 inch respectively) Then feed it with a good balun. Do NOT use a choke balun, but either a transformer or coax balun. And by the way, when I say "coax balun" I don't mean the random wad of coiled coax! I mean a REAL balun cut to the proper electrical length. The balun can be either 4:1 or 1:1, the only thing different between them would be the connection point on the stub. The 4:1 would match higher up the stub. What this does is keep the currents in the line section in exact balance and out of phase 180º. Therefore it will not radiate. The half-wave section does all the work and the stub is invisible. The base of the antenna can (and should) be grounded to the car (or tower) and no current will flow outside the coax if the antenna is cut properly. Simply build the antenna, then tap the balun output up the line section until the SWR drops to minimum. (use a good meter ideally connected at the base of the balun or a half-wave down the coax from it) You are now connected to the 50-ohm (or 200 ohm) point of the stub. It is interesting to note that very old ham radio references like handbooks from the 1940s or 50s all show this J-pole design correctly. But when we became SWR happy, and people quit building baluns, this concept died with the old-timers. Witness the 19th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book... it doesn't even mention the J pole.(!) The 2003 Handbook does, but (again) gives the wrong way to build one. You get the "tune for lowest SWR" instruction, period. The 1956 Edition of the Philco Field Service Antenna Training Manual gives the proper design instruction.(thanks W6TYP)
For those who are interested, the formula for the element lengths are:
Stub: 2950/MHZ
Radiator:(1/2 wave section above the stub) 5600/MHZ
If you want a real performer you can insert a 1/4 wave stub (trombone) at the top of the J and add another 1/2 wave length of tubing. This doubles the gain and gives you about the lowest angle omni signal you'll ever have on VHF. But thats getting pretty tall on 6 meters.
73,
Dennis
NØSP
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good thoughts SP!
I like your style!
73! de John
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by NS6Y_ on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA6BFH - I do like to design circuits but I guess I need to read up a lot more before I can design a radio - with proper freq IFs - from scratch! Just the fact that I have actually soldered, and will solder again, PL-259's puts me far ahead of most non Senior Citizen hams lol!
And what does this have to do with antenna polarization? I know about antenna polarization, have messed with antennas and noticed often the weirdest angle, say 37 degrees off of vertical or some-such thing, will bring in a signal well while the orthodox vertical or horizontal will perform much worse, for a given signal. It's all vectors durrrrr! And although I think the hardware to do it may be very klunky, being able to dial in any polarization may be a huge advantage in working DX on VHF.
And Glory Hallelujia you got to mess with antennas on the roof of your high school - that does nothing for an old-ish fart like myself, already in the 70s that was verboten activity in high school, although they'd not come out and say it, the whole idea seemed to be to discourage scientific experimentation, technical learning, and hands-on experimentation. Same in college. And it's that bad but I think worse for the younger hams now, the one's I'm old enough to be the mom of. So, that's very nice you got to build some antenna thingamabob that they've still not gotten around to taking down from some roof in Anaheim, have you built anything since? You come up with anything a kid or young adult ham can build on their own, away from school and at home etc where they won't get the SWAT team called out for building it? Come on, share, we're all here to learn!
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well kid, I don’t want to brag but, I have been building circuitry and other things for Ham’s and the ‘industry’ since even before SENIOR High School. You are right though! It took nearly an act of Congress to allow for permission for me to climb those school towers!
Anyway, I was thinking of high frequency comparitor circuitry. There are other ways to do the job though. What’cha think?
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by NS6Y_ on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I dunno, there are some moonbouncers and dx'ers who sure pull out all the stops in antennas, rigs etc., I wonder if a system that allows dialing in the polarization for the signal of interest could be that last "secret weapon"?
It would be wild to come up with an antenna/radio system with circuitry that "tunes" for polarization of the signal of interest. The neighors would love a moving antenna, you bet!
Hey you should see some of the big dishes around here, one's my favorite, every time I drive by it's pointing a different direction and the center SPINS. I'd take some photos but I think it's illegal.
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by N0SP on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And now for something "on topic"...
Guys, the main reason long distance VHF work is done with horizontal polarization is "ground gain". Like it or not, the ground interacts with our antennas no matter how high they are. Vertically polarized signals are voraciously absorbed by almost any soil. Sea water is the exception. Horizontally polarized signals are reflected (more or less) and add in phase at various angles providing actual gain over the primary field.
73,
Dennis
NØSP
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0SP;
Not sure where your getting your information, but you may want to do a little more research.
ANY End Fed vertical - 1/2 wave, 5/8 wave, etc. needs decoupling from the feedline for the best radiation pattern towards the horizon - otherwise known as maximum performance.
J Pole, K Pole, Z Pole - it doesn't matter...
The antenna will work well without the radials, like the Cushcraft AR2, AR2B, and other end fed verticals. An End Fed vertical for HF is also great antenna; in a pinch, they work very well, especially for quick temporary installations.
But they will work significantly better when the antenna is properly decoupled from the feedline.
A old time favorite for VHF that uses this principle is the Sleeve Vertical. It's comprised of a 1/4 wave vertical with a 1/4 wave coaxial sleeve below it that surrounds the feedline. Allthough the currents in this antenna are obviously higher because the the antenna is current-fed, the End Fed half wave still has current returning to the feedline - and it has to go somewhere.
Decoupling with 1/4 wave radials is the answer for best performance as it allows this current to add to contribute to the overall radiation pattern - instead of radiating via the feedline and distorting it.
Prove me wrong - try it some time. This is an easy add on to any End Fed vertical.
73, Chris
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by N0SP on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1RNE wrote:
"the End Fed half wave still has current returning to the feedline - and it has to go somewhere."
I disagree, read my post again. Thats the purpose of the BALUN... if it's built properly there should be no currents outside the coax. First of all, you know from your experience that return currents in a conventional end fed 1/2 wave are very very small, even without a balun. Thats one of the benefits of using an end fed halfwave at any frequency... you even mentioned that in your post. But in this case the balun (or transformer, if you will) completely isolates the coax shield anyway.
WA1RNE wrote:
"Decoupling with 1/4 wave radials is the answer for best performance as it allows this current to add to contribute to the overall radiation pattern."
Two points:
First, 1/4 wave radials (if you could get them to conduct ANY energy) would ruin the pattern of a half-wave antenna because then it becomes a 3/4 wave system. (assuming the radials slope down towards the vertical as your comment insinuates) A quick glance at any reference tells us that a 3/4 wave vertical has a terrible pattern. And before you argue with that, remember that the TOTAL system aperture determines the pattern. A half wave vertical antenna with 1/4 wave radials sloping under it is INDEED a 3/4 wave antenna and will exhibit the same pattern of a full 3/4 wave vertical.(terrible) Likewise, a 1/4 wave vertical with sloping 1/4 wave radials is a half-wave antenna with a good pattern. Thats an example of what you said: "allows this current to add to contribute to the overall radiation pattern." It does indeed. But this is NOT the case in a J-pole.
Secondly...
Just where would you put these radials?? At the bottom of the balun somewhere? That would look funny since the balun (usually a coax balun transformer) is off at some semi-horizontal angle from the antenna or mounted below it. This effectively decouples any errant coax energy from the antenna's field anyway.
Granted... it is not a perfect world and there are going to be miniscule currents everywhere, both induced currents and those that are the result of imperfections in the balun or departure from design frequency. But in this design those currents are of such small value as to have no measurable impact of the radiating element's pattern which is already more than 1/4 wave above and away from the coax or support structure. Your comments are correct when talking about current-fed antennas. In that case, as with most "verticals", the highest currents are right there at the point of coax connection. Therefore either radials, a sleeve, or decoupling cones are necessary to accomodate return currents as they use an unbalanced feed system. But the properly designed J-pole's coax is at least a quarter-wave away from the feedpoint, 3/4 wave away from the current portion of the antenna, PLUS it's further isolated by the balun. When I say "feedpoint" I mean the top of the J-pole's line section. The line section is simply an impedance transformer and not part of the antenna since currents there are equal and opposite.
The whole point of my post is that the J-pole mitigates some shortfalls of series-fed low-impedence vertical monopoles because they don't require a low resistance counterpoise and provide a clean pattern with gain. It's the electrical equivalent half-wave vertical dipole in nearly free space without the complication of a support structure or feedlines intruding in to the radiating portion of the antenna. I also wanted to correct the deteriorating record on how the J-pole should be constructed. Modern references and lore have ruined it. The only disadvantage here is the need to construct an effective balun. Instructions are in any handbook.
Or.. if you're lucky you can find an old AEA Isopole in good condition. Those are very good antennas. I've had one for years.
73,
Dennis
|
|   |
|
VHF Propagation, etc...
|
|
|
by N0SP on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Again... I'll briefly venture back on topic, probably for the last time. I'll admit I have only scanned through the gazillion words in the posts above. I'm just too busy. Frankly it's all been done before.
(Although, there is still research being done by very knowledgable people on some rare and esoteric propagation modes)
What I find tiresome is this constant mantra "There is no amateur scientific research regarding VHF propagation." Well, the truth is that this area of the spectrum has been thoroughly mined, most of it pre WW II. And no, I am unwilling to squander time by spoon-feeding references -- that is what an internet search engine is for. It would really be helpful if those REALLY interested in this topic read "Line of Sight" by W3EP and subscribe to DUBUS Magazine.
Also, here's a site that zeroes-in on VHF propagation studies. And as a bonus, much of the evidence in encapsulated in layman's terms:
http://www.df5ai.net
There's a difference between discovery for one's own self and contributing to a genuine body of scientific evidence. The parameters are much more strict. Learning that difference comes from spending more time with your eyes and less with a keyboard. The world is full of people who have written far more than they've read and some Eham posts are evidence of that.
But "CQ VHF" and "World Radio" does not count on that score. You have to look deeper.
73,
Dennis
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by K7VO on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am with those who say that for 6m SSB/CW work you want a horizontally polarized antenna, period. Yes, polarization is not maintained through some ionospheric propogation modes that account for a lot of DX and band openings and a vertical will work for those openings. I have no doubt about that. What about the other 300 days a year????
With a decent beam on 6m or even stacked omni loops you can easily work 200-300 miles around without a band opening. The difference between have a horizontal antenna and a vertical antenna is the difference between being able to make interesting contacts on 6m almost any day of the week and having no activity for most of the time. I suspect many of those who claim 6m is "dead" most of the time have followed advice similar to that offered in this article. For 6m SSB/CW go horizontal: no question. The same holds true for 2m, 222MHz, 432MHz, and 1296MHz. For FM go vertical.
I think others have successfully debunked the author's own myth that somehow a vertical antenna has a lower angle of radiation. Not true when the horizontal antenna is up at even a modest height.
The 20dB-30dB or more for polarization loss figure is real. Get both a horizontal and a vertical antenna and do some A/B testing and you'll know it's true.
Some antenna is always better than no antenna. In most cases, for any and all VHF/UHF weak signal work, horizontal is better than vertical. At least that's what my 20+ years of experience have taught me. Even a small horizontal omni loop, which is inexpensive, unobtrusive, and easy to put up, is better than a vertical.
73,
Caity
K7VO/8
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The main idea of this article was to promote the idea of Ham’s testing and trying things. I’m not discouraging reading other good sources of reference though, and I was pleased to see that recently some comments were made about the more typical sources that I unfortunately agree with! I have always gotten good ideas and information from the books written by Bill Orr. I also cherish Bob Shrader’s “Electronic Communication”, and I also own and read “Antennas“ by Kraus!
There is one person out there who often seems to have a real nasty edge to her comments. I will leave this person nameless because, I don’t care about the rancor but, I do care about the ignorance. The main idea is try things! Test ideas and concepts. Look at the results scientifically, talk about it with friends with whom you can bounce ideas around. What a wonderful resource this page is for just that sort of discussion!
So flame on folks, I gave you a new article to pick apart so fire up the torches! Seriously I hope you enjoy them, and whether you get any good ideas contained within my articles, or whether you get it from the folks that comment on them -- it’s all information -- and probably worth consideration!
73! de John WA6BFH
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by K7VO on March 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nasty edge? You said her and I seem to be the only female commenter so you must mean me, right? There was no flame in my post. I disagreed with the premise and many of the statements in your article. Based on my 20+ years on the air on 6m and above I find running a vertical to be counterproductive. Someone disagreeing with you is NOT a "flame".
I'm all for trying new things. I am also all for success on the air. I hate it when someone gives up on 6m because "the band is always dead" when they tried something like a vertical antenna that set them up for failure without trying anything else.
You also claimed there is more noise received on horizontally polarized antennas. I happen to have both horizontal antennas (SSB/CW) and vertical (FM) here at my QTH and it seems I pick up a lot more man made noise on the vertical. That has been my experience at my previous QTH as well.
You make blanket statements that just don't hold up to pursue what seems to me based on many, many posts you made in many different threads and fora to tout vertically over horizontally polarized antennas. Yes, I am challenging those statements. No nastiness, just my experience on the air.
73,
Caity
K7VO
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 27, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think Caity added some usefull information. I did not sense a "Nasty edge" at all.
If one does a technical post, one must accept feedback. I know Caity has been around, and is very knowledgable.
OTHERS,simply asked you to "TAKE NOTE" on something you missed.
This is a tough crowd here. It is one thing to write a "Puff" post. I have learned that when I write a technical post, I will miss one or two points.
ALSO, nobody is a mind reader here. One does not have to be defensive, if your reminded of something you
may have known.
ON A TOTAL SEPERATE ISSUE....NEW D.E.D'S WILL BE ROLLING. hint; tHIS D.E.D was met with much resistance.
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 27, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0SP:
"Decoupling with 1/4 wave radials is the answer for best performance as it allows this current to add to [and] contribute to the overall radiation pattern."
This is what I said.
Your response:
Two points:
First, 1/4 wave radials (if you could get them to conduct ANY energy) ......
...> stop there: What would stop the radials from conducting and then radiating energy??
.....would ruin the pattern of a half-wave antenna because then it becomes a 3/4 wave system. (assuming the radials slope down towards the vertical as your comment insinuates)
> Adding radials does not create a 3/4 wavelength radiator. The original J Pole is a 1/2 radiator fed at the bottom with a 1/4 wave transmission line. If you plot the current ditribution of a J Pole, you will see the current drop at the bottom of the 1/2 wave radiator, then begin to increase to its maximum - AT THE FEEDPOINT - 1/4 wavelength away.
This is key: You are feeding this transmission line with an unbalanced coaxial line, so there will be a significant common mode current flowing on the shield.
Since current must return back to the shield, the radials will indeed see the same current that is flowing in the 1/4 wave line and will radiate, completing the second half wave radiator and effectively decoupling the transmission line from the antenna. (not perfectly, but 4 radials is a hell of a lot better than none.) What you end up with is 2 half waves in phase.
"Secondly...
Just where would you put these radials?? At the bottom of the balun somewhere? That would look funny since the balun (usually a coax balun transformer) is off at some semi-horizontal angle from the antenna or mounted below it. This effectively decouples any errant coax energy from the antenna's field anyway."
Granted, the radials may not be pretty, but this isn't a beauty contest. The radials should be attached at the same point where the shield from the coaxial line feeds the antenna. This can vary depending upon the type of J Pole; some feed right at the bottom, others feed using a movable shorting bar tpped up from the bottom of the quarter wave line.
By the way, we're not trying to solve an RFI problem, allthough the choke is a good way to do that if it were.
This is a decoupling issue: the intent is to allow current to flow and radiate via a quarter wave radiator - the radials - that would instead return on the shield and radiate from the line.
The point is, if you have an opportunity to put this current to use instead of choking it off just to make sure the line doesn't radiate, why not do so??
73, Chris
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on March 27, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris, I think you missed answering that point.
The de-coupling radials should be 1/4 wavelength below the feedpoint, right?
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on March 28, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0SP:
Jpoles, right on. I build them and always include a bazooka feed to line isolate the feed point. I get the best field strength that way and it's more likely to be at the best SWR point. I run a Jpole that way for mobile UHF use and it easily exceeds all commercial designs for its size. The key item here is that any antenna that requires balanced feed be it Jpole or beam should be fed correctly or the results will be at best degraded.
The Arrow (OSJ) designs are decent enough by use and testing. I prefer that design for it's mechanical strength and compact no radials design more than any other factor. IE: I can toss it assembled into the back of my pickup, tough to do with other radial equipped antennas.
Allison
KB1GMX
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on March 28, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just caught this.
"You can never have too many antennas" is an idea that springs to mind. I always have both vertical and horizontal antennas for the VHF bands, at least for 50/144/222/432 MHz anyway: Verticals rule for FM-repeater work, and horizontal for SSB-CW and other weak signal work, 99% of the time. There can be exceptions, but not many.
On six meters, where I have a 7 element horizontal yagi and a 1/2-wave vertical omni both brought to a switch, the beam beats the vertical just about 100% of the time on all SSB-CW signals, no matter where they're coming from or how they're propagated.
But on FM, I can hear and work stuff with the vertical that I can't even tell are there with the beam. That X-pol loss for tropospheric work is horrendous.
WB2WIK/6
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by KC0THS on March 29, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A question for N0SP on the j-pole formula's he has in his post.
The conventional method of calculation for the main section is 705/f mhz or 162 inches for 52 mhz .Your formula gives 5600/f mhz or 107 inches for the same freq. Quite a difference?
I am going to modify my jpole and try your changes but which method gives the right number??
|
|   |
|
RE: The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Pola
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on March 30, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
5600/f? That's ridiculous.
The two vertical parts of a j-pole are:
8424/f(MHz) = length in inches for 3/4-wave section ("tall" part of the j)
2808/f(MHz) = length in inches for the 1/4-wave section ("short" part of the j)
The "705/f" yields a length for the 3/4-wave section in *feet*, not inches.
These are approximations -- always -- because the actual length is influenced by the conductor (radiator) diameter and proximity to anything in the antenna's near field. But they're a good starting point, and usually close enough.
WB2WIK/6
|
|   |
|
RE: J-poles, Radials, and other Silliness...
|
|
|
by N0SP on March 30, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well...
I'm going to take some of these things one at a time..
First of all, Kudos to you guys who wrote me expressing an interest in the fine points of such a J-pole and wanting to build one. They're a fine antenna. I have two of them.. one which is mounted permanently on a mobile mast. By the way, the Hustler (now MFJ) mobile vertical (half-wave over a quarter-wave with a phasing coil in between) has similar gain and performance of a J-pole, HOWEVER the gain of the Hustler seriously deteriorates as you increase speed above about 40mph. The thin top whip bends back causing substantial distortion of the pattern. The rigid J-pole will not do that. Also, the Hustler needs a good ground beneath it (unlike the J) since it is a current fed antenna.
I also want to mention that there is no need to feed the J-pole directly at the balun's output. The balun can be located any reasonable place some distance from the antenna. Ladder or open twin lead can be used to go from the balun to the antenna. It can be any length. I even have a picture of over 100 feet of 600 ohm open wire line going to a tower mounted J-pole for a VHF STL link in the 60s. Just keep the ladder line away from sustained close contact with metal.
WB2WIK wrote:
>5600/f? That's ridiculous.
>The two vertical parts of a j-pole are:
>8424/f(MHz) = length in inches for 3/4-wave section ("tall" part of the j)
>2808/f(MHz) = length in inches for the 1/4-wave section ("short" part of the j)
(sigh) Steve... I clearly said in my original post that the 5600/mhz formula was for the section "ABOVE THE STUB". When you add that number to the stub length formula I gave, it comes out VERY close to the 8424 you wrote. (RTFP please)
Yes, these numbers will vary a little according to stub spacing & element diameters, but remember, most of the formulas floating around out there these days are for the corrupted design using direct coax feed. The number I gave is for a version fed with balanced, or open-wire line.
Now for the "decoupling radial" and common-mode current nonesense... this is the LAST time I'm going to address this issue and do so with some resistance right now.
Chris wrote:
...> stop there: What would stop the radials from conducting and then radiating energy??
Quarter-wave radials will conduct no appreciable energy in a voltage fed (High Z) system. If you don't understand this I won't go in to it now. But you never said (until this last post) just where you wanted to put these radials. The J-pole is a voltage-fed antenna.
Chris said:
> If you plot the current ditribution of a J Pole, you will see the current drop at the bottom of the 1/2 wave radiator, then begin to increase to its maximum - AT THE FEEDPOINT - 1/4 wavelength away.
Wrong... no radiation occurs below the 1/2 wave section. Currents do increase going down that matching section but (THIS IS THE LAST TIME I'M GOING TO SAY THIS) the currents are equal and opposite in phase and no significant radiation happens there.. period. Again, if it did, the pattern would be distorted. This was the whole reason for my post in the first place, to eliminate this problem. NOW, if you happen to be plotting the currents on the corrupted J-pole designs of recent years, you'll see some currents down there...and you'll have some of your coveted common-mode currents on the coax. If you prefer it that way, by all means use one... and hang radials anywhere you want. You want to see the results of a 3/4 wave vertical like you describe above?? Model one and see if there is ANYTHING you like about the pattern. Or, pic up a good reference book that shows one.
Chris wrote:
>This is key: You are feeding this transmission line with an unbalanced coaxial line, so there will be a significant common mode current flowing on the shield.
Chris... why are you so hung up on this shield business?? Your comments tell me you have no understanding of this kind of balun or what the J-pole is supposed to be. This balun is not simply a choke. It efficiently converts the unbalanced system to a balanced two-wire system where the currents flow along the line in equal and opposite phase. The outside shield is not a factor at all.. there is no reason for any common mode current to flow on the shield of the coax at the input side of a properly designed balun. The balun can be 6 inches or 600 feet from the antenna.. it makes no difference. The balun converts the system to a 2-wire feed and then the line section at the bottom of the J-pole simply performs the impedance transformation from the line impedance to the 3,000 to 5,000 ohms at the beginning of the half wave element. It's that simple. You cannot think of this antenna in terms of a conventional coax-fed vertical.
You went on to talk about hooking radials up "at the same point where the shield from the coax feeds the antenna"... How many times do I have to say this??.. there is NO coax shield anywhere near the antenna. Did you read my initial post??? NO coax on the J-pole, period.
This is my last post on this aspect of the design since everyone else who wrote me seems to understand the antenna. It's a great aerial that offers decent gain and a very low angle of radiation. I've enjoyed incredable performance with this antenna mounted above the roofline of my car... FM simplex contacts over 100 miles were common. (using 150 watts)
73,
Dennis
|
|   |
|
Still thinking positive, but not about 240' towers
|
|
|
by K7VO on April 2, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know what, John? You're right. 240' is a 1/2 wave on 160m. Funny you should mention that without correcting my point. You don't need to be 1/4 wave up to get a proper directional pattern from a dipole or a Zepp. You do, in fact, need to be 1/2 wavelength up. So, the 240' was correct, the 1/4 wave I typed was not. Thanks for pointing it out. I still don't see most hams able to put up five 240' towers, do you?
Nice of you to assume we can all have 60' or so towers in our backyards. My 13' wide backyard can have no such thing. Even if the neighbors didn't complain the city sure would.
Think positive? John, you don't know me. I am probably the most positive person you will ever meet. I have a can-do attitude, and if you want proof of that take a look at what kind of antenna farm I have managed on my tiny deep in the heart of the city lot. Also take a look at my logs :) I did forget to mention that I am way high up on a high hill with a clear view for miles and miles in three directions. It's wonderful for VHF/UHF work and the upper bands on HF work quite wonderfully here as well, even QRP.
I can be as positive as anyone but I still can't change the laws of physics. I don't think you can either.
Positively 73,
Caity
K7VO/8
|
|   |
|
RE: Still thinking positive, but not about 240' to
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on April 2, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ah Caity, you really do need to get up to ¾ wavelength for that darn pesky wire to work as planned!
As to physics, shoot gal, ya never answered my question! We can work on it though!
That is the MAJOR advantage of Ham radio. We can actually set up a hypothetical experiment -- and then DO that experiment in the real world.
We may not change physics but, we just might change the way it is understood!
|
|   |
|
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polariza
|
|
|
by G7CNF on February 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I know that this topic has been quiet for some time, so I thought I'd kick it off again. With regard to 6m, the importance of polarisation is entirely determined by the propagation type. The beauty of our hobby is that it is based upon science fact, which fundamentally governed by pure maths and physics. But wait; there is a fly in the ointment; mother nature.
I have been working 6m JT6m, with poor rocks for half-an-hour, only to suddenly get full periods on E's come in for a few minutes and then disappear.
What I dearly like about 6m is it's ability to level the playing field. I was listening to a pile-up last summer, having worked a DX transatlantic station, and a mate of mine came on. Now most of the callers in the pile were known to me, and using 4 to 7 element beams with 100-400W. This mate of mine, who consequently never comes on 6m, was using 10w and a 40m mono-band vertical, tuned with the internal ATU of his radio. He cracked the pile-up on his first call.
Another good example is the temporary appearance of HA on 6m during August 2005, for their experimental 'trial'. Their working conditions were 5W max, and unity gain antennas only, i.e. 5wERP. I worked 25 of them one day, all 5/9 or 599 at my end with reciprocal reports. I even altered my TX power during one QSO from 100W to 5W and back to 100W, and the op was not able to discern any difference. He was vertical I was horizontal.
Many of us know or are partially familiar with the science, but every so often the atmosphere will throw a curve-ball. Like the time I worked a US5 station on 2m E's on a vertical with 100w, again cracking a pile-up with a 59+ signal, 1900 km.
73's to all. Never give up hope!
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Southeastern VHF Society Announces 2000 Conference
A Digital Voice Standard for VHF+
VHF Distant Communication or DX?
HF Vertical Travel Antenna - Updated:
The Bow String Antenna for 18 MHz
Other Antennas Articles
Running Radials the Easy Way -- Sew What?
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polarization
'No Show' HF Antenna that WORKS!
The Eagle Has Landed
My Quest for a New Antenna
|