Ground Plane Question -- Was Mast wiring, antenna's

Hi Dave and Allen, I have a Cal29 that has a stern mounted antenna, but I have not used it yet. Using the J-pole looks like a good alternative. Like you, Allen, I think that having an antenna on the stern is a good safety factor, although I would not be opposed to having one on the mast and then using the stern antenna as a backup. So, just to be clear then, a J-pole mounted on the stern would improve my transmission and also my receive performance if it is my sole antenna. I don't use the VHF much except to ask for bridge openings, which is very short range, and I would not rely on VHF for emergency transmissions regardless of how tall my mast might reach. Getting a bit more range for weather information would be nice. If you want, have a look at this informative article, which explains quite a bit about this subject in layman's terms: http://members.toast.net/boatguy/vhfant.htm [As an aside here, I spent some time as an air traffic controller in the Middle East back before most folks realized where it was, and had a jeep assigned to me that had a full complement of radios -- VHF, UHF, FM, and HF. The HF had a whip antenna mounted on the rear bumper, which could be tied to the front or simply left to stand full length. In the evenings we could pick up the BBC world service and such, along with a wide array of chatter, mostly unintelligible to us! Anyway, my radio tech explained to me that the reason that we had so many problems with FM hand-held radios out there was because of the lack of a suitable ground plane -- it was all dirt and sand and rock and not much water. We could transmit to someone that we could see, maybe 1/4 mile away, and they would not receive the transmission, and visa-versa for us. Since most of our ground movements were coordinated using FM, that quite often helped things become FUBAR.] That leads me to my question about the ground plane provided by the water that surrounds a vessel. In the instance of hand-held FM radios, the ground plain issue could be resolved by moving to a physical location that had better ground characteristics, such as a concrete pad with rebar. So, does simply mounting antennas on a boat offer the advantage of the water as a ground plane, or is it necessary to add bonding devices such as those mentioned in that article to exploit the water as a ground plane?

There are several points brought up here. Let me give a try. The largest problem with a mast mounted whip antanna that is that the mast is vertical and long so unless you do something so that the mast is not one of the antennas element, the RF will go straight up. It is a coaxial antenna where the lower element is way too long, called a "long wire", which has a pattern out the end of the wire. Before discussing ground, let me have a little discussion on antennas. Antennas have two elements. A dipole antenna has two equal elements. It is the most basic antenna. Most TV antennas have elements going out both sides, equal length we are all familiar with what they look like. Antennas like TV antennas have multiple of these two element dipoles or else they have reflectors and directors that might look like dipoles but if you look closely you will see that they are not connected to the RF. Anyway, when thinking of antennas, think two elements. Now there is a trick you can play. If you mount an antenna on, say, the center of a car roof and connect one of the antenna leads (the ground) to the roof, this will act like a mirror to the RF. Think if you put your whip antenna on a mirror and looked at it. You would see two elements, one a reflection of the other. Whip antennas work that way and need a good solid horizontal ground right there at the antenna. One way people do this is to run a series of elements at the base of the antenna whip radiating out either horizontally or at an angle down. Don't confuse a ground plane antenna with having a ground plane or with ground. It is really confusing. Now, if you just put a whip on the top of a mast this looks just like the coaxal antenna in the reference below except the lower element is extremely long. That is why the pattern goes straight up. For a horizontal pattern, you need a mast that is very short, like under 2 feet high or you need a more complex antenna that has both its elements so that the mast is not part of the antenna. So, you are better with a j-pole antenna on the stern than with a whip on the top of the mast. My friend says that a j-pole or ground plane antenna on the top of the mast would be better yet and he is an expert so I have to go with that. But I have never seen anyone do this so my thought is nobody has a good mast top antenna. Here is a picture of what would be a good mast top antenna http://polympics.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/ground_plane_1.jpg Now a discussion about hand held radios. Cell phones are in this category as well. The antenna again has two parts. One is what everyone thinks of as the antenna, the other is in the body of the radio. The second part of the antenna is built into the radio and you can't see it. A friend once made me an antenna for a 200mW hand held I had. It was a big thing that was similar to a J-pole but using tubing instead of the standard J construction. Thus both elements of the antenna were outside the radio and thus more tightly controlled. I used that to talk from Yosemite to the coast, about 200 miles. It was line of sight from where I was but still impressive. Here are some random references. dipole antanna (J-Pole also discussed) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna ground plane antenna http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid40_gci214329,00.html coaxial antenna http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid40_gci214302,00.html long wire antenna (technical) http://books.google.com/books?id=QjYtNJZmWLEC&pg=PA677&lpg=PA677&dq=long+wire+antenna+pattern&source=bl&ots=Xp9QBxQz20&sig=j3QCONQSKTCTUDUnS2fc6oDF0N0&hl=en&ei=YjOtSoLZMYLFsgb-1Yj5Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=long%20wire%20antenna%20pattern&f=false Allen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Bradley A. Bates <br… [at] gmail.com > wrote: > > > Hi Dave and Allen, > > I have a Cal29 that has a stern mounted antenna, but I have not used it > yet. Using the J-pole looks like a good alternative. Like you, Allen, > I think that having an antenna on the stern is a good safety factor, > although I would not be opposed to having one on the mast and then using > the stern antenna as a backup. > > So, just to be clear then, a J-pole mounted on the stern would improve > my transmission and also my receive performance if it is my sole antenna. > > I don't use the VHF much except to ask for bridge openings, which is > very short range, and I would not rely on VHF for emergency > transmissions regardless of how tall my mast might reach. Getting a bit > more range for weather information would be nice. > > If you want, have a look at this informative article, which explains > quite a bit about this subject in layman's terms: > > http://members.toast.net/boatguy/vhfant.htm > > [As an aside here, I spent some time as an air traffic controller in the > Middle East back before most folks realized where it was, and had a jeep > assigned to me that had a full complement of radios -- VHF, UHF, FM, and > HF. The HF had a whip antenna mounted on the rear bumper, which could > be tied to the front or simply left to stand full length. In the > evenings we could pick up the BBC world service and such, along with a > wide array of chatter, mostly unintelligible to us! > > Anyway, my radio tech explained to me that the reason that we had so > many problems with FM hand-held radios out there was because of the lack > of a suitable ground plane -- it was all dirt and sand and rock and not > much water. We could transmit to someone that we could see, maybe 1/4 > mile away, and they would not receive the transmission, and visa-versa > for us. Since most of our ground movements were coordinated using FM, > that quite often helped things become FUBAR.] > > That leads me to my question about the ground plane provided by the > water that surrounds a vessel. In the instance of hand-held FM radios, > the ground plain issue could be resolved by moving to a physical > location that had better ground characteristics, such as a concrete pad > with rebar. > > So, does simply mounting antennas on a boat offer the advantage of the > water as a ground plane, or is it necessary to add bonding devices such > as those mentioned in that article to exploit the water as a ground plane? > > >

I'm joining this discussion late, but it bears noting that all "whips" are not quarter-wave monopoles. The typical marine gain whips are, in fact, coaxial dipoles. They are relatively independent of mounting location. I have no analysis to back this up, but you bring up an interesting question regarding a quarterwave monopole on the top of the mast. IMHO the rigging will form a set of radials, although non-resonant. It might be interesting to see what the pattern of such an installation would look like. I doubt it would have much energy straight up. A whip on the mast is an unbalanced dipole. That is not the same as a long wire, and I doubt it would have a pattern like a long wire, but that's just an opinion. Al --- On Sun, 9/13/09, Allen Edwards <al… [at] PaloAltoPhoto.com> wrote: From: Allen Edwards <al… [at] PaloAltoPhoto.com> Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Ground Plane Question -- Was Mast wiring, antenna's To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, September 13, 2009, 2:09 PM There are several points brought up here. Let me give a try. The largest problem with a mast mounted whip antanna that is that the mast is vertical and long so unless you do something so that the mast is not one of the antennas element, the RF will go straight up. It is a coaxial antenna where the lower element is way too long, called a "long wire", which has a pattern out the end of the wire. Before discussing ground, let me have a little discussion on antennas. Antennas have two elements. A dipole antenna has two equal elements. It is the most basic antenna. Most TV antennas have elements going out both sides, equal length we are all familiar with what they look like. Antennas like TV antennas have multiple of these two element dipoles or else they have reflectors and directors that might look like dipoles but if you look closely you will see that they are not connected to the RF. Anyway, when thinking of antennas, think two elements. Now there is a trick you can play. If you mount an antenna on, say, the center of a car roof and connect one of the antenna leads (the ground) to the roof, this will act like a mirror to the RF. Think if you put your whip antenna on a mirror and looked at it. You would see two elements, one a reflection of the other. Whip antennas work that way and need a good solid horizontal ground right there at the antenna. One way people do this is to run a series of elements at the base of the antenna whip radiating out either horizontally or at an angle down. Don't confuse a ground plane antenna with having a ground plane or with ground. It is really confusing. Now, if you just put a whip on the top of a mast this looks just like the coaxal antenna in the reference below except the lower element is extremely long. That is why the pattern goes straight up. For a horizontal pattern, you need a mast that is very short, like under 2 feet high or you need a more complex antenna that has both its elements so that the mast is not part of the antenna. So, you are better with a j-pole antenna on the stern than with a whip on the top of the mast. My friend says that a j-pole or ground plane antenna on the top of the mast would be better yet and he is an expert so I have to go with that. But I have never seen anyone do this so my thought is nobody has a good mast top antenna. Here is a picture of what would be a good mast top antenna http://polympics. files.wordpress. com/2008/ 08/ground_ plane_1.jpg Now a discussion about hand held radios. Cell phones are in this category as well. The antenna again has two parts. One is what everyone thinks of as the antenna, the other is in the body of the radio. The second part of the antenna is built into the radio and you can't see it. A friend once made me an antenna for a 200mW hand held I had. It was a big thing that was similar to a J-pole but using tubing instead of the standard J construction. Thus both elements of the antenna were outside the radio and thus more tightly controlled. I used that to talk from Yosemite to the coast, about 200 miles. It was line of sight from where I was but still impressive. Here are some random references. dipole antanna (J-Pole also discussed) http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Dipole_antenna ground plane antenna http://searchmobile computing. techtarget. com/sDefinition/ 0,,sid40_ gci214329, 00.html coaxial antenna http://searchmobile computing. techtarget. com/sDefinition/ 0,,sid40_ gci214302, 00.html long wire antenna (technical) http://books. google.com/ books?id= QjYtNJZmWLEC&pg=PA677&lpg=PA677&dq=long+wire+ antenna+pattern&source=bl&ots=Xp9QBxQz20&sig=j3QCONQSKTCTUDU nS2fc6oDF0N0&hl=en&ei=YjOtSoLZMYLFsgb- 1Yj5Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=long%20wire% 20antenna% 20pattern&f=false Allen On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Bradley A. Bates <bradley.a.bates@ gmail.com> wrote: Hi Dave and Allen, I have a Cal29 that has a stern mounted antenna, but I have not used it yet. Using the J-pole looks like a good alternative. Like you, Allen, I think that having an antenna on the stern is a good safety factor, although I would not be opposed to having one on the mast and then using the stern antenna as a backup. So, just to be clear then, a J-pole mounted on the stern would improve my transmission and also my receive performance if it is my sole antenna. I don't use the VHF much except to ask for bridge openings, which is very short range, and I would not rely on VHF for emergency transmissions regardless of how tall my mast might reach. Getting a bit more range for weather information would be nice. If you want, have a look at this informative article, which explains quite a bit about this subject in layman's terms: http://members. toast.net/ boatguy/vhfant. htm [As an aside here, I spent some time as an air traffic controller in the Middle East back before most folks realized where it was, and had a jeep assigned to me that had a full complement of radios -- VHF, UHF, FM, and HF. The HF had a whip antenna mounted on the rear bumper, which could be tied to the front or simply left to stand full length. In the evenings we could pick up the BBC world service and such, along with a wide array of chatter, mostly unintelligible to us! Anyway, my radio tech explained to me that the reason that we had so many problems with FM hand-held radios out there was because of the lack of a suitable ground plane -- it was all dirt and sand and rock and not much water. We could transmit to someone that we could see, maybe 1/4 mile away, and they would not receive the transmission, and visa-versa for us. Since most of our ground movements were coordinated using FM, that quite often helped things become FUBAR.] That leads me to my question about the ground plane provided by the water that surrounds a vessel. In the instance of hand-held FM radios, the ground plain issue could be resolved by moving to a physical location that had better ground characteristics, such as a concrete pad with rebar. So, does simply mounting antennas on a boat offer the advantage of the water as a ground plane, or is it necessary to add bonding devices such as those mentioned in that article to exploit the water as a ground plane?

I can comment. I do see that there are good antennas that are independent of ground. This one http://www.defender.com/product.jsp?path=-1|344|295760|69543&id=69527 <http://www.defender.com/product.jsp?path=-1|344|295760|69543&id=69527>for example talks about up to 90% of the energy going straight up from some other antennas. This antenna is 4 feet long and I personally don't see antennas that are long like that at the marina and I would not want one on my mast. From reading the description, I assume it would work fine and would not use the rigging as part of the antenna. In fact, it specifically talks about having a ferrite choke bead to keep RF out of the mast. Relative to the wavelength of a VHF radio, the rigging is a long wire. The energy will not be straight up but off at some slight angle. As my friend who is an antenna expert said, most of the energy will go to the moon. To be good radials, they would have to be the same length as the whip which is usually 19 inches or so. The longer the wire is, the more near straight up the energy will go. With a mast, it will be mostly almost straight up. A long wire antenna has many lobes so not all the energy will go straight up and some will go out where you want. So, maybe 10% going where you want may be a good estimate. It is pretty sure that if the antenna is 19 inches long it just isn't going to work well on the top of a mast. For example, this certainly won't work well: http://www.defender.com/product.jsp?path=-1|344|302025|320647|321064&id=809709 Allen On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Al Waschka <aw… [at] bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > I'm joining this discussion late, but it bears noting that all "whips" are > not quarter-wave monopoles. The typical marine gain whips are, in fact, > coaxial dipoles. They are relatively independent of mounting location. > > > I have no analysis to back this up, but you bring up an interesting > question regarding a quarterwave monopole on the top of the mast. IMHO the > rigging will form a set of radials, although non-resonant. It might be > interesting to see what the pattern of such an installation would look > like. I doubt it would have much energy straight up. A whip on the mast is > an unbalanced dipole. That is not the same as a long wire, and I doubt it > would have a pattern like a long wire, but that's just an opinion. > > Al > > > --- On *Sun, 9/13/09, Allen Edwards <al… [at] PaloAltoPhoto.com>*wrote: > > > From: Allen Edwards <al… [at] PaloAltoPhoto.com> > Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Ground Plane Question -- Was Mast wiring, > antenna's > To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, September 13, 2009, 2:09 PM > > There are several points brought up here. Let me give a try. > The largest problem with a mast mounted whip antanna that is that the mast > is vertical and long so unless you do something so that the mast is not one > of the antennas element, the RF will go straight up. It is a coaxial antenna > where the lower element is way too long, called a "long wire", which has a > pattern out the end of the wire. > > Before discussing ground, let me have a little discussion on antennas. > Antennas have two elements. A dipole antenna has two equal elements. It > is the most basic antenna. Most TV antennas have elements going out both > sides, equal length we are all familiar with what they look like. Antennas > like TV antennas have multiple of these two element dipoles or else they > have reflectors and directors that might look like dipoles but if you look > closely you will see that they are not connected to the RF. Anyway, when > thinking of antennas, think two elements. Now there is a trick you can > play. If you mount an antenna on, say, the center of a car roof and connect > one of the antenna leads (the ground) to the roof, this will act like a > mirror to the RF. Think if you put your whip antenna on a mirror and looked > at it. You would see two elements, one a reflection of the other. Whip > antennas work that way and need a good solid horizontal ground right there > at the antenna. One way people do this is to run a series of elements at > the base of the antenna whip radiating out either horizontally or at an > angle down. Don't confuse a ground plane antenna with having a ground plane > or with ground. It is really confusing. Now, if you just put a whip on the > top of a mast this looks just like the coaxal antenna in the reference below > except the lower element is extremely long. That is why the pattern goes > straight up. For a horizontal pattern, you need a mast that is very short, > like under 2 feet high or you need a more complex antenna that has both its > elements so that the mast is not part of the antenna. > > So, you are better with a j-pole antenna on the stern than with a whip on > the top of the mast. My friend says that a j-pole or ground plane antenna > on the top of the mast would be better yet and he is an expert so I have to > go with that. But I have never seen anyone do this so my thought is nobody > has a good mast top antenna. > > Here is a picture of what would be a good mast top antenna > http://polympics. files.wordpress. com/2008/ 08/ground_ plane_1.jpg<http://polympics.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/ground_plane_1.jpg> > > Now a discussion about hand held radios. Cell phones are in this category > as well. The antenna again has two parts. One is what everyone thinks of > as the antenna, the other is in the body of the radio. The second part of > the antenna is built into the radio and you can't see it. A friend once > made me an antenna for a 200mW hand held I had. It was a big thing that was > similar to a J-pole but using tubing instead of the standard J construction. > Thus both elements of the antenna were outside the radio and thus more > tightly controlled. I used that to talk from Yosemite to the coast, about > 200 miles. It was line of sight from where I was but still impressive. > > Here are some random references. > > dipole antanna (J-Pole also discussed) http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ > Dipole_antenna <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna> > > ground plane antenna http://searchmobile computing. techtarget. > com/sDefinition/ 0,,sid40_ gci214329, 00.html<http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid40_gci214329,00.html> > > coaxial antenna http://searchmobile computing. techtarget. > com/sDefinition/ 0,,sid40_ gci214302, 00.html<http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid40_gci214302,00.html> > > long wire antenna (technical) http://books. google.com/ books?id= > QjYtNJZmWLEC&pg=PA677&lpg=PA677&dq=long+wire+ > antenna+pattern&source=bl&ots=Xp9QBxQz20&sig=j3QCONQSKTCTUDU > nS2fc6oDF0N0&hl=en&ei=YjOtSoLZMYLFsgb- > 1Yj5Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=long%20wire% > 20antenna% 20pattern&f=false<http://books.google.com/books?id=QjYtNJZmWLEC&pg=PA677&lpg=PA677&dq=long+wire+antenna+pattern&source=bl&ots=Xp9QBxQz20&sig=j3QCONQSKTCTUDUnS2fc6oDF0N0&hl=en&ei=YjOtSoLZMYLFsgb-1Yj5Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=long%20wire%20antenna%20pattern&f=false> > > Allen > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna> > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Bradley A. Bates <bradley.a.bates@ > gmail.com<http://us.mc1806.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=br… [at] gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Hi Dave and Allen, >> >> I have a Cal29 that has a stern mounted antenna, but I have not used it >> yet. Using the J-pole looks like a good alternative. Like you, Allen, >> I think that having an antenna on the stern is a good safety factor, >> although I would not be opposed to having one on the mast and then using >> the stern antenna as a backup. >> >> So, just to be clear then, a J-pole mounted on the stern would improve >> my transmission and also my receive performance if it is my sole antenna. >> >> I don't use the VHF much except to ask for bridge openings, which is >> very short range, and I would not rely on VHF for emergency >> transmissions regardless of how tall my mast might reach. Getting a bit >> more range for weather information would be nice. >> >> If you want, have a look at this informative article, which explains >> quite a bit about this subject in layman's terms: >> >> http://members. toast.net/ boatguy/vhfant. htm<http://members.toast.net/boatguy/vhfant.htm> >> >> [As an aside here, I spent some time as an air traffic controller in the >> Middle East back before most folks realized where it was, and had a jeep >> assigned to me that had a full complement of radios -- VHF, UHF, FM, and >> HF. The HF had a whip antenna mounted on the rear bumper, which could >> be tied to the front or simply left to stand full length. In the >> evenings we could pick up the BBC world service and such, along with a >> wide array of chatter, mostly unintelligible to us! >> >> Anyway, my radio tech explained to me that the reason that we had so >> many problems with FM hand-held radios out there was because of the lack >> of a suitable ground plane -- it was all dirt and sand and rock and not >> much water. We could transmit to someone that we could see, maybe 1/4 >> mile away, and they would not receive the transmission, and visa-versa >> for us. Since most of our ground movements were coordinated using FM, >> that quite often helped things become FUBAR.] >> >> That leads me to my question about the ground plane provided by the >> water that surrounds a vessel. In the instance of hand-held FM radios, >> the ground plain issue could be resolved by moving to a physical >> location that had better ground characteristics, such as a concrete pad >> with rebar. >> >> So, does simply mounting antennas on a boat offer the advantage of the >> water as a ground plane, or is it necessary to add bonding devices such >> as those mentioned in that article to exploit the water as a ground plane? >> >> > >

another gorgeous weekend, another win for an old CAL. second overall, first in fleet. beating Frers 30, J105, J 24's, San Juan 7.7's, and others we shouldn't have beeten, some scratch, some corrected. I only report this because it buttresses the mistique and reputation of old CAL's REggie

Way to go Reggie and Barbara! Good sailors, good old boats, YES! Tom and Bobbie Vandiver, Cal 46 & 25, Bayou Chico, FL From: r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> To: ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:10:26 PM Subject: [Cal_Boats] not braggin' another gorgeous weekend, another win for an old CAL. second overall, first in fleet. beating Frers 30, J105, J 24's, San Juan 7.7's, and others we shouldn't have beeten, some scratch, some corrected. I only report this because it buttresses the mistique and reputation of old CAL's REggie

Thanks! speaking of good old boats, my crew today is going to be interested in a CAL 46. Let us know if you hear of any needing a hime. Reggie To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com From: bs… [at] yahoo.com Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:15:09 -0700 Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] not braggin' Way to go Reggie and Barbara! Good sailors, good old boats, YES! Tom and Bobbie Vandiver, Cal 46 & 25, Bayou Chico, FL From: r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> To: ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:10:26 PM Subject: [Cal_Boats] not braggin' another gorgeous weekend, another win for an old CAL. second overall, first in fleet. beating Frers 30, J105, J 24's, San Juan 7.7's, and others we shouldn't have beeten, some scratch, some corrected. I only report this because it buttresses the mistique and reputation of old CAL's REggie

What Cal do you have? Allen On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM, r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> wrote: > > > another gorgeous weekend, another win for an old CAL. > > second overall, first in fleet. beating Frers 30, J105, J 24's, San Juan > 7.7's, and others we shouldn't have beeten, some scratch, some corrected. > > I only report this because it buttresses the mistique and reputation of old > CAL's > > REggie > > >

Reggie, Cals Rock! I have the same report in a cal 29 first place yesterday....everybody owed us time and we beat most boats, boat for boat over the finish. Got to love it. ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Edwards To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] not braggin' What Cal do you have? Allen On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM, r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> wrote: another gorgeous weekend, another win for an old CAL. second overall, first in fleet. beating Frers 30, J105, J 24's, San Juan 7.7's, and others we shouldn't have beeten, some scratch, some corrected. I only report this because it buttresses the mistique and reputation of old CAL's REggie __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4422 (20090913) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4422 (20090913) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

I downloaded the free version of EZ-NEC and did a quick analysis of a vertical dipole with one side longer than the other. The results are exactly as Allen predicted, i.e. most energy is directed overhead in the region from about 45 degrees elevation to about 75 degrees elevation. Excellent for communication with overhead aircraft. :) This is what I use: http://www.defender.com/product.jsp?path=-1|344|295760|69543&id=178214 I have used them on my Cal-25, my Cal-33 and on a flats boat. It is a half wave, so it is independent of ground, does not require a ground plane, and directs most energy near the horizon. It has the added benefit of the SS whip which is good at the top of the mast in that if you get into a limited height situation it will simply bend out of the way. Al

27 T/2 "Knot Ready" To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com From: al… [at] PaloAltoPhoto.com Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:23:03 -0700 Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] not braggin' What Cal do you have? Allen On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM, r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> wrote: another gorgeous weekend, another win for an old CAL. second overall, first in fleet. beating Frers 30, J105, J 24's, San Juan 7.7's, and others we shouldn't have beeten, some scratch, some corrected. I only report this because it buttresses the mistique and reputation of old CAL's REggie

Congratulations! Allen On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:42 PM, r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 27 T/2 "Knot Ready" > > ------------------------------ > To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > From: al… [at] PaloAltoPhoto.com > Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:23:03 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] not braggin' > > > What Cal do you have? > Allen > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM, r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > another gorgeous weekend, another win for an old CAL. > > second overall, first in fleet. beating Frers 30, J105, J 24's, San Juan > 7.7's, and others we shouldn't have beeten, some scratch, some corrected. > > I only report this because it buttresses the mistique and reputation of old > CAL's > > REggie > > > > > >

I have a regular marine VHF (Metz, I think) at the mast top, and a stern mounted J-pole, an Arrow Antenna dual band (actually 2 meters and 440 Mhz). I have a switch to feed a marine VHF or a Ham 2/440 radio to either antenna. The SWR is close on both antennas. The masthead antenna will give a better signal on both the marine and ham band radio, close to 2 db better. With VHF and higher frequencies, and a proper antenna, height is the deciding factor. Carl On 9/13/09, Bradley A. Bates <br… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > So, just to be clear then, a J-pole mounted on the stern would improve > my transmission and also my receive performance if it is my sole antenna. > > . > > >

I assume your antenna is a half wave like this one http://www.metzcommunication.com/manta6.htm which is 34 inches long. A half wave antenna works without using the ground of the mast. Here is what my friend said about antenna height: "Range to horizon in miles is 1.25*(sqrt(h)), where h is in feet. This applies to both ends of the straight line. So, if you raise your antenna from 9 to 36 feet, and the other person has an antenna height of 36 feet, the line of sight range goes from 10 to 15 miles." I am certainly learning some things with this discussion. My comments about a 17 inch whip at the top of the mast not working well still hold. It has been my impression that is what most people use. I would be interested to know if that is in fact true. Allen On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Carl <sa… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have a regular marine VHF (Metz, I think) at the mast top, and a stern > mounted J-pole, an Arrow Antenna dual band (actually 2 meters and 440 Mhz). > I have a switch to feed a marine VHF or a Ham 2/440 radio to either antenna. > The SWR is close on both antennas. The masthead antenna will give a better > signal on both the marine and ham band radio, close to 2 db better. With VHF > and higher frequencies, and a proper antenna, height is the deciding factor. > > Carl > > > > On 9/13/09, Bradley A. Bates <br… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> So, just to be clear then, a J-pole mounted on the stern would improve >> my transmission and also my receive performance if it is my sole antenna. >> >> . >> >> > > > >

And it feels so good.....! Way to go, Reggie. Keep that old Cal out in front of the pack so we might keep on knowing what we know about Cal sailboats! Don Dutton, 1986 Cal 33-2, "Quantum Evolution" "Twenty Years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the things you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." ........Mark Twain From: r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> To: ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 4:10:26 PM Subject: [Cal_Boats] not braggin' another gorgeous weekend, another win for an old CAL. second overall, first in fleet. beating Frers 30, J105, J 24's, San Juan 7.7's, and others we shouldn't have beeten, some scratch, some corrected. I only report this because it buttresses the mistique and reputation of old CAL's REggie

Allen Edwards wrote: > > > > My comments about a 17 inch whip at the top of the mast not working > well still hold. It has been my impression that is what most people > use. I would be interested to know if that is in fact true. > I use a stainless Shakespeare coil-loaded whip at masthead. It's a bit floppy so "whip" is a really good description. The gauge of the whip is such that it's not a serious windage problem. The Windex is probably more of a barrier. I say "use" to mean "plant the thing up there every year." I don't really use the VHF much and haven't ever tested the limits of its range. Chris Campbell

Chris, I have a similar Shakespeare set-up on California Girl @ 54' above the waterline. We use a high quality coaxial cable connected to our 25 watt Horizon VHF. We are able to start receiving the Coast Guard about 200 miles from California - off San Francisco, two weekends ago we were able to contact the Coast Guard 60 miles offshore, to have them contact our ground crew that we were going to be 10 hours late. I may have a good installation and the Coast Guard must have very special gear. When using the VHF antenna to receive AIS signals, we see ships out to 80+ miles. As for ship to ship communications, I'm not sure, certainly horizon boats are in contact... but I believe that we are in contact to @20-30 miles under good conditions. As I recall Charlie Husar may be able to provide more information - he is the Darth Vader of the dark mystery of radio. dEmO From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Campbell Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 1:29 PM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Ground Plane Question -- Was Mast wiring, antenna's Allen Edwards wrote: My comments about a 17 inch whip at the top of the mast not working well still hold. It has been my impression that is what most people use. I would be interested to know if that is in fact true. I use a stainless Shakespeare coil-loaded whip at masthead. It's a bit floppy so "whip" is a really good description. The gauge of the whip is such that it's not a serious windage problem. The Windex is probably more of a barrier. I say "use" to mean "plant the thing up there every year." I don't really use the VHF much and haven't ever tested the limits of its range. Chris Campbell

Some 4-107 diesels came with spin-on oil filters and some came with canister/cartridge oil filters. Unfortunately, mine is the canister type, a big mess to change. Some 4-107's were changed to a remote oil filter setup. I need a remote oil filter assembly for my 4-107. Yes, it is possible to buy a new conversion kit, but I cannot tollerate the almost $600 price tag. So, I'm begging help. Can anyone help me find, used but in good condition, either A. a conversion kit to go from canister filter to remote spinon filter or B. an original spinon filter system? If I can change over to the OEM spinon assembly, I can buy a different conversion kit from Joe Demers! Reggie

Put a pan under it! Unless you have unlimited money to spend. My 107 was going strong some 40 odd years and I changed the filter evey 2nd or third oil change because it created such a mess in the bilge You suck the oil out anyway so what is really the diff. anyway. A lot is left. If your engine is so sick that the filter is trapping metal. it' all over soon anyway. God Bless! My Best, Mike From: r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> To: ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, October 23, 2009 1:09:57 PM Subject: [Cal_Boats] oil filters and 4-107 parts Some 4-107 diesels came with spin-on oil filters and some came with canister/cartridge oil filters. Unfortunately, mine is the canister type, a big mess to change. Some 4-107's were changed to a remote oil filter setup. I need a remote oil filter assembly for my 4-107. Yes, it is possible to buy a new conversion kit, but I cannot tollerate the almost $600 price tag. So, I'm begging help. Can anyone help me find, used but in good condition, either A. a conversion kit to go from canister filter to remote spinon filter or B. an original spinon filter system? If I can change over to the OEM spinon assembly, I can buy a different conversion kit from Joe Demers! Reggie

part number 36271408 , adapter, cylinder block lube oil this is an old perkins number. can anyone tell me where to go (careful now) to find out if it is a valid number or to cross reference it? and to find out if the part is still available? and if it fits the 4-107? it was shown for a 4-108 but looks like it might also fit the 4-107? this adapter head bolts to the block instead of the spin-on oil filter head or the cartridge oil filter head. this adapter was designed for using a remote oil filter. hose ran to adapter 37586241. oil passed through that adapter to 37764181 spin-on filter head, through the filter, back through the head and 37586241, then on to the oil heat exchanger and back through the first adapter 36271408 into the block. TA DA! remote oil filter assembly/system. Yes, a pan under the cartridge filter helps. until you bump your elbow trying to remove it full of oil. even if everything goes really well, there is still some "dripage", etc, which is always a mess. And, the filter is most inconvenient to access or to place anything under. I find disposable small aluminum cake pans work best. their shorter sides and bendability allow them to eventually be mostly fit under. REmember that what seems obvious, simple and easy (duh!) on your boat's installation may be entirely different and virtually impossible on a different boat's installation, even if the equipment installed is the same. Reggie

http://www.alberg37.org/Project%20DB/Perkins4-108/4-108parts.pdf It is a valid number but that may not be as much help as you were looking for. I just googled the part number and perkins to find this page. Allen On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:54 AM, r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > part number 36271408 , adapter, cylinder block lube oil > > this is an old perkins number. can anyone tell me where to go (careful > now) > to find out if it is a valid number or to cross reference it? and to find > out if the part is still > available? > *and if it fits the 4-107?* > > it was shown for a 4-108 but looks like it might also fit the 4-107? > this adapter head bolts to the block instead of the spin-on oil filter head > or the cartridge oil filter head. this adapter was designed for using a > remote oil filter. hose ran to adapter 37586241. oil passed through that > adapter to 37764181 spin-on filter head, through the filter, back through > the head and 37586241, then on to the oil heat exchanger and back through > the first adapter 36271408 into the block. TA DA! remote oil filter > assembly/system. > > Yes, a pan under the cartridge filter helps. until you bump your elbow > trying to remove it full of oil. even if everything goes really well, there > is still some "dripage", etc, which is always a mess. And, the filter is > most inconvenient to access or to place anything under. I find disposable > small aluminum cake pans work best. their shorter sides and bendability > allow them to eventually be mostly fit under. > REmember that what seems obvious, simple and easy (duh!) on your boat's > installation may be entirely different and virtually impossible on a > different boat's installation, even if the equipment installed is the same. > > Reggie > > >

thanks, Allen. its a start. wish there was something similar for the 4.107 Reggie To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com From: al… [at] PaloAltoPhoto.com Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:13:31 -0700 Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] help with old perkins part number http://www.alberg37.org/Project%20DB/Perkins4-108/4-108parts.pdf It is a valid number but that may not be as much help as you were looking for. I just googled the part number and perkins to find this page. Allen On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:54 AM, r good <my… [at] hotmail.com> wrote: part number 36271408 , adapter, cylinder block lube oil this is an old perkins number. can anyone tell me where to go (careful now) to find out if it is a valid number or to cross reference it? and to find out if the part is still available? and if it fits the 4-107? it was shown for a 4-108 but looks like it might also fit the 4-107? this adapter head bolts to the block instead of the spin-on oil filter head or the cartridge oil filter head. this adapter was designed for using a remote oil filter. hose ran to adapter 37586241. oil passed through that adapter to 37764181 spin-on filter head, through the filter, back through the head and 37586241, then on to the oil heat exchanger and back through the first adapter 36271408 into the block. TA DA! remote oil filter assembly/system. Yes, a pan under the cartridge filter helps. until you bump your elbow trying to remove it full of oil. even if everything goes really well, there is still some "dripage", etc, which is always a mess. And, the filter is most inconvenient to access or to place anything under. I find disposable small aluminum cake pans work best. their shorter sides and bendability allow them to eventually be mostly fit under. REmember that what seems obvious, simple and easy (duh!) on your boat's installation may be entirely different and virtually impossible on a different boat's installation, even if the equipment installed is the same. Reggie