However, there appears to be some kind of mystical attraction to the 5/8 wave radiator. Several of the J-Pole designs attempt to make the radiator 5/8 wave in length and adjust the phasing stub to make for a good match.

Let’s compare the two approaches using the models available from the late Larry Cebik’s NEC collection. Here are the contenders each using 3/8 inch diameter copper pipe…

1/2 Wave (left) vs. 5/8 Wave J-Pole

The current magnitudes resulting from the simulation are shown to reveal just how current flows in the conductors and, just as important, their polarity.

J-Pole fanciers already understand the 1/4 wave stub in the bottom part of the antenna, the J, have roughly identical and opposite currents which tend to cancel any radiation effects. This is very similar to ladder line when and if the currents are equal and opposite. Of course, where the 1/4 wave stub meets the bottom of the 1/2 wave radiating element current is not zero or no power would travel up to the radiator. This results in a slight imbalance in two currents.

The plot below shows the azimuth plot of the signals from both antennas. The 1/2 wave plot is at about 2.8 degrees above the horizon while the 5/8 wave peaks around 2.6 degrees. Each antenna is simulated with their base 360 inches over real ground.

1/2 vs. 5/8 Wave J-Pole Azimuth Plot

Both antennas exhibit asymmetry due to their 1/4 wave phasing stub small imbalance. The 1/2 wave J-Pole beats the 5/8 wave J-Pole by about 2 dB.

Here is the elevation plot of both antennas along the worst case azimuth bearing…

1/2 vs. 5/8 Wave J-Pole Elevation Plot

The asymmetry of a J-Pole antenna really comes to light here with a clear bias towards one side of the antenna. Note the 5/8 wave J-Pole has more energy at higher elevations at a cost of energy on the horizon where we want it.

So what are we to think about the extra copper and less balanced approach offered by the 5/8ths Wave J-Pole antenna?

My conclusion is you are better off sticking with tradition and build the 1/2 Wave J-Pole antenna.

A reasonable question is why isn’t 5/8 wave better. 5/8 wave is about the limit a vertical radiator can be to peak up gain towards the horizon. However, it assumes you have a very robust ground system to work against. A J-Pole has no such ground plane.

Another problem comes from the fact the 5/8 wave j-pole has that unbalanced current in the J part of the antenna. Thus the length of the antenna, electrically, is really something other than 5/8 of a wavelength. Such is not the case with a 5/8 whip over a good ground system.

5/8 Wave antennas have their place, but the term is used far too loosly in amateur radio circles. The J-Pole is one good example where deviating from tradition yields a functional antenna, but one with less performance than the simpler of the two antennas.

If you are considering building a simple J-Pole great! Build a 1/2 Wave J-Pole and don’t forget the balun.

One response included a link to this web page showcasing a collinear J-Pole antenna using two 5/8ths wave antenna elements.

As soon as I saw the site I thought, “Oh no… not another 5/8th wave antenna discovery.” However, to my surprise (and very much unlike the regular 5/8ths J-pole which does not work well at all) the two 5/8ths sections yielded a reasonably symmetrical pattern in both free-space and over real ground at a similar height. Feeding issues aside, at least this design passes the threshold of physics.

So let’s compare the relative merits of the 5/8ths collinear J-Pole by first introducing the contenders…

Three J-Poles for this Simulation

I added a regular J-Pole to compare each collinear design against.

The free-space simulation, below, of the buck0 design does show a high takeoff angle compared with a regular J-Pole and a double 1/2 wave collinear J-Pole often called the Super J-Pole.

Regular and Collinear 1/2 and 5/8 wave antenna patterns.

Freespace EZNEC simulations are often practical, but what we care most about is real-world, just above the Earth, simulations. Below are the same three antennas with their bases about 360 inches above real ground in EZNEC…

Three different J-Poles over real Earth

This is more like it. Note the collinear 5/8 wave J-Pole does, indeed, perform about as well as a regular J-Pole in these circumstances at this particular azimuth. The half-wave collinear J-Pole beats out both antennas by about 2 dB. Here is a closeup of the lobes on the right…

Close up of EZNEC J-Pole Lobes

The buck0 5/8ths wave collinear J-Pole does perform. However, if I take the same #14 wire, use the same cool construction techniques, but make a traditional 1/2 wave collinear J-Pole with the feed-stub, a half-wave section, a quarter wave stub topped off with a final half-wave section, the antenna is a good 2 dB stronger than the double 5/8 j-pole from buck0 in over-Earth simulations at about 3 degree elevations in all directions.

Plus if you build a regular J-Pole with #14 wire you will do about as well as the more complex buck0 design.

Less wire… simpler feed… more gain… who knew.

At least the Collinear 5/8 Wave J-Pole works, but it seems clear with the admittedly simple EZNEC simulations above, your wire investment is better spent on the simple traditional 2m meter J-Pole or the Collinear 1/2 Wave (Super) J-Pole.

Unfortunately, one web site promoting a 5/4 wave antenna solution failed to realize you can’t make an antenna longer without eventually hitting a limit.

During commute time repeater discussions my friend was contemplating the use of a 5/4 wavelength vertical for his VHF antenna. He mentioned a web site with the construction details for just such an antenna which results in a nice simple no fuss vertical antenna housed in a PVC enclosure. Great, I thought, but I had some concerns over this whole 5/4 wavelength thing. I told my friend I would work up a simulation to see how good this antenna is. The first step was to find the web site containing the construction details for a 5/4 wave VHF antenna. This was easy resulting in this web site…

The author provides superb details on how to construct the 5/4 wavelength VHF antenna. He wisely predicted the installation into PVC would change the speed of light of conductors within. He revealed the need for a matching network. Good so far. In fact, I bet this antenna design provides a good match to 50 ohm coaxial cable, is of sound construction and will last many years in the elements.

However, that’s only part of the story isn’t it. How will the antenna actually perform.

EZNEC to the rescue…

While it is time consuming to simulate all the wire size and dielectric constant details the candidate 5/4 wave antenna offers, we can make the following assumptions and model accordingly…

• Since there is a parallel line component about 1/4 wavelength long, this is really an end fed full wavelength antenna with the extra 1/4 wave portion acting like an impedance transformer just like a J-Pole
• The existing models of J-Pole antennas from Cebik’s excellent NEC antenna simulation collection provide just what we need to start analyzing the full-wave antenna
• The 5/4 wave “tall” antenna will be compared directly to the 3/4 wave “tall” J-Pole

Both antennas are modeled with 18 AWG wire, used by the web site author for most of the vertical element, with the horizontal portion 300 inches over EZNEC’s “Real/High Accuracy” ground. Here they are with their RF currents shown…

Half vs. Full Wave Antennas

Those in the know will already spot trouble with the full wave radiating element. Those RF currents do not result in more RF radiation in the horizontal plane, but rather help to cancel it. For those of you experimenting with EZNEC be sure “Current Phase” is selected in the View Antenna options so you will see the vector, not just the magnitude, of the currents on the antenna view. You also need to ensure all your wires go in the same direction with end 2 connecting to end 1 of the next wire or the current phase might show incorrect vectors; The RF simulation plots work perfectly with wire direction either way, however.

Here is the full wave plot in red compared with a simple half wave J-pole in blue…

Elevation Plots of Half vs. Full Wave Vertical Antennas

Recall both antennas are simulated with the base 300 inches above ground with the following discoveries:

• The full-wave vertical is at least 7dB worse than the regular J-Pole at 4 degrees elevation – important for base to mobile and most any VHF communications
• The full-wave vertical shows negative 1.67 dBi gain at the terrain hugging low angles
• The full-wave does provide move energy at high angles which might be of benefit for base to air communications

I ran SWR calculations for both antennas and they both offer an excellent match to 50 ohm cable throughout the 2 meter band. For completeness here they are…

End Fed Half Wave (J-Pole) SWR

End Fed Full-Wave SWR (with J-Pole Feed)

What are we to draw from this?

First, great SWR does not a good antenna make.

Second, the full wave antenna does not, by itself, provide any benefit for terrestrial radio use and is, in fact, detrimental.

One can ask, though, how is it taller antenna designs provide better radiation towards the horizon.

The answer is based on the idea of making the RF current peaks in the antenna be in the same phase so the energy, towards the horizon, adds rather than subtracts. Many methods exist to achieve this, but one popular technique is to add a half-wave delay between the two half-wave antenna portions. By doing this we cause the current in the top antenna to be a full 360 degree delayed from the current in the bottom and, thus in phase. This technique results in a type of antenna generally called “Collinear.” The figure below illustrates how this is achieved in the popular Double J-Pole antenna…

Full-Wave J-Pole with Hairpin to make Collinear

Plenty of web sites exist to show how to build a Double J-Pole antenna so we won’t go into that here.

The UHF antenna on your vehicle may well have two or three antenna sections arranged as a collinear antenna with half-wave delay coils between each section to keep each radiating in phase. If we look at the evolution of the vertical antenna…

Evolution of Vertical Antenna

…we see 5/8 wave antennas tend to be the upper limit of length before phasing techniques need to be applied if we are to keep a good signal towards the horizon. Collinear antennas are a tried and true approach for antennas longer than 5/8 wave. Whether a hairpin or helical resonator is used to phase the 1/2 wave antenna “pieces,” improved performance awaits the antenna builder. As we any good thing there are diminishing returns by adding more co-phased antenna pieces.

The 5/4 wave antenna discussed is really a full-wave antenna with a 1/4 wave feed. The lack of an additional half-wave delay element between the two high current portions of the antenna suggest the author has missed an important detail in antenna design which will render the antenna far less useful than anticipated.

It is likely the author confuses his desire for a single wire antenna with dipoles of similar length – the extended double Zepp type is an example. The difference between an end fed piece of wire and a center fed dipole is, again, the current phases. A center fed dipole pushes current in one wire while pulling on the other thereby ensuring each dipole leg has current in phase – assuming the dipole legs diverge from the feed-point of course. This cannot happen in an end fed single wire one wavelength or 5/4 wavelength long without some means to delay the half-wave portions by 180 degrees.

However, the author’s noble attempt at antenna design and excellent construction techniques remind us there are other ways to apply his ideas to realize the suspected intent; A desire for a good sturdy Collinear antenna.

A final note worth considering is this… Can EZNEC or any antenna simulation program provide good enough results to use for antenna comparisons? Of course, but there are limits. If you are trying to see if one antenna is a dB or so better or worse than another you do need to be careful with the assumptions you put into your simulation. However, comparing a half-wave antenna against a full-wave antenna, both end fed with a 1/4 wave section, is well outside almost any margin of error so you can expect the full-wave antenna antenna to be far worse than the half-wave for horizon coverage based on the simulations above.