New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Antenna Myths
bob raynor (N4JTE)
on
July 6, 2011
View comments about this article!
ANTENNA MYTHS VS
REALITY
Submitted by N4JTE.
Definitely gonna open up a
can of worms here but after seeing so many ill-conceived antenna questions and articles on various
internet sites, I wanted to revisit a few concepts that seem to be written in
stone and have become internet folklore myths propagated, so to speak, on your
first google search.
UPFRONT;
Antennas are extremely
subjective, even the most advanced phased array or that 700 ft multiband loop
you got up at 100 ft. can fool us into thinking it’s the best idea since
Marconi. If you are using a slinky in your attic then build a magnet wire,
invisible dipole, strung out to an available tree it’s gonna make your day.
It’s all relative to your
experience.
I do not claim to be an
expert, just coming from the knowledge gained from building at least 40 wire
antennas from 160 to 2 meters over 30 years in multiple locations from stateside to
Bahamas, Kuwait and many qth’s in-between.
INVERTED VEE VS DIPOLE:
Sure, if you have a tight
space and only one decent support it will do a credible job. HOWEVER, the whole
low angle, better DX thing attributed to the inverted vee is hogwash ! UNLESS
you can get the center up at least a 1/2WL and maintain a 90 degree angle at
the feedpoint wires and keep the ends off the ground 1/4wl, you will be better
off with a flat top dipole at half the height 90% of the time. There is one
website out there that claims that you are better off with the ends at 2ft off
the ground, amazing bad info!
VERTICALS ARE BETTER
FOR DX;
Better than what? The hardest
antenna to build in the ham world is an efficient vertical. To achieve the low
angle take off is no easy undertaking.
Too much is beyond our
control unless you live on an out island in the Caribbean.
Near field reflection, ground
loss, and current path return can be maximized by an extensive radial field be
it buried or raised. BUT; the far field reflection is gonna determine your
reinforced take off angle and signal out there. Problem is most of the time
that is beyond our control. Vertical polarization is a worthy goal, I achieved
a 20 degree take off angle with 20db of front to back with phased ground
mounted shrunken quads but still can only get 5dbi of gain due to low height
and ground losses.
RANDOM LENGTH,
MULTIBAND, LADDERLINE FED WIRES;
Yep it is a good way to get
multiband capabilities with a single antenna, definitely better than coax, BUT,
ladderline is far from lossless when used in extreme multiband mismatched
conditions, see Tom’s, W8JI, excellent findings on this subject on his website.
Do not assume you are getting
your signal, ERP, effectively on all the bands your tuner might be happy with
because of the prevailing myth that ladderline will somehow ignore a gigantic
mismatch and perform lossless miracles. Does anyone really believe that a 450
ohm feedline facing a 20 ohm or 5000 ohm antenna is lossless?
NVIS ANTENNAS;
Somehow this military
variation has become the antenna de jour for folks looking for instant reliable
close in QSO’s on 40 and 80 meters. Get over it, 90% of wire antennas are already low
enough to qualify for this NVIS thing. I for one cannot think of any reason to
put an 80 meter
dipole at 12ft. to achieve a dependable 20 or 200 mile daily contact. If the propagation is working that day
then that will be the paradigm of performance, be it at 10 ft or 40ft. Stick anything you can as high and flat as
possible. If you are lucky enough to have supports at 1/2wl high on your band
of choice, you might not be able to work your neighbor everyday but that’s why
somebody invented skype.
DOUBLE BAZOOKA
ANTENNAS;
Let’s pop this bubble, so to
speak. The wide bandwidth, amazingly efficient myth is everywhere on the
internet. It is probably the most over rated extremely heavy monoband wire out
there.
Studies have shown, VK1OD and
others, what a piece of junk this thing really is. The bandwidth is expanded
around 15 KHZ, and actually has loss attributed to that miniscule bandwidth stretch!
Seems like a lot of work and extra weight for an antenna less efficient than a
dipole at the same height.
HALF SQUARES, DELTA
LOOPS, QUADS,
I am assuming most people
understand that these designs are all variations of wire vertical antennas,
some closed loops less dependant on ground conditions but in the case of the 1/2
square, it is nothing more than a two element vertical, low gain, broadside
array in desperate need of an excellent ground plane at near and far field to
do anything equal to or better than a dipole at the same height. Occasionally
it just might outperform a dipole if you have optimum ground conditions and
achieve the lower angle takeoff often written of as gospel for any ground
conditions.
OCD ANTENNAS;
That big heavy 9 to 1 balun
is there to provide a relatively close match on multiple bands by selective
compromise placement on the radiator. Nothing wrong with that concept except a
lot of wasted power up there, but still better than on the feedline or the
tuner in the shack. Sometimes it is nice to have the feedline closer to the
shack entry due to available supports. It would probably be my choice if
conditions dictated the need and I had 3 strong supports to hold this heavy
sucker up the air.
DIPOLES DIRECTIONAL?
Not really, forget worrying
about the orientation unless you get the sucker up in the air around a 1/2wl.
Most of the time they will work perfectly fine in all directions if the prop is
on your side. The beauty of the good old monoband dipole is it is about 90%
efficient when fed correctly and cut to correct length.
Would I put up a rotatable
aluminum dipole on an 80 ft tower for 40 meters, absolutely! That’s when it does the directional
thing, more a signal to noise advantage in a non gain antenna but worth the
investment at the right height.
PARASITIC VS PHASED
ARRAYS;
A little esoteric but my
experience on this dictates the sharing of my experience.
This probably is the first
and last time I will ever disagree with the master, ON4UN.
IF you are after maximum gain
AND front to back the only way to go, at least on thin wire antennas on the
lower bands is to correctly phase them into a two element array.
Remember I mentioned antenna
evaluation is based on relative experience?
My very first antenna article
on Eham many moons ago was about a two element reversible 40 meter parasitic reversible quad. Wow was I impressed with
myself until I built a smaller one phased and really saw the dramatic
improvement, now I’m hooked on being the first one heard in DX pileups!
RESONANCE VS SWR;
I know this one has been beat
to death but still annoying and frustrating when a manufacturer or article
writer espouses a flat SWR as the paradigm of antenna performance. Of course beam antenna manufacturers are aware
their antenna is not naturally resonant, that’s why there are mucho matching
systems at the feedpoint.
SWR means nothing, nada, as
far as antenna performance unless it suddenly rises while the wind blew your
antenna down.
The only resonant antenna at
50/72 coax feedline ohms is a true 1/2wl dipole up at least 1/4wl. I will leave
it to others to better explain what standing waves are, better yet read a few
books! EVERY other antenna is gonna be above or below that 50 ohm coax at its
feedpoint. How we choose to match this situation separates the signals from the
noisemakers.
If you are building your own
design, and I suggest you do, have a clue what the impedance should be at the
feedpoint. A perfectly built vertical is around 38 ohm,
dipole 50/70 ohms, a full size loop around 100 ohms, an EDZ around 5000ohms, 2
element beams around 27ohms.
None of these excellent
antennas besides the dipole will have a 1 to 1 swr.
Before the day of 50 ohm
transceivers the SWR issue was not the make or break thing it has become today
with the modern radios.
Study the facts about
standing waves and it will become clear to you that is but one aspect of
antenna evaluation and in a lot of situations means a heck of a lot less than
what you are actually trying to transmit a decent signal from.
FINAL THOUGHTS;
The true test of any antenna
is CONSISTANCY and expectations thru many days, months, solar cycles etc. We
all do the best we can and face multiple reasons for choosing what antennas we
use. I only hope that some of my comments will help some newer hams take the
time to study some real antenna theory, not the amazing amount of crummy ideas
out there on internet antenna sites that promise impossible results.
Tnx for reading,
N4JTE
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
Antenna Myths
|
|
by KC3JV on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
EDZ antenna. I don't remember seeing that one before? Enlighten me?
Mark KC3JV
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K5FH on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...an EDZ around 5000ohms..."
The ARRL Antenna Book says the impedance of an Extended Double Zepp
is approximately 200-j900 ohms at its fundamental frequency. EZNEC
confirms this. Relatively simple to match at the feedpoint for
single-band use. Where did 5K come from?
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by K1CJS on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a subject that I'm on the bottom of the learning curve in, so, a question.
Recently, during Field Day, I had an opportunity to use an inverted V
antenna which had unequal legs--I believe 42' 8" on one side to 21' 4"
on the other. It was up about 15 feet with the ends about three feet
off the ground. It seems that that antenna was doing very
well--contacts all over the eastern part of the country. My home
station is space challenged, so what is the opinion on that type
antenna--raised up about 10 feet further at both ends and the center? I
can just about fit that in my yard. Thanks!
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K1CJS on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I forgot to mention that the bands used were 40 meters up. Matching was by an auto tuner.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W5LZ on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS,
That's an OCF antenna, the feed point if "off center". They work
with a tuner (in most cases). From the sound of it, you don't have the
room for center fed (or any other 'long' antennas) at home, and that's
why I think you think it's a good antenna. The simple fact is that
except for one band/frequency, the thing isn't resonant. Resonant
antennas really do perform 'better'.
There are exceptions to everything! The author didn't mean for this
article to be 'dead-nutz' definitive, it only shows that there are a
lot of misconceptions/myths about particular antennas.
If a particular antenna 'style'/type works well for you, then use
it. If you wanna try something else, do so, just don't forget how that
other antenna was made/positioned so you can switch back to it if you
want to.
- Paul
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K1CJS on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks, Paul. Now I remember the term--Off Center Fed.
And thanks for the reminder about what works for one may not work for
another. I often say the same thing! 73!
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by WB4JZY on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OCD ANTENNAS; "That's an OCF antenna, the feed point if "off center"....."
no, he meant an "obsessive compulsive disorder antenna"
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by KB2DHG on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice article... We all would love to have that magical answer of what is the ideal antenna!
Unfortunately through my 25 years in this hobby I have in this hobby
and all the antennas I have experamented with the one factor that has a
great effect on any antenna is location.
When I lived in a house with lots of land and on top of a hill with a
360 degree clear view, I have a tower and 3 element beam for 10, 15
& 20 with several inverted V's for 17,80,40, & 30 meters. SWR
and performance was never an issue!
I since moved to a restricted condo and had to surrender to a stealth G5RV dipole...
I came to this choice of antenna simply for the multi band
capabilities it clames to have, and that I could only get permission to
install one antenna and I like to work as many bands as I can. I am
happy to say that I have it working fairly well but have to tune the
heck out of it to get it to radiate and not really knowing the excat
power I am actually radiating out from it. YES I have been working the
world with it but having more of a challenge in doing so.
If you have the space and means go with a beam. If you can't then I
reccomend multi dipoles cut for the specific band. If you are linited to
one antenna and limited space the G5RV will get you decent contacts.
BUT, again location and the proper instalation will have the main effect
of the final outcome.
So to me and I am sure most will agree the antenna is the main
element to top performance. If you had to invest in one thing in this
hobby that will yeald the most results Invest in the best possable
antenna system you can afford to buy. for the many like myself who have
to deal with restrictions and regulations, My antenna of choice is the
famed G5RV fed with 450ohm ladder line cut to 31 feet and bear copper
stranded # 14 wire cut to 51 feet per leg equiling 102 feet across. MAKE
IT YOUR SELF you can't buy a better G5RV antenna!
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N3OX on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Antennas are extremely subjective"
Not if you make objective tests of how they work :D
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K3AN on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keys to antenna success.
1. Location. Hilltops are FAR better than flatland. I can attest to this from personal experience.
2. Height above ground. There's an old saying, "If your antenna
didn't blow down in the last windstorm, it isn't high enough."
Alternatively, local ground conductivity achieves importance if you're
installing a vertical.
3. Gain
4. F/B
...
...
...
764. Resonance
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by K4AHO on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An Antenna does not live in a vacumn. The effects of
changing propagation overwhelm any performance differences of similar
antennas. While antennas can be tested in the near field, it is the far
field that makes the contacts...
The best way to learn about simple antennas is to operate QRP/P in
the field. My experience seems to indicate a PAR 40/20& 10 EFZ
portable special sloped at a 60 degree angle works best for stateside
operation. BTW worked VK from FL with this antenna. Second best is a L
shaped dipole fed at the lower corner. Vertical element sloped at 60
degree and horz element about 3' off the ground..
After 57 yrs of playing radio, I think antennas are still the last great mystery.
73
Jim
K4AHO
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K0BG on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee Bob, you didn't mention anything about common mode. How come?
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by WV6U on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think big reason for such subjective range of opinions on
antennas and persistence of myths is lack of objectivity in testing and
reporting antenna performance. Most antenna reviews read something like
"I threw a wire over a tree, loaded it up with a tuner and immediately
started working DX". The conclusion being my antenna is great. Instead,
it would be much more helpful to report some basic operating conditions
when you tested the antenna - (1) Power (2) Solar data (flux,A/K index)
(3) Feed-point measurements for reactance and other parameters.
Sure, it makes antenna performance reports a bit more difficult to
put together but over time will help the hobby immensely. A good data
set would go a long way towards scientific understanding of antennas
instead of the black art that most consider it, today.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N6AJR on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I only have 2 words on my favorite antenna :)
FAN DIPOLE
for real my favorite antenna is the steppir. I have a 3 element 6-20
meter up at about 35 feet at the moment ( digging the hole for the 55
foot tower as we speak).
the steppir , in all of its variations, gives you a resonant antenna on any frequency in its band path.
Lets say you are in a contest and working 14.020 as a cw op, then you set the antenna for 14.000 or 14.050 and you are golden.
Then lets say you decide to work some phone in the contest. You are
working at 14.270 so you run the any=tenna up there and are once again
resinant.
Now lets go do some RTTY, so you set the antenna at 14.080 and work RTTY.
This ability can also be comouter controlled, so the antenna follows
you around like a puppy. add that to an auto tune amp, and some packet
spots and you are in "one click" contest heaven.
The draw back to the steppir is that the boom is a fixed lenght so
your front to back suffers a tad on the higher freqs, like 6 and 10
meters, but most all antennas are way to close any ways so live with
it.
There are probably as many antennas ideas as there are hams, so put up something and go play.
It still amazes me that I can take some electricity in my shack and
tickle some electrons in a piece of alunimumumunummun here and have some
electrons in a piece of alumimunumunum at your house and we call it
radio. I think it is more like Magic :)
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W4VR on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Finally, a non-controversial article on eham. Congrats for
pointing out some of the myths that have plaqued the hobby for years
and will continue into the next century. By the way, with regard to the
EDZ, I use two dipoles in my system which gives the same radiation
pattern and gain as a center-fed EDZ.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by AA4PB on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My favorite is: "end-fed half wave antennas are voltage fed and therefore require no current flow".
Say what?? P = I * E and if I = 0 then no matter how big you make E,
the power (P) into the antenna is still zero. Zero power in means zero
signal radiated.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
G3LBS, call it a folded dipole if that is more accurate, but looks more like two 1/4wl verticals at 1/4wl spacing.
Regards,
Bob
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by W2RI on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Verticals *are* better for DX - if you have no other
antenna. And they can be be better than a dipole, or a yagi, depending
on the height of the latter.
Some simple rules of antennas:
a) If you only have one antenna, it is the best antenna you have (!)
b) If you can erect an antenna with gain (usually directional) this
will usually - but not always - increase your likelihood of making the
QSO.
c) You can have an antenna with huge gain, but if it's not
delivering the signal where it needs to get to then a "less-efficient"
antenna may do the job infinitely better.
d) Take-off angle and lobes can be your friend. They can also be your enemy.
e) Some antennas are better suited to receiving than transmitting, if you have several alternatives available.
f) You can never have enough antennas.
g) Usually, but not always, the higher the better. It depends on the location of your target.
Finally, and most importantly,
h) Antennas do not increase your signal strength. They can merely
direct and focus it - hopefully to the location you want, and away from
the areas you are ignoring.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KE7FD on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe one of the biggest motivations to strive for the
lowest SWR these days differs from what it was when I got into radio
sometime back in the previous century. Although most hams probably have
to think about it, most of us would probably agree that we own solid
state transceivers whose output circuits get very unhappy (yes, that's a
technical term for some) with high SWR. So, from that perspective,
having a low SWR is not a bad thing to strive for.
Antenna performance is another thing altogether. A well designed
dummy load presents an excellent match too but they make terrible
antennas. (Although, I did work a station a few hundred miles away as a
novice when using a Heath Cantenna at the other end of a 3-foot coax on
40 meters, but you didn't hear me say that.)
According to every article, antenna book, modeling software, and
guru atop snowy peaks, an 80m full-size loop makes a terrible DX antenna
as the pattern lends to their nickname of "Cloud Warmers". And I'm sure
if I had a perfectly flat lot with ideal supports, landscaping and
Venus aligns with Mars, the pattern would in fact burn a hole in the sky
above my house. However, none of my own elements matches the
assumptions made in articles, antenna books, modeling software, or guru
atop snowy peaks. I routinely work DX stations much farther away than
200 miles or more, as in Merry old England, Germany and Havana with very
respectable signal reports. And that's just getting on the air a couple
of times a year (you didn't hear me say that either) from my house
station.
Anyway, thanks for stirring the pot.
Glen KE7FD
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Besides the obligitory notice of some typo's on ohms etc.
and nomenclature mistakes, I have not seen any actual dispute as to my
conclusions presented in the article.
Regards,
Bob
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by N2OBM on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you for the thoughtful article.
To me, antennas are 'the' fun aspect of this hobby.
Kinda in this order:
1. Any antenna is better than no antenna. Get off your butt...get something up, get on the air.
2. The dipole...simple, beautiful, simple, balanced, simple, cheap(ish).
3. The higher the better.
4. Don't skimp on the hardware or cable strain system.
I have played with about every common military antenna in the inventory....
After awhile you realize the real magic of radio is in the
radio...the ability to recover an ant fart worth of energy (modulation),
riding an ant fart worth of energy (RF) and hearing a human voice in
the speaker.
Take a trip without leaving the farm! ;)
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KB1GMX on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some of my best DX was done when I'd forgotten I'd left one end (or all) of the wire on the ground!
I'm inclined to agree to a point with most everything said.
1. Any antenna is better than none.
2. A resonant half wave antenna be it dipole or end fed
is hard to beat.
3. Beams are nice but hey, below 10M they get big.
4. Shortend antennas are always inefficient, they just fit spaces better. (see item 1).
5. Verticals are (usually) half an antenna, the ground is not always.(see item 1)
6. An inverted L is a useful antenna. It's both over
rated and underrated depending on needs, length and
ground. It's also compact. It can be "center fed"
or end fed. Don't sweat the vertical to horizontal
ratio, do what fits.
If one antenna doesn't work for you,try another.
All claims are usually suspect unless there is something to compare to like a dipole at typical height.
If you want a bigger signal put up more metal (wire).
If you can't put up more, put it higher if possible.
Allison
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by G0GQK on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I read the first comment and the "fun" has started !
Somebody has never heard of an EDZ, its an Extended Double Zepp. That's
being pedantic !
I had a smart arse tell me I was talking garbage when I said a
dipole was about 90% efficient, he said it was 100%. I trawled through
the internet and found a document by one of the early US university
radio experts, can't remember his name, who wrote this in his findings
about 1930.
You're right about the low dipoles, most hams in the UK have dipoles
about 25-30 ft above ground so the signals on 40 and 80 go straight up
and down again so they aren't directional.
As you mention its hard to get a low angle vertical but that's the
least of our worries. I have a 40 metre quarter wave with two raised
quarter wave radials, on the day we had good propagation it got me to
South Island NZ. What we need is some decent propagation, then most
people wouldn't be worrying about all these different shapes of wire,
they would be DX'ing !
An old timer once said to me, apart from a few antenna's, like a
Yagi, with wire antenna's there isn't a ha'porth of difference between
the lot of 'em ! And he was right, there isn't, its all in the mind !
G0GQK
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K9MHZ on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"CONSISTENCY"
I guess the tone of these antenna posts is interesting. It's as
though people are looking for a fight. "That antenna is a loser!" "SWR
is no big deal!" "What a junk antenna!" "Antenna tuners are junk
science!"
I mean it's as though a lot of antenna "experts" can't wait to get
something off of their chests and tell everyone how stupid they are.
Lighten up.....you've got good info that people can use. Just lose the attitude, will ya?
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by AE6RV on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Does anyone really believe that a 450 ohm feedline facing a 20 ohm or 5000 ohm antenna is lossless?"
No. But it's as near to lossless as you need to worry about unless
you deliberately try to make the losses high. Fractions of a db simply
don't matter. Yes, if you try to tune in a ladder fed 20M dipole on 80M
or 160M you will have losses. But that's beside the point. Or are you
suggesting that we shouldn't use ladder line because if try really hard
it will have losses on the lower bands?
Put up a dipole that's cut for the lowest frequency you want to
work. Feed that with a ladder line (that makes it a "doublet") and a
tuner and you have probably the best multi-band antenna that can be had.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by G3RZP on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What's the magic about resonance? A Hertzian dipole 0.05
wavelngth long (3.3feet on 20m) is only 0.05dB down on a half wave
dipole - IF you can get the same power into it. The impedance is so
horrific that you lose all the power in the matching network, but
resonance per se is not pre-requisite. Neitherwise are rhombics
resonant.....although they can well be described as having the 'least dB
per acre'.
It is often thought that lowest SWR occurs at resonance. T'aint
necessarily so! Resonance (which is not the answer the Extra exam asks
for) is when the reactive component is zero at a particular frequency
and not at all others. NOT when XL = XC. That's an approximation which
falls down when Q is low.
The original off centre fed dipole was described in the RSGB
Bulletin in the 1950's by Macintosh, VS1AA. It was an antenna N half
waves long, fed a quarter wave at the lowest frequency from one end with
80 ohm twin feeder. A later version used 300 ohm twin, basically to get
15m in. See the 4th edition of the RSGB Radio Communications Handbook,
1968, p. 13.51. No heavy transformer up in the air to catch fire!
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6RV, what I AM suggesting is that it is not hard to match
a 450 feedline to the band of choice by finding a tap place for
connecting a 50 coax that will be at same impedance, 1 to 1, by shorting
remaining end. No mismatch, no tuner needed, and not hard to do with
anything approaching a 1/4wl/3/4wl of ladderline. A little more work
than 450 into a tuner on multibands and hoping for the best, but less
loss AND, no tuner, just a few knife switches.
Regards,
Bob
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by AE6RV on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"A little more work than 450 into a tuner on multibands and
hoping for the best, but less loss AND, no tuner, just a few knife
switches."
You make it sound so hard, and yet I've been using a tuner since I
got my first HF rig n 1972. Seriously, check into the center fed
doublet antenna. For the price, it's hard to beat. And I'd sure like
to see some links to something showing you can get lower loss through
coax than through a ladder line. It doesn't happen in real life.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A coax matched to the correct tap point on any open fed wire line will be less loss than the alternative.
You misread my previous comment.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by AE6RV on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, I misread your post. You are correct, but only for
the amount of loss in the tuner as compared to the loss in the coax.
Neither will be significant in most cases.
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by W9IQ on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks, Bob for the nice article.
One extra consideration of antenna systems that are fed by ladder
line and require a tuner to achieve the conjugate match, is the loss in
the tuner. This is often overlooked as part of the overall antenna
system in the zeal to espouse the low losses of the ladder line.
To get some insight into the tuner losses, take a look at Kevin's, W9CF, loss calculator on his web site:
http://fermi.la.asu.edu/w9cf/tuner/tuner.html
- Glenn DJ0IQ and W9IQ
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KA6WKE on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the extreme that would be antenna compulsive disorder obsessive. Have to have it all in alphabetical order!
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KG4YMC on July 6, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
obsessive compulsive disorder antenna? you don't use a
tuner, just one prozac pill , in line a day? that is one antenna myth I
am not familar with . kg4ymc
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KG4YMC on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ideal antenna would be a M.P.M.B.A. , muti personality
,muti band antenna. Also if you get buffeting from your fan antenna ,
try a dyson bladeless antenna ? ok , good night , but good info folks ,
seriously . kg4ymc
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by G3LBS on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9IQ Glenn I wouldn't be surprised if many are using non-true differential tuners when you make that remark?
You need a true differential tuner like a Kilowatt Johnson Matchbox
to use with ladder line, preferably with about 300pf in series with the
input link for extreme impedance range. My religion forbids all coax,
baluns and traps. I once found a horde of wasps in the trap of a beam 80
ft high. The best bargain of all-time for radio hams is 100ft of 300
ohm feeder from RadioShack. Gil W2/G3LBS
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W9IQ on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Gil,
You make an insightful observation. The far majority of tuners today
are not optimized for balanced lines. There is a nice bit of coverage
on this topic in the June 2011 issue of QST, in the "The Doctor is In"
column by W1ZR.
Joel does agree with your assertion that the Johnson has better
efficiency that "modern" tuners but it does not have the range or full
WARC band coverage without modification as you point out.
For those who have never seen schematics for balanced tuners, take a
look at this issue of QST as well as the September 2004 issue of QST
that is referenced in Gil's article.
- Glenn DJ0IQ and W9IQ
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by K8KAS on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Bob, nice job and boy will the nit pickers love this
one. I always get a kick when the weakest signal on the band tell's
someone all he know's about antennas... ask the BIG siganls about their
antenna and you will learn something IMHO 73 CU Denny K8KAS
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N3HKN on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Hi Bob, nice job and boy will the nit pickers love this
one. I always get a kick when the weakest signal on the band tell's
someone all he know's about antennas... ask the BIG siganls about their
antenna and you will learn something IMHO 73 CU Denny K8KAS "
This reveals the last dimension in antennas. Money. The 10% of the
richest Hams probably have the consistently "big signals". You can
always buy performance.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K9MHZ on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You can always buy more performance"
I'll agree only if you're referring to having money to buy enough
land to put up a large, full-sized antenna system without compromises.
If you're referring to money for big equipment, then I'll disagree.
Good antennas are everything. An IC-7800 into an Alpha 8410 into a coat
hanger would be very expensive, but won't perform at all.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W5LZ on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The best antenna I have is the one I have right now. The
best antenna I have ever had was the one two (or three) antennas ago.
And naturally, my next one will be even better.
It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Does anyone reallythink besides me?
The best advice (most common?) I can think of is to fix it till it stops working. Then back up one step, or maybe two.
What 'works' for me probably won't work for you. Why? How would I know?
I've got this boat for sale...
- Paul
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W2DI on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very interesting, Bob, and insightful. I was just about to
string up a 66' dipole feeding it with 50 ft. of TV 300 ohm twinlead
from my manual (with balun) tuner. This being a small variation of the
$4 all band antenna article found elsewhere; hoping I could cover the 40
thru 10 meter bands with fairly good efficiency. That may not be the
case.
In the spirit of amateur radio I agree that experimentation is a
good thing and making contacts with the rain gutter is something to be
proud of.
I, however, hoping not to sound like I'm making excuses, am what you
would call a 'casual' operator and tend to favor the low profile,
simplistic approach. Get on the radio, make a new friend in another part
of the country or the world, chat for a while and that's really what
the hobby is - for me.
Conversely, I also have a tendency to wish to be 'green' with my RF.
It would bother me to run my radio at 100 watts output and radiate 40
into the luminiferous aether, though I'm sure I would make contacts. I
would rather turn the radio back to about 80 watts, radiate 60 or so and
make contacts.
So, according to this fine article, my operating style and
peculiarities in mind, and the hope to have an antenna that operates on
40, 17 and maybe one more band, what would you (anyone) do? A parallel
dipole? A trap dipole? Anything else?
Knowing there is no perfect solution or 'right' answer, all opinions, except that I'm ugly, are welcome. Thanks in advance. 73.
Joe -- w2di
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by AE6RV on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I was just about to string up a 66' dipole feeding it with
50 ft. of TV 300 ohm twinlead from my manual (with balun) tuner. This
being a small variation of the $4 all band antenna article found
elsewhere; hoping I could cover the 40 thru 10 meter bands with fairly
good efficiency. That may not be the case."
It would be truly sad if this article convinced someone not to even
try to use a 66' center fed doublet with a tuner. Or did I mistake the
ironic humor?
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K8CXM on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've always believed in the 20 meter rule: Horizontal is
better from 20 meters on up and vertical is better 40 meters and down.
30 meters could go either way. Reason is most average home owners can
get a 20 meter or higher frequency antenna up at least 1/2 wavelength,
but 40 meters and down are not so easy in the average city lot. However,
verticals for 40 and down can be made and they can be very effective.
Naturally, a decent ground is certainly going to make that vertical work
better.
Hey, if you have 70' trees far enough apart, go with that 40 meter
dipole. But, don't think too many of us have 135' trees 140' apart. But,
even I have 50' trees 40' apart, perfect for those two 20 meter
dipoles.
Does direction make a difference? Sure does on those 2 antennas,
sometimes as much as 5 S units. One is NE/SW and the other NW/SE.
Verticals here are wire and fed in a fan configuration at the base
with a single coax feedline (the 80 meter wire is an inverted L). 32
radials at least 35' feet in length are buried around the base. It works
VERY well on 80 and gives me decent performance on 40.
I also have had numerous wire antennas, some better than others,
but a simple flat top dipole at least 1/2 wavelength up works as well as
anything. Second to that is a high inverted V with the ends as near
flat as possible.
Mention is made of the EDZ (extended double zepp). I've had several
of these, and they do work. However, because of their bit of gain,
their beamwidth is rather narrow. IMHO, a dipole is better. Not as much
gain, true, but a much wider beamwidth.
As I like to tell my ham friends,"work with what you got". ANY antenna is better than NO antenna.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KJ4AGA on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok, but it all boils down to.....whats the best antenna for
you. If I'm happy with a hygain vertical because I have no trees in
the yard or way to hang a dipole....thats what I'm going to use. This
article is nice in that it rates effeciency, but there are other factors
as well. We can't all have 40m+ beams on 100ft towers so something has
got to be done with getting on those bands if your looking for that
sort of thing. I do prefer dipole because I have no problems with them,
but if I ever move to a smaller lot.....you'd better believe I would
look at verticals.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N2EY on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The only resonant antenna at 50/72 coax feedline ohms is a true 1/2wl dipole up at least 1/4wl."
Not true. A 1/4 wave vertical with drooping radials can have a
feedpoint Z of 50 ohms. A gamma-matched tower can have a feedpoint Z of
50 ohms. A ZS6BKW can have a feed point Z of 50 ohms. A trap dipole can
have a feed point Z of 50 ohms. There are many other examples.
---
Amateur radio antennas are no more than 10% electrical engineering and no less than 90% mechanical engineering.
---
As for "lossless ladder line", no transmission line is truly
lossless. But good open-wire line can have very low loss, even when
operated at considerable (10 to 1) SWR.
The problem is that the term "ladder line" has different meanings to different hams. And so does "considerable SWR".
The Ancient Ones, and some folks today, use "ladder line" made with
#14 or heavier wire, spaced several inches with ceramic spreaders every
couple of feet. Such a line is heavy and can be a challenge to deal
with, but its losses at HF are very low and if properly made will last a
very long time.
There is also manufactured "ladder line", sometimes called
"fretline" which is two #18 or #16 wires spaced 3/4 or 1 inch apart,
with plastic spacers every few inches. Such a line is somewhat more
convenient than the big stuff, but its losses are higher and it isn't
very common any more.
The most common stuff referred to as "ladder line" today is actually
"window line". It consists of heavy-duty Twin-Lead (two relatively
small wires embedded in a ribbon of brown polyethylene) with rectangular
holes punched in it. It's convenient to use but its losses are much
higher.
The Ancient Ones did things like feeding a 132 foot dipole (up high
and in the clear) in the center with 65 feet of 600 ohm open-wire line,
matched with a parallel-connected balanced link-coupled transmatch in
the shack. The resulting system is very low loss on 80/40/20/15/10, in
part because the components are all low-loss and in part because the SWR
never gets much past 10 to 1. (On all bands except 80 the feedpoint Z
is no more than a few thousand ohms and is mostly resistive).
That's a very different thing from a short low dipole fed with window line and an unbalanced tuner/balun combination.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4EV on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a hornets nest! HI HI
I have learned quite a bit about antennas from a friend, K6AJ, Al
Henderson (SK), He owned Signature Antenna Systems in San Diego and
made antennas for the Navy and Air Force. Al's theory was the impedance
of free space is 377 ohms so the antenna has to transform what ever
impedance to 377 ohms. Start with a vertical with an impedance of 30
ohms at the base and near infinity at the top, somewhere along the
antenna you will find the magic 377 ohms. Al thought that the closer
the feed point is to 377 ohms, the better the antenna will work.
I will agree with Bob in his article that too many myths are being
propagated and believed. However, as has been stated in this thread,
what you have up and is working, it's the best!
I have had to settle with a dipole in the attic and did manage to
get away with a Hustler vertical in the back yard. Both work but not
the best setup.
Clayton N4EV
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W2DI on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To Bob, AE6RV -
I appreciate the comment, Bob
I think I will try the 66ft, 300 ohm fed dipole, hoping the mismatch
doesn't get too high to cause significant losses. The feedline run is
rather short and staying on 40 thru 10 may not present an outrageous
situation.
Anyway, I have the antenna built and might-as-well give it a try.
If not, I have an idea for a Slinky Top-loaded Rain Gutter Antenna...the STRGA curtain.
Very good discussion.
joe -- w2di
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by AE6RV on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Joe,
I doubt you'll notice any losses. If you have any issues with
tuning it, prune or add a meter to the feedline. Sometimes the
impedance at the tuner is too complex for it to match. The important
thing is to not let an article prevent you from giving it a try.
My 128 ft long doublet is only 23 ft off the ground with the last 20
ft of one end sloping to 8 ft high. I've managed to work almost all of
the 80M pileups to Europe and Africa that I've tried. I admit to not
having heard any 80M Asian stations with it. I don't see that as a big
handicap considering the space I have to work with. I do run 800 Watts
and only call when I can actually hear the DX.
73s
Bob - AE6RV
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Talk about irony, when checking comments to this article
the " Double Bazooka " banner add was waving in glory at top of page.
Gotta laugh to stay sane in this life !
Bob
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The only resonant antenna at 50/72 coax feedline ohms is a true 1/2wl dipole up at least 1/4wl."
N2EY responds;
Not true. A 1/4 wave vertical with drooping radials can have a
feedpoint Z of 50 ohms. A gamma-matched tower can have a feedpoint Z of
50 ohms. A ZS6BKW can have a feed point Z of 50 ohms. A trap dipole can
have a feed point Z of 50 ohms. There are many other examples.
I should have said the only true NATURAL antenna, all the examples you mention use a way to get to 50 ohms.
1; ZS6BKW; uses a twinlead matching line as any version of a G5RV.
2; Elevated vertical with drooping radials, you got me there, hi.
3; Shunt fed tower, matching system.
4; Trap dipole, yeah okay but only due to the coils adding or subtracting inductance to match feedline.
Appreciate your comments very much and tnx for adding positivly to the discussion.
Regards,
Bob
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KG4YMC on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
he didn't mention the HUNTER DX CEILING FAN ANTENNA ? Ideal
for indoor or balcony outside restricted area. Also ' cool for field
day . got to work on keeping the loading coils from flying off. I"ll
try to sell the idea to mfj.kg4ymc yes, I really do know what a fan
antenna is . also, if hit the reverse switch will it change the
radiation angle ?
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W8AAZ on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If I had some acreage, I would surely put up a pretty ideal
antenna, like most hams I am stuck with cut and try, and try to get by.
I work stations with my 20' high dipole and LL feed. Gotta live with
it. But I am sure that the magic miracle antenna is about to emerge from
some lab soon. Sure. If your antenna is a dud, tear it down and go to
the next experiment. My only regret is that Rat Shack does not stock
that nice antenna wire anymore.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by AE6RV on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"My only regret is that Rat Shack does not stock that nice antenna wire anymore."
I've had the same length of #14 THHN stranded house wiring up for
about 6 years, now. After a year or two the clear outer covering rots
off and it looks like it has the mange, but the colored insulation
remains. I got mine from Home Depot. It's available at Lowes, Ace, Tru
Value, etc etc etc.
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by W6AAJ on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We talk about higher is better regarding antennas. I've
always wondered is that height above the local terrain or height over
sea level. On HF,say 14.300mhz, does someone with a dipole x feet in
the air on top of Mount Palomar have any advantage chasing DX compared
to the same antenna with the same local terrain in the valley a mile
below?
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by OLLIEOXEN27 on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Recommendation: Half wave end fed antennas one for each
band of interest in either sloper or vertical configuration. The best
wire antenna ever requiring only a cheap tuner at the feedpoint, a short
counterpoise, and coax to the shack.
Avoid any and all multiband antennas - you'll become frustrated and want to qrt from the hobby.
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by K1DA on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is a fair amount of info on the internet regarding
how to make an inverted "L" work well. I called a JA on 80 SSB a few
months ago on what I thought was my full size 80 meter vertical, turned
out I was using my "local coverage" "L" instead. It delivered enough
signal to JA to work him.
Advantage: easy to install no heavy duty supports needed to hold up
the wire. Disadvantage: not easy to multiband without a tuner. Hint:
Aside from matching you need to add a small "floating" counterpoise as
the latest articles describe. An extensive ground system is not
necessary. A current choke on the feedline helps keep RF out of the
shack.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Appreciate all the pertinent comments that actually
referred to the content of the article, point was to educate new hams
not to believe what they read on advertisements and wrong answers on
various forums and READ some books and learn the basics of antennas, not
sure I accomplished my original intent but I tried.
Regards all,
N4JTE
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by N1BHH on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very informative if people actually read this. It will blow
a lot of people's supposed super antennas to shreads as well as some
people's egos. It's best for people not to just look at the antenna but
also at the feed method, the length of the feeder at frequencies X, Y
and Z, and to look at what you have available.
I use an OCD for the fact that my feed point is directly over my
operating position about 45 feet up and the end supports are
conveniently at the right places. I also like to operate multiple bands
and don't want to have to put up a bunch of dipoles for each band and
have to go outside to switch bands when I want. I wanted the wire to be
as high and in the clear as possible. I wish I could go higher with this
but I'm going to need a seasoned bow hunter to place it at about 75
feet in the tree, or maybe some monkey to climb it for me.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by AE6RV on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We talk about higher is better regarding antennas. I've
always wondered is that height above the local terrain or height over
sea level."
I believe that the height refers to "height above average terrain".
"On HF,say 14.300mhz, does someone with a dipole x feet in the air
on top of Mount Palomar have any advantage chasing DX compared to the
same antenna with the same local terrain in the valley a mile below?"
If you're in a steep valley, you've got problems: your antenna is
going to be below the average terrain level. Even if you're just on the
plain beside the mountain, if you're close enough to the mountain it
becomes a barrier to signals in that direction.
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by AE7MJ on July 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mr.Bob,
Nice article once again sir. Being upfront and honest without
causing a flame-up is great to see. Must agree with what you've come up
with for your 40m working antenna, as I do hear you quite well in WA on
a very regular basis. --no Bob, your not "5-9" all the time, but I do
recieve your signal generally better than others with the same
"conditions".
[Bob and I participate in OMISS Nets consisting of around 40-70
stations working in the span of 1-4 hours time. Good antenna checking
opportunity].
Anyhow, you have something that works for you...and I'm confident
you'll find another that performs even better. Just as we all
(hopefully) should be doing. I do like the 'don't take advertising as
gospel' kick in the pants also. If every Johnny-Joe believed what was
advertised we'd all be on dummy loads. What fun is that?
Over just one short year, I've listened literally to your ups and
downs in the antenna saga. Don't stop now Bob....and keep the articles
coming please.
Catch ya on the 'Nets
AE7MJ
(gotta update my E-Ham login still)
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by G3RZP on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I go with Jim, N2EY on open wire line. After trying several
variations, I bought a load of ex USN ceramic insulators - I believe
they were for WW2 aircraft wire antennas - at Dayton for $1 each. About
2-1/2 inches long, they are ideal spreaders for open wire feeder using
14AWG and have the advantage that unlike all the other ones I've tried,
they haven't given up with UV. As the feeder goes to the dipole centre
which is at the top of the tower, weight isn't important. A good old
fahioned parallel tuned circuit, link coupled, gives a balanced tuner.
Well, at least the thermoammeters in each leg seem to think so....A 60
foot or so feeder gives high impedance on both 80 and 40.
Vertical or horizontal? Yes. I have the 80m dipole fed with open
wire line as a fullwave dipole on 40, basically horizontal. I also have a
set of 40m sloping dipoles, with the unused ones tuned as reflectors,
switch selectable. On a number of occasions on long path to VK in a
morning on 40 CW, I receive better on the sloper for that direction, but
get a 2 S point better report on the full wave dipole.
For 160, I frequently find the noise on receive using the dipole is
lower than on the folded unipole vertical that is the tower. So the SNR
on a DX station is better. That's how I worked Heard Island on
160...reasonable DX from the UK!
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by K7AZN on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear fellow HAMS, What ever radiates a RF signal is a
workable antenna, from bed springs to light bulbs,to a straight piece of
wire. 150 watt bulb works OK.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W5ESE on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I think I will try the 66ft, 300 ohm fed dipole,
> hoping the mismatch doesn't get too high to cause
> significant losses. The feedline run is rather
> short and staying on 40 thru 10 may not present
> an outrageous situation.
I predict this will work very well for you.
I used something very like it in the Texas QSO
Party last year.
73
Scott W5ESE
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KG4YMC on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
you were concern about opeing a can of worms on the
antenna's you didn't mention the SOPCHOPPY FLA WORM GRUNTING STUB
ANTENNA? A REAL GROUND WARMER. KG4YMC
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W9OY on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If your point was to educate you failed
Verticals for example are not hard to make efficient, and at least on the low bands are good DX antennas.
The point of an open-wire fed antenna is its multi-band character
with relatively good efficiency, not its incredible efficiency on every
frequency. It is the first antenna I erect whenever I move to a new QTH
because of its versatility.
Each antenna has its good points and its bad points, which often
compete with each other and it all depends on which characteristic or
what mix of characteristics are most important.
A better article would be to list each antenna type and its good
points and bad points from an electrical and mechanical and perhaps cost
standpoint. That article would actually inform the new comer in a way
to help him make a decision. The hustler on the back of the car is a
really good 80M antenna if the alternative is a paperclip but a really
bad antenna if the alternative is a dipole at 150ft.
73 W9OY
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9OY, been there did that, check previous articles under my call or better yet, write one of your own!
Bob
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W4VR on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9OY said: "A better article would be to list each antenna
type and its good points and bad points from an electrical and
mechanical and perhaps cost standpoint. That article would actually
inform the new comer in a way to help him make a decision."
Good point! Why don't you do a NEC and structural analysis on every
antenna in Bob's article and give the amateur radio community a report
on the results...let's say no later than February 2012...36 years after
his demise. If W2OY were still amongst the living he would think very
highly of you for making this small contribution to Amateur Radio.
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by OLLIEOXEN27 on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The commie obama destroyed NASA as part of his plan to destroy America.
The commie obama continues to destroy America by keeping interest
rates at 2%. Nobody and no institution is going to loan money (invest)
if they are only getting back 2%.
Still want to talk about antennas?
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by OLLIEOXEN27 on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just having this guy in power makes people afraid of waking
up everyday let alone invest their hard earned month in a system that
can collapse at any time.
The bama can make as many speeches as he wants about how he loves
America and loves the traditions of our space program but he is lying.
He and the foreign interests that put him in power are methodically
intent on destroying us from within. When our economy collapses (when we
default), bama will create a communist state while claiming it's a new
beginning.
Bama has the media in his pocket so while this is all happening the
media will report we are going through a tough spell but things will get
better...Let's watch Dancing with the Stars....
Still want to talk about antennas?
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by OLLIEOXEN27 on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: The US goes into default, the government loses it's
credit rating so the interest it has to pay skyrockets, entitlement
funding stops, protests break out (like Greece), bama blames the
Republicans encouraging the 'Have Nots' to blame the 'Haves', class
warfare erupts, bama declares martial law and suspends the constitution.
That is the plan.
Still want to talk about antennas?
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KG4YMC on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
gee. the last guy will get flamed and not me for a change
mabey, I guess we should invest in gold antennas , not onely be prepared
for the economic fall but have best conductor material antenna made
.kg4ymc is that were s.os. came from , socialist obama , stupid?
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KG4YMC on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
what is a differntial tuner? would that be posi track,? or limited slip tuner?
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 8, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you Clinton, AB7RG, for making Eham articles a very interesting place and fun to read.
Do believe it's time for the next one, some trailor trash with no
lives are infecting many good comments, sad, but internet is only place
they have. It's like a dumb lid hearing things asking if freqency is in
use.
Thats why 95% of my time is on radio and building antennas to talk to people that can spell a word.
Best to all,
N4JTE
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N5YPJ on July 9, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's very hard to define an antenna as effective in an
approximate 24 hr operating period where a large percentage of hams are
operating. Field Day is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel,
depedning on your location operating skill & technique is the most
important factor. As the author pointed out, the antenna that
consistently performs day in day out, month after month, etc., etc. is
the one to have. It does take experimenting to find out what will work
for you.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K1BXI on July 9, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice article Bob, after reading all the posts I think you need to follow up with one titled:
"FEED LINE MYTHS VS REALITY"
John
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K0BG on July 9, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bob, I hope I didn't sound like I was trashing the article
with my common mode comment, as that wasn't the intent. But I still
think it should have been mentioned especially in the part about OCF
doublets.
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K7JBQ on July 9, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"FEED LINE MYTHS VS REALITY"
Hmmm, I think it's already been done, and then some.
Hint: Reflections, W2DU.
73,
Bill
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by WA6MJE on July 9, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the worries over ground loss in verticals is now
mostly a myth. It is true that there are decades of articles that say
this. However, more current information shows that a vertical with a few
elevated radials really does quite well in terms of avoiding excessive
ground loss and competes well with a vertical system that has dozens of
buried radials. This was confirmed by simulation software in many newer
articles, and in one extensive article I read by actual field
measurement.
I read one article about why it is that articles and even text books on verticals have been so wrong about this for so long.
In any event, I live in an a HOA challenged QTH and have little
option but a vertical. I studied the concept extensively, and learned
that what I knew about verticals as a 50 year ham was wrong.
A few elevated radials do well. Yes there is some ground loss, but
considering the performance of a low horizontal radiator, it is a good
option. Spend the time to exploit efficiency, with good coax, large
diameter radial wire, if you need a coil, make it high Q, and if you
exploit these tricks, there is no reason to shy away from a vertical.
Or, better yet, the reasons to shy away are probably mostly myth if you
seek out and find the newer studies. Elevate the base about six to ten
feet, and slope the radials down to no lower than two feet. It will
perform well, and this can be easily studied with simulation software
and confirmed by experience.
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by N6JSX on July 9, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting article with a lot of "hogwash", as you put it.
I read some facts and many more opinions stated as facts - based on
what is the real question?
Something I did not see in this article - what are your qualifications that gave you all this insight to all these antennas.
I know why eHAM posted the article as they are into hits, and most
all HAMs are opinionated experts when it comes to antennas. Hell most
HAMs think that getting a 1:1 VSWR makes a good antenna so using an
antenna tuner will fix all antennas give maximum distance.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 9, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Qualifications ? just as stated in preamble of article, and
30 years of building variations of every antenna mentioned in the
article, anything mistated?
Always open to any peer review on what I write.
Regards,
Bob
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 9, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Or maybe, it's that that my latest antenna design is
allowing me to talk to ZL's, SM7's, and G0's along with a bunch of
stateside stations and have 5-9 qso's during a very big contest on this
Sat night right on top of us, while using what amounts to a $50 antenna
at 40 ft. high in a small backyard.
Bob
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by OK1RR on July 10, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excellent article with a lot of useful info! Indeed, there
are more myths than facts about antennas. For sure, we need more such
articles to put some light onto such "mysterious" subject. Many thanks,
Bob!
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W1JKA on July 10, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: Bob N4JTE
Or me with a 559 report from Tony W4FOA in Georgia
this morning from San Diego,Ca. with 2 watts/MFJ Cub,battery power into a
20 meter end fed half wave(free zipcord)and a homebrew tuner made from 8
dollars worth of parts.To each his own HI.
Jim W1JKA/6
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by WA6MOW on July 10, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for a great article. Antennas are really fun to
experiment with. Little antennas put out little signal no matter what
the advertisers claim. When the band conditions are really good you can
load a door knob on the higher hf bands and make contacts. Antennas
work better as high as possible. Ground mounted vertical work better
with a thousand radials. Magnet wire makes a great invisible antenna
and can handle 100 watts. Fed at the end helps to hide the feed line. A
new ham with a crummy antenna will lose interest in ham radio rather
quickly.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KA5SNG on July 10, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Fine article BOB, I have 40/20 isotron up about 20 feet. On
most days the antenna works fine, but the noise level is often high. I
use an antenna match box. Thanks for your input on this much used and
abused subject.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W1JKA on July 11, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just finished reading Bob's informative article again
this morning and gleaned some more useful nuggets of information from
the comments column that I had some how missed in the advertising pages
of the A.R.R.L. antenna handbook.
However I am puzzeled by OLLIEOXEN27's off topic comment about
"bama".I know that "bama" is a HAM, but could anybody tell me if he
holds an amateur radio license and if so is it real or fake.I could not
find his name in the FCC data call sign base,but I attribute this to
national security reasons.
As far as I know,the last american polit bureau member that would
be interested in this antenna article would be Barry
Goldwater(K7UGA)SK.Perhaps overly oxygenated OLLIEOXEN27 could confer
with Donny Trump and enlighten me.Carpe diem .
Jim W1JKA
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by KG6MZS on July 11, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To add what Jim said about open wire antennas:
"Yep it is a good way to get multiband capabilities with a single
antenna, definitely better than coax, BUT, ladderline is far from
lossless when used in extreme multiband mismatched conditions... ...Does
anyone really believe that a 450 ohm feedline facing a 20 ohm or 5000
ohm antenna is lossless?"
Yeah but those kind of mismatches can be dealt with simply by
changing the length of the feedline. Admittedly any one-size-fits-all
bands solution is a compromise, but doublet fed by good, true ladder
line is a remarkably good solution
73 de Eric
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by AE6RV on July 11, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One issue no-one mentioned is related to old coax. If the
end of the coax that's up at the antenna isn't hermetically sealed,
moisture will eventually wick through a substantial length. This will
result in large losses that may happen too slowly to notice: sort of
like the proverbial boiled frog. If this happens, you will probably
notice that the SWR doesn't change much (if at all) from one end of the
band to the other and the band just seems "dead" all the time.
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by WD9N on July 11, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder if this guy has ever tried to maintain emergency communications over a period of time for a region?
The authors remarks on NVIS.
"Somehow this military variation has become the antenna de jour for
folks looking for instant reliable close in QSO’s on 40 and 80 meters.
Get over it, 90% of wire antennas are already low enough to qualify for
this NVIS thing. I for one cannot think of any reason to put an 80 meter
dipole at 12ft. to achieve a dependable 20 or 200 mile daily contact."
How about requiring reliable communication in an area that has less
than reliable power let alone internet connectivity or perhaps we like
to communicate on radio instead of computer? If this is your case
against the NVIS style of operating, we shouldn't be using radio at all.
I can talk anywhere in the world on skype, so should we just let the
FCC sell off all the amateur spectrum and end it all. Why put up a
monster tower and phased array of beams when you could just dial them up
on skype?
"The true test of any antenna is CONSISTANCY and expectations thru many days, months, solar cycles etc."
And that is why the military uses the NVIS style for regional
communications, it is tested over many years and in many places and has
had to work to keep people from dieing, that seems like a good
consistency and expectation test to me.
You have contradicted yourself in one article, congratulations on convincing me to NOT read anymore of your articles.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 11, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The military, for starters used a bent over vertical on the
back of a truck 40 years ago in Thailand and found it helped on close
in communications in mountainous regions. The wire ham versions are, as
stated in my artical, not gonna do the same thing on the ground or any
height above the ground consistanty.
I would be most grateful if you can provide any instance in the
last 20 years where a ham on a "NVIS" antenna saved someone's life.
I have no problem as to your choice for no further reading of my
articles, I will survive the loss by this time yesterday, but still
can't find the contradiction you seem to be quoting. Sorry if you are
that attached to the NVIS,
but reality trumps myths everytime, as will propagation or the absense thereof.
Bob
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K1BXI on July 12, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bob, I have to agree with you 100%....NVIS seems to be the new buzz word in antenna discussions.
It seems to me that all it does is to increase the ground loss to a
point that all one can hear are the close in stronger signals and
instead of more signal going straight up it gets attenuated in the
ground, straight down.
John
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by K1CJS on July 12, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All W9DSC seems to be saying that the NVIS style of antenna
seems to work for the military. If the military communications people
can make it work, then why, as hams, can we not work with the same style
antenna and even make them work better.
I concur with him that even though NVIS doesn't work as well as some other types of antennas, it DOES work.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 12, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Okay as far as NVIS, if a ham wants to drive a humvee and
tie/bend down a 14 ft vertical to his bumper than go for it, putting up
low dipoles in a war zone with bombs falling on you is not what the
military would consider an NVIS antenna.
Bob
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by N8CMQ on July 13, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What I have found to be a big factor in making an antenna work, is, work...
I have a ground mounted 4btv/14avq modified per Sevick W2FMI back in 81.
While others may try that antenna, one thing they may not work on is the radial system that is half of the antenna.
I have 125, 30 to 35 foot radials (60 foot square), that I installed
before installing the vertical. That is the work part of the antenna...
I thought I was going to work on WAS, but I have been busy working
EC1KD, DL1MW, MD/DK1SG, YT9M, SN0HQ, VK7ZE, LR5H, WH7Z, XE2JA, ZX2B,
PY2NY, IO4HQ, E7HQ, EF8HQ, and that was only two days working with 100
watts into the antenna, and that was against KW's with beams...
I get to talk stateside occasionally, though!
I did clean sweep the 13 Original Colonies contest, and got the
bonus WM3PEN station as well, so I am happy with a ground mounted
vertical!
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by NN2X on July 14, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I spent 3 months putting up two towers at 65 ft comparing
Quads and Yagis, Compared Mono bander to Mono BAnd, and multiple band to
Multiple band quads and YAgis for hf bands.. DId thins for lightning
bolt.. Also compared QUad to quads, lightning bolt to CUbex...very
expensive tests
At the end, MUlLTIBAND quad did very well against the multi band yagi, but mono band tests showed not much difference
The CUbex quad performed better due to separate feeds, the lightning bolt was much better mechincally a
Well, this was about 20 years ago, so I am sure things changed
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by W5DXP on July 16, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Does anyone really believe that a 450 ohm feedline facing a 20 ohm or 5000 ohm antenna is lossless?
Although 5000 ohms sounds like an unmanageably high impedance, e.g. a
130' dipole on 40m, a 450 ohm SWR of 5000/450 = 11.1 is acceptable to
me and a lot of other hams. If we make the ladder line length equal to
3/4WL on 40m, the loss in the ladder line, according to VK1OD's loss
calculator, is around 0.35 dB, about 0.06 of a standard S-unit, with 92%
efficiency. The impedance looking into the ladder-line is 450/11.1 =
40.5 ohms for a 50 ohm SWR of 1.2:1 with no tuner required, i.e. *no
tuner losses*. Of course, no transmission line is lossless but 450 ohm
ladder line driving a 5000 ohm balanced antenna feedpoint impedance on
40m is close enough. :-)
http://www.w5dxp.com/notuner.htm
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by W7KKK on July 16, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And then there is that myth that some of us just have to be
happy with whatever we can get away with in our current situation.
Such is the life of a ham!
73 de Ken
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 17, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you Cecil, you have been my cyberspace elmer for a long time, my best regards.
Bob
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W7KB on July 17, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Commie Ollieoxen27mhz:Please spare us the conservative
propaganda.Your Gods Bush & Cheney are no longer a factor in your or
my life with the exception of huge deficits run up and the biggest
recession since the Great Depression of the 30's.And yes,I still want to
talk antennas.Maybe even propagation and antennas.Politics and
religion?..No thank you!...73...W7KB.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W3TDH on July 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes I still want to read about antennas and try to learn
something rather than listen to you violate the Radio Amateur's Code.
The first element of that code is that an amateur radio operator is
considerate. So take your political nonsense elsewhere.
--
Tom Horne, W3TDH
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by W3TDH on July 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Did any of you see the movie "One flew over the cuckoos
nest" At one point the protagonist tries to pull a bathroom fixture out
of the floor in order to throw it through a window and escape the
mental institution in which he is confined. He fails in the obviously
Herculean task. He then looks around and says "At least I tried." At
the end of the movie after the protagonist has been destroyed one of the
other prisoners does that task and escapes.
I think that publishing anything in radio is a little like that in
that too many who have never tried are all too willing to criticize
those that do try. But by tackling issues and doing your best with
them you may inspire others to also quit carping an do something. The
answer to endless arguments about antennas may lie in what our Drill
Instructor would scream when someone froze during a task. "Do
Something! Even If It's Wrong"
--
Tom Horne, W3TDH
Good Judgement comes with experience. Experience comes from bad judgement" Unknown
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by N4JTE on July 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom, sometimes I feel I am in that movie, hi, my sense of humor overtakes all so far.
Regards,
Bob
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by W5DXP on July 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> ... my sense of humor overtakes all so far.
Bob, since I'm your alleged "Elmer", my XYL says I should call you a "wascally wabbit". :)
|
|
Antenna Myths
|
|
by KG7T on August 2, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
GREAT ARTICLE
ITS HARD TO BEAT A DIPOLE FOR THE MONEY
AND A END LOADED VERTICAL DIPOLE IS HARD TO DEAT FOR DX.
|
|
RE: Antenna Myths
|
|
by WA7VTD on August 7, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ON4UN's book "Low Band Dxing" does not favor parasitic
antennas over phased arrays; in fact, it does just the opposite
(speaking here of verticals).
|
|
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
10-Meter Antenna -- The 'L' You Say
Antenna Tuners -- Do They Work?
Other Antennas Articles
Antenna Tuners -- Do They Work?
10-Meter Antenna -- The 'L' You Say
|
|
|