Mast wiring, antenna's

All, West Marine did an article (West Advisor) in their paper catalogue regarding VHF antennas, and their placement. From what I gather, the higher you place it, the farther you can transmit, as well as receive. From my early electronics training (starting 40 years ago with my FCC Radiotelephone license) the antenna height is paramount. The antenna (a base loaded steel whip in my case) receives its ground plane from surrounding metal, not so much water. The shrouds act as that ground plane, with no reflecting metal surface to affect the signal. That is why HAM's mount their antenna's on towers... Placement at the stern causes an issue with the shrouds- signal reflection. That causes signal loss, echo, and a directionality problem. Of course, the whole system depends on a good DC supply connection (including proper ground) to the radio, as well as shroud and thru-hull fittings grounding. The greater ground plane you create, the higher efficiency you will receive. It works for me! Try looking up the WM Advisor article. Regards, Dave Leasia '72 cal 27 p-t #145 s/v Candy Cane Grosse Pointe Farms, MI

I am a Extra class HAM and a EE by profession. I am not, however, and antenna expert. But I do know an antenna expert and I called him to see if he could help out on this issue. It was a very interesting discussion. Here is a summary: 1) His position is that for 2 meters, the higher the better. I still like having the antenna on the stern so that if my mast comes down, I am not using a HT but that is his opinion. His thought is that 2 meter is line of sight and that it won't bend over the water like I was asserting. 2) A whip on the top of a metal mast will form an antenna with a short element and a long wire element (the mast). The pattern of this will be almost straight up. Terrible idea. In other words, good for talking to the moon but bad for talking to anyone on land. You just cannot get a good antenna with a whip on a boat. A car roof is a good ground plane, but a mast is not. 3) To solve this problem, you can make what HAMs call a ground plane antenna. Basically you have the cnter electrode whip and 3 or 4 equal length ground electrodes going down at some non critical angle, horizontal, 45 degrees down, doesn't much matter. That will prevent the mast from conducting the RF and thus keep the pattern horizontal. 4) A J-pole is a great antenna but it is probably cumbersome for the top of a mast. It does work well on the stern though. Just a comment. When a HAM puts an antenna on a tower, he is not going to use the tower as an element in the antenna. Mostly what goes on towers are Yagi antennas but you can find J-poles, ground plane, and more complex antennas as well. You won't find a whip bolted to the tower. There are very few antenna experts in the world and this guy is one of them so we are lucky to have this information. I learned something and I hope you all did. Allen On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 7:14 AM, telephone_dr <te… [at] yahoo.com>wrote: > > > All, > > West Marine did an article (West Advisor) in their paper catalogue > regarding VHF antennas, and their placement. From what I gather, the higher > you place it, the farther you can transmit, as well as receive. From my > early electronics training (starting 40 years ago with my FCC Radiotelephone > license) the antenna height is paramount. The antenna (a base loaded steel > whip in my case) receives its ground plane from surrounding metal, not so > much water. The shrouds act as that ground plane, with no reflecting metal > surface to affect the signal. That is why HAM's mount their antenna's on > towers... > > Placement at the stern causes an issue with the shrouds- signal reflection. > That causes signal loss, echo, and a directionality problem. Of course, the > whole system depends on a good DC supply connection (including proper > ground) to the radio, as well as shroud and thru-hull fittings grounding. > The greater ground plane you create, the higher efficiency you will receive. > > It works for me! Try looking up the WM Advisor article. > > Regards, > > Dave Leasia > '72 cal 27 p-t #145 > s/v Candy Cane > Grosse Pointe Farms, MI > > >

Allen, I bow to an expert. I just read a lot. My rig works well on the Great Lakes... Dave PS Don't the shrouds and fore/aft stays act as radials? --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Allen Edwards <allen.edwards@...> wrote: > > I am a Extra class HAM and a EE by profession. I am not, however, and > antenna expert. But I do know an antenna expert and I called him to see if > he could help out on this issue. It was a very interesting discussion. > Here is a summary: > 1) His position is that for 2 meters, the higher the better. I still like > having the antenna on the stern so that if my mast comes down, I am not > using a HT but that is his opinion. His thought is that 2 meter is line of > sight and that it won't bend over the water like I was asserting. > > 2) A whip on the top of a metal mast will form an antenna with a short > element and a long wire element (the mast). The pattern of this will be > almost straight up. Terrible idea. In other words, good for talking to the > moon but bad for talking to anyone on land. You just cannot get a good > antenna with a whip on a boat. A car roof is a good ground plane, but a > mast is not. > > 3) To solve this problem, you can make what HAMs call a ground plane > antenna. Basically you have the cnter electrode whip and 3 or 4 equal > length ground electrodes going down at some non critical angle, horizontal, > 45 degrees down, doesn't much matter. That will prevent the mast from > conducting the RF and thus keep the pattern horizontal. > > 4) A J-pole is a great antenna but it is probably cumbersome for the top of > a mast. It does work well on the stern though. > > Just a comment. When a HAM puts an antenna on a tower, he is not going to > use the tower as an element in the antenna. Mostly what goes on towers are > Yagi antennas but you can find J-poles, ground plane, and more complex > antennas as well. You won't find a whip bolted to the tower. > > There are very few antenna experts in the world and this guy is one of them > so we are lucky to have this information. I learned something and I hope > you all did. > > Allen

I think the conclusion of this discussion/ learning exercise is that a 1/2 wave antenna is fine at the top of the mast. That would be a 34 inch antenna. A 1/4 wave using the stays as radials will work for talking to aircraft or, as my friend says, the moon. If your stays were 17 inches long, they would work fine. On the other hand, a 17 inch 1/4 wave antenna with its own set of 17 inch radials should also be fine. Personally, I still don't want the weight and windage of a antenna up there so I will stick with my lower range j-pole. I now know that I am giving up range though. Allen On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:03 AM, telephone_dr <te… [at] yahoo.com>wrote: > > > Allen, > > I bow to an expert. I just read a lot. > My rig works well on the Great Lakes... > > Dave > > PS Don't the shrouds and fore/aft stays act as radials? > > > --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com <Cal_Boats%40yahoogroups.com>, Allen > Edwards <allen.edwards@...> wrote: > > > > I am a Extra class HAM and a EE by profession. I am not, however, and > > antenna expert. But I do know an antenna expert and I called him to see > if > > he could help out on this issue. It was a very interesting discussion. > > Here is a summary: > > 1) His position is that for 2 meters, the higher the better. I still like > > having the antenna on the stern so that if my mast comes down, I am not > > using a HT but that is his opinion. His thought is that 2 meter is line > of > > sight and that it won't bend over the water like I was asserting. > > > > 2) A whip on the top of a metal mast will form an antenna with a short > > element and a long wire element (the mast). The pattern of this will be > > almost straight up. Terrible idea. In other words, good for talking to > the > > moon but bad for talking to anyone on land. You just cannot get a good > > antenna with a whip on a boat. A car roof is a good ground plane, but a > > mast is not. > > > > 3) To solve this problem, you can make what HAMs call a ground plane > > antenna. Basically you have the cnter electrode whip and 3 or 4 equal > > length ground electrodes going down at some non critical angle, > horizontal, > > 45 degrees down, doesn't much matter. That will prevent the mast from > > conducting the RF and thus keep the pattern horizontal. > > > > 4) A J-pole is a great antenna but it is probably cumbersome for the top > of > > a mast. It does work well on the stern though. > > > > Just a comment. When a HAM puts an antenna on a tower, he is not going to > > use the tower as an element in the antenna. Mostly what goes on towers > are > > Yagi antennas but you can find J-poles, ground plane, and more complex > > antennas as well. You won't find a whip bolted to the tower. > > > > There are very few antenna experts in the world and this guy is one of > them > > so we are lucky to have this information. I learned something and I hope > > you all did. > > > > Allen > > >

wilkie and dan and others. you guys (and CALs) ok? Reggie

So far none of the boats that have washed up on the beach are Cals. We're all tucked into our safe (so far) slips in a well protected harbor. The surf crashing through the pilings under Stearn's Wharf are frightening and looking out into the "Fool's Anchorage" the question isn't that a boat would wash ashore but how come they all haven't? Wilkie On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:51 PM, r good wrote: > wilkie and dan and others. you guys (and CALs) ok? > Reggie > >

It looks like an inverted form of our Nor'Easter. Maybe somewhat warmer. Best of good fortune to all. Take Care Charlie Annapolis From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wilkie Owen Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:47 AM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs So far none of the boats that have washed up on the beach are Cals. We're all tucked into our safe (so far) slips in a well protected harbor. The surf crashing through the pilings under Stearn's Wharf are frightening and looking out into the "Fool's Anchorage" the question isn't that a boat would wash ashore but how come they all haven't? Wilkie On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:51 PM, r good wrote: wilkie and dan and others. you guys (and CALs) ok? Reggie

Check out 'Lectronic Latitude 38. those boats in Richardson's Bay (Cal boats too) were not so fortunate, Mike Farrell Coyote Cal 20 #61 From: "Husar, Charlie [USA]" <hu… [at] bah.com> To: "Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com" <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 11:17:54 AM Subject: RE: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs It looks like an inverted form of our Nor'Easter. Maybe somewhat warmer. Best of good fortune to all. Take Care Charlie Annapolis From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wilkie Owen Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:47 AM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs So far none of the boats that have washed up on the beach are Cals. We're all tucked into our safe (so far) slips in a well protected harbor. The surf crashing through the pilings under Stearn's Wharf are frightening and looking out into the "Fool's Anchorage" the question isn't that a boat would wash ashore but how come they all haven't? Wilkie On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:51 PM, r good wrote: wilkie and dan and others. you guys (and CALs) ok? >Reggie >

Thanks for the heads-up. Interesting article. Looks like nothing was lost that was cared for but perhaps I misread it as I don't want to offend any owners who lost their boats. Allen On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:19 PM, mike farrell <ve… [at] yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Check out 'Lectronic Latitude 38. those boats in Richardson's Bay (Cal > boats too) were not so fortunate, > Mike Farrell Coyote Cal 20 #61 > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Husar, Charlie [USA]" <hu… [at] bah.com> > *To:* "Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com" <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> > *Sent:* Wed, January 20, 2010 11:17:54 AM > *Subject:* RE: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs > > > > It looks like an inverted form of our Nor'Easter. Maybe somewhat warmer. > Best of good fortune to all. > > Take Care > Charlie > Annapolis > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *David Wilkie Owen > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:47 AM > *To:* Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs > > > So far none of the boats that have washed up on the beach are Cals. We're > all tucked into our safe (so far) slips in a well protected harbor. The > surf crashing through the pilings under Stearn's Wharf are frightening and > looking out into the "Fool's Anchorage" the question isn't that a boat would > wash ashore but how come they all haven't? > > Wilkie > > > On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:51 PM, r good wrote: > > wilkie and dan and others. you guys (and CALs) ok? > Reggie > > > > > >

No Allen you are right, look at the bottom of the Cal that went on the beach! My Best, Mike From: Allen Edwards <al… [at] PaloAltoPhoto.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:57:12 PM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs Thanks for the heads-up. Interesting article. Looks like nothing was lost that was cared for but perhaps I misread it as I don't want to offend any owners who lost their boats. Allen On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:19 PM, mike farrell <ve… [at] yahoo.com> wrote: >Check out 'Lectronic Latitude 38. those boats in Richardson's Bay (Cal boats too) were not so fortunate, > Mike Farrell Coyote Cal 20 #61 > > > > From: "Husar, Charlie [USA]" <hu… [at] bah.com> >To: "Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com" <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> >Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 11:17:54 AM >Subject: RE: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs > > > > > >It looks like an inverted form of our Nor'Easter. Maybe somewhat warmer. Best of good fortune to all. > >Take Care >Charlie >Annapolis > > From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wilkie Owen >Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:47 AM >To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs > > > > >So far none of the boats that have washed up on the beach are Cals. We're all tucked into our safe (so far) slips in a well protected harbor.. The surf crashing through the pilings under Stearn's Wharf are frightening and looking out into the "Fool's Anchorage" the question isn't that a boat would wash ashore but how come they all haven't? > > >Wilkie > > > > >On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:51 PM, r good wrote: > >wilkie and dan and others. you guys (and CALs) ok? >>Reggie >> > > >

Missed that. A "little" growth. Maybe it was insured ;) Allen On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:42 PM, mike farrell <ve… [at] yahoo.com> wrote: > > > No Allen you are right, look at the bottom of the Cal that went on > the beach! > My Best, Mike > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Allen Edwards <al… [at] PaloAltoPhoto.com> > > *To:* Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Wed, January 20, 2010 3:57:12 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs > > > > Thanks for the heads-up. Interesting article. Looks like nothing was lost > that was cared for but perhaps I misread it as I don't want to offend any > owners who lost their boats. > > Allen > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:19 PM, mike farrell <ve… [at] yahoo.com>wrote: > >> >> >> Check out 'Lectronic Latitude 38. those boats in Richardson's Bay (Cal >> boats too) were not so fortunate, >> Mike Farrell Coyote Cal 20 #61 >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* "Husar, Charlie [USA]" <hu… [at] bah.com> >> *To:* "Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com" <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> >> *Sent:* Wed, January 20, 2010 11:17:54 AM >> *Subject:* RE: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs >> >> >> >> It looks like an inverted form of our Nor'Easter. Maybe somewhat warmer. >> Best of good fortune to all. >> >> Take Care >> Charlie >> Annapolis >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *David Wilkie Owen >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:47 AM >> *To:* Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [Cal_Boats] So. Cal. coastal CALs >> >> >> So far none of the boats that have washed up on the beach are Cals. We're >> all tucked into our safe (so far) slips in a well protected harbor. The >> surf crashing through the pilings under Stearn's Wharf are frightening and >> looking out into the "Fool's Anchorage" the question isn't that a boat would >> wash ashore but how come they all haven't? >> >> Wilkie >> >> >> On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:51 PM, r good wrote: >> >> wilkie and dan and others. you guys (and CALs) ok? >> Reggie >> >> >> >> >> > > > >