However, there seems to be much hype about j-poles that make some folks think they have some kind of magical antenna properties. Indeed many folks report staggering improvements over their previous antennas. Is all the hype warranted?

Well, simulation is not a perfect endeavor, but can certainly help analyze simple antennas at a good enough accuracy to make comparisons possible and reasonable. Enter the contenders…

2 Meter Monopole vs J-Pole Antenna

In the left side of the ring we have the classic 1/4 wave monopole antenna with four drooping radials. On the right we have at a full 3/4 total wave in height the j-pole antenna.

These two antenna models are based on Cebik’s antenna collection available from his web site. If you would like to simulate these and hundreds more antenna models, seriously consider purchasing his collection.

Monopole compared to j-pole with feed point at 30 feet height.

The plot above shows the monopole as the primary trace in red compared with a j-pole in blue. Both have their feed points up 30 feet. The j-pole and the monopole have, for all practical purposes, identical gain in the primary low-angle lobe just above the horizon. Hmm, where is the benefit?

Monopole and J-pole with feed point 15 feet above ground.

The overall gain of both antennas is lower and the j-pole shows a slight edge of about .5 dB. This is still hardly worth much.

Monopole and J-Pole at six feet above ground.

Now we are beginning to see more difference between the monopole and the j-pole although both exhibit less gain than either at higher installations. Also, the primary lobe angle is higher above the horizon.

J-Pole EZNEC Simulations at 6, 15 and 30 feet above ground.

This plot above compares the J-pole at 6, 15 and 30 feet above ground to demonstrate the key benefit of getting your antenna, any antenna, as high as possible. You might be wondering why so much gain occurs beyond what theory tells you. One difference between theory and reality is theoretical antennas are frequently simulated in free space without the interaction from the ground. The ground causes absorption, reflections and other reactions that sometimes help and sometimes hurt our desired signal characteristics.

This simulation suggests the J-Pole offers some benefits to the operator, but not the fabulous and amazing results some claim to exist. The question is, then, why do so many folks get good results. Well, let’s examine some possibilities…

• Many new hams try a J-Pole (sometimes a ladder line variety) to see if it will be better than the rubber ducky antenna on their HT. By simple virtue of the J-Pole being almost certainly in a much better antenna location, there is no doubt the operator sees a vastly superior signal over the HT antenna.
• J-Poles are taller. This may seem silly, but getting that half-wave portion of the antenna well above the feed point of a comparison monopole results in a significant height improvement. This difference is more pronounced at low heights and may be why the simulation shows the J-Pole beating the monopole more so at six feet.

The diagram below show how each antenna placed at the common feed point height. The height advantage of the J-Pole is clear.

J-Pole and Monopole EZNEC Currents

The mystic of J-Pole antennas may cause some disappointment if folks are expecting more gain than a J-Pole can deliver. Don’t listen to the fabulous claims. If you desire to try a J-Pole just go ahead and do it. I did and I like mine just fine. Here are some advantages to a J-Pole…

• Some, but not staggering, gain improvements at lower elevations
• Slender design with little width
• Simple sturdy construction makes for a hardy antenna
• Entire antenna is at same dc potential allowing a grounded mount to dissipate static charge – however, the mast will become part of the antenna if you don’t choke the RF currents
• A truly balanced-feed half-wave antenna that requires no ground for use – compare this with transformer based half-wave antennas that MUST be coupled to a good ground for the coax-side transformer currents to flow (lots of people make the wrong assumption half-wave mobile antennas do not need ground)

J-Poles, whether copper cactus plumbing specials or ladder line types stuffed into PVC, work just fine, but don’t offer magical capabilities. Try one.

Perhaps he is right for many things, but for ham radio folks evaluating antenna choices a popular answer for the height of a vertical antenna for the HF bands appears to be 43.

Be sure to check out the many posts about the 43 foot antenna here at Ham Help Desk.

If you have been in the market for a vertical you have probably noticed the availability of a “tuner required” vertical which is forty-three feet in height above a reasonable ground plane of radials. Indeed Zero-Five, DX Engineering and others offer this exact configuration in their model lineup claiming “all band” operation from 160 to 10 meters. Can this really be true?

This is also known as a 13 meter vertical. Here is a discussion of why this compromise length exists with some pitfalls.

Forgoing the need for a tuner (which is arguably not too big a deal) let’s have a look at the predicted patterns using EZNec. To set up the simulation, I copied a vertical antenna with four radials from the Cebik model set available for purchase on his web site. The only thing I changed was the antenna height and the radial length.

• Antenna height = 43 feet AGL with the bottom about 3 inches above ground
• Four Radials of 1/4 wave each to simulate an efficient low impedance ground resulting from layout of many radials

I chose Cebik’s vertical example to ensure I leverage his knowledge of how to model radials reasonably well in EZNec which, in my case, uses NEC2 as the engine. NEC2 does not model underground radials so Cebik’s technique is a welcome insertion of NEC2 trickery. Plus, I wanted to capture all the appropriate assumptions he makes for vertical over radials EZNEC antenna simulation.

The antenna looks like this…

View of 43 foot vertical antenna in EZNEC

Now here is the predicted patterns using a typical frequency of the main HF bands. Note the “Primary” trace is the one plotted for the 10 meter band…

Patterns of 43 foot Vertical Antenna on the major HF Bands

The peak radiation angles and relative antenna gain for each bands are:

• ~ 5 dBi @ 57° for 10 meters – impressive, but high angle
• ~ 4 dbi @ 37° for 15 meters
• ~ 1 dBi @ 16° for 20 meters – nice low angle
• ~ 0 dBi @ 25° for 40 meters
• ~ -2 dBi @ 29° for 80 meters – this is quite functional
• ~ -8 dBi @ 23° for 160 meters – lossy, but it does work

Several things are apparent:

• The antenna has “better than nothing at all” performance on 160 meters and is certainly interesting for this difficult band.
• Low gain, but good low angle performance is apparent for 80 through 20 meters.
• The 15 meter band shows some actual gain, but at a high angle of about 30-40 degrees – This may or may not be what we want for our DX purposes on this band. That said, it is noteworthy to see it still has unity gain at lower angles.
• The 10 meter band, the black trace marked as Primary, shows peak energy well above 45 degrees elevation. I suspect this will be less than desirable.

You can see why the ten meter case has the high angle radiation when you look at the currents along the vertical as shown here…

View of 43 foot vertical operating at 28.3 MHz

The opposing current phases destructively interfere at some angles and constructively interfere at others.

Is this an all HF band antenna? Well, because it operates at no particular “tuned” length for any HF band, except maybe 60 meters, you will always need a tuner. So, sure, it can tune up anywhere the tuner (or matcher if you prefer) can match. If you have to have just one antenna for HF, maybe this is a good choice, especially during the current great low band conditions in this low sunspot point in time.

A better reason to consider this antenna is for reasonable 80-20 meter use and as a practical thing to try for the 160 meter band. Because you can tune almost anything to almost any band, it is possible to get 10 and 15 meter use too with the propagation issues described above.

Other advantages for this 43 foot antenna is expense. You can have one for a few hundred dollars and several major antenna manufacturers, noted above, make them. The variables between the manufacturers is likely strength in materials and other mechanical design issues. Look to Eham for evaluations.

In my quest for a do it all vertical to replace my 16.6 foot copper pipe my choices include:

1. Multiband Fixed Height Vertical using Traps
2. Multiband Variable Height Vertical using the SteppIR BigIR III
3. Multiband Fixed Height Vertical using an antenna matcher in the shack – such as this 43 foot concept
4. Multiband Fixed Height Vertical using an antenna matcher at the antenna base – 43 foot concept again
5. Forget the vertical and get a dipole

Because I am getting good results on 20 meters with my 16.6 foot vertical, I am not interested in dipole solution #5… yet. Thus, I desire to bring some closure to this vertical installation and make it the best it can be.

I am still leaning towards the SteppIR BigIR Vertical even though it is a bit expensive. Being able to tune the antenna precisely to the appropriate length is a great feature resulting is little standing waves on the coax.

However, the simplicity of solution #3 means no additional wires to the antenna to power an automatic remote tuner or drive the SteppIR motor. This is just radio (with built-in matcher), coax, antenna. I lose some power in my very long coax with the standing waves, but have a much more reliable system. Uncomplicated solutions are certainly well worth considering.

No matter what your choice, if you want a vertical, consider the investment you will need for the radial system. Get the DX Engineering Radial plate and just do it. It really helps.

One more point is worth mentioning. The various makers of 43 foot vertical antennas all suggest the use of a 1:4 balun. Some suggest using a balun model made specifically for “tuner use” with the idea these specialized units have the robustness needed to handle the less that ideal voltages and currents. A nice balun costs good coin and is certainly worth it. Just be sure to roll this expense into your trade study when comparing this 43 foot solution with something like the BigIR vertical.

Also watch out for aluminum components near the ground. Certain soil conditions will dissolve aluminum.

DX Engineering and Zero Five Antennas seem to be in hot competition in the vertical market and they both have an approximate 43 foot system to sell you. If you are in the market for this kind of vertical start your trade study with these two manufacturers.

Good luck.