“This One's a Keeper”

40 Meter Wire Beam Adventures

N4JTE

I have always endeavored to achieve that elusive free 3db of transmitted and received gain on 40 meters with a cheap wire antenna configuration. Doubling your power out without impacting your electric bill or your neighbors T.V. is obviously a nice benefit.

What I would like to describe to you is a 2 element 40 meter diamond shaped quad that is instantly reversible with usable gain and effective front to back rejection which I have affectionately name the “Just Too Easy” antenna.

There is nothing magical here that has not been done before but I was consistently disappointed with the many experiments I've tried using every conceivable configuration of phased lines, delay lines, and forced feeding methods ad nauseam to achieve more gain and direction switching abilities with no discernable improvement from one to the next. I figured lets stick to the physical known properties of 2 element parasitic wires. Perhaps my experiences and application might be of use to other wire antenna experimenters.

Admittedly some of my methods border on crude by most standards but my problem is I need instant gratification, {usually in the middle of a G2 storm} and if the sucker works then I will button everything up till the next big idea comes along.

First the basic configuration; Two push up masts at 40 feet tall are spaced at 20 feet apart and attached to 8ft. 4x4 pressure treated posts sunk in the ground a couple of feet. Before raising the masts I attached an eye hook thru which the end of masonry string is run for pulling up the wires and the 52 ohm feedline and one to one balun on the driven element.

Using the standard formula of 1005 divided by frequency, , I measured out 138 feet of #12 insulated wire from Home Depot and marked with electrical tape the 4 equal sides. The diamond shape allowed me to feed the driven element at the top, . I used a 40ft. length of RG 58 for it lightness and then attached RG213 for the run back to the shack. The outside corners were tied off to available supports about 24 feet high and the bottom corner {about 2 ft. off the ground} was tied down to a wood stake. The antenna is not perfectly symmetrical as I would have needed a 48 foot high mast with the bottom corner still ending up at ground level.

The second element {director/reflector} was cut to director length, 133ft. and raised to the top of second mast and tied off. The top and outside corners of each element are tied to each other with 20ft. of string to maintain spacing. The Physical antenna is now up in the air but that's just the beginning. The Electrical antenna must now be tuned and adjusted.

I have the MFJ antenna analyzer but it stayed on the bench for this one as I prefer to check antenna resonance at the radio so the feedline and antenna properties are examined as part of the circuit. With the driven element connected to the radio in the cw mode, 5 watts is applied and a quick sweep for lowest swr is checked for and noted; that will be the resonant frequency. I needed to add about 16in. of wire to the bottom corner to achieve resonance with 139ft 4in. overall length resulting for 7.263. The swr measured 1.4 to one.

That being done it's on to the director where I attached a temporary feedline to the bottom corner and the procedure was repeated. This time I was looking for resonance around 7.650 to achieve the 5% shortening needed for director length, first try was good, {don't count on that} and the director was lowered for the next step.

Using the now resonant driven element length of 139ft 4in. as my constant I cut a 14ft. piece of wire,{10%} longer than driven and folded in half to form into stub. This would become the extra length of wire needed to change the director to reflector physically and electrically. A resonance test was done again with the 14ft. stub added into the antenna at the top corner and it was found to be about 9in too long to achieve my target frequency of 6.900 for reflector length. After getting it correct I disconnected the temporary feed line and wire nutted and taped the antenna ends back together. Time to get the reverse capability into the mix.

Radio Shack sells a DTDP 12 volt relay for about $6. and it was just what I needed to accomplish my goal. The direction of choice from here in upstate NY is West so I wanted the reflector stub in the circuit with the relay off. After lowering the director element, {last time, I promise} and opened up the top corner, it was time to insert the relay. The 13ft 3in. stub ends were soldered to the normally closed lugs. The antenna ends were soldered to the center lugs and a shorting wire was soldered across the normally open lugs so that the application of 12 volts would short out the reflector stub and the director would now be functioning. I waterproofed the relay and connections and ran some insulated double wire back to the switched 12v supply in the shack for the relay. Pulled it all back up to top while maintaining a good separation between antenna element and the 12 volt supply wire and tied off. Time for the moment of truth; or consequences.

On air results have been exceptional and made all that walking back and forth to the radio more than worth it. At .15W/L this is a really low antenna but I am truly impressed with the results. I am fortunate that I have 40 to 50 well familiar stations around the country and a few benchmark Eastern DX stations that I have communicated with nightly on the Omiss net for years. Taking into account propagation conditions etc, this real world antenna testing is an invaluable resource. Thanks guys for putting up with me.

The real fun comes with a flick of the switch from west to east with a G0 in Ireland and a CU2 in the Azores reporting a 4 to 5 S unit increase in signal strength while West reports a 5 S unit decrease, that's a lot of DB's. Of course at night, the downside to this, is that the foreign broadcast is pounding in; but clicking back to the West direction takes care of that in a heartbeat.

So; appreciable gain in the selected direction with resulting front to back rejection of equal or better value from 2 elements at less than

Member Comments:

This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 

This One's a Keeper
by N4DSP on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Bob, sure would help if there was a pic of the antenna somewhere. 73 john n4dsp

RE: This One's a Keeper
by W6TH on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
. There is going to be at least one person that will say it won't work, because it isn't mentioned in eznec,or, Cebic W4RNL has not written a copywrite on it. ...................No Pun Intended.................... .:Nice write up, thanks. ,:

RE: This One's a Keeper
by K0BG on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
One can tell you're not a newbie. If you had been, you would have purchased a tuner and a ready-made G5RV. Alan, KØBG www.k0bg.com

RE: This One's a Keeper
by N3OX on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Alan, that's not necessary. I doubt you've put many newbies off of building a wire beam now, but you never know. Bob, that's a sweet antenna. I did actually run it through EZNEC, looks great! It's interesting... one loop at that height has max radiation straight up. The wire beam doesn't. Straight up is 6 or 7dB down from the max radiation (40 degrees elevation). Good for cutting down some on QRN. The front to back is especially good when the parasitic element is used as a reflector (15-20dB depending on elevation). It seems to be lower when you're using it as a director. Great job. I want to build one... that thing kicks the snot out of my 40 foot vertical! One more pole and some extra wire... not sure I can fit it in my backyard though. Might have to wait until I have a lot of land. Dan

This One's a Keeper
by N4JTE on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Hard one to photograph but I'll try and put on QRZ, don't know what happened to last sentence but it says;less than 1/4 W/L high from this easily constructed wire antenna makes this one definetly " A Keeper" Can't wait for winter conditions, N4JTE. Need more info? email bobr1919@hotmail.com

RE: This One's a Keeper
by N3OX on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Bob and everyone, I figured I threw the model together, I might as well post it. Elevation patterns at http://www.n3ox.net/pictures/N4JTE_40m_Quad.jpg Model loop sizes as described... Loaded with a 14 foot stub, reflector mode is the black "Primary" trace. No stub, just the director is the blue trace. The actual model is at: http://www.n3ox.net/projects/eznec/N4JTE_Quad.ez 73, Dan

This One's a Keeper
by W0EEA on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
This antenna, with a different support structure (one 50 foot mast, thinwall conduit 'T' spreader, gets the bottom of the elements off the ground, relay switched stub hung from the bottom of the director/reflector) was in QST in the 1970s. I believe the author was W9LVT. I remember it because I built one and used it for Feild Day one year from Illinois. Best 40M FD antenna I've ever used. Thanks for reminding me. 73 Jim W0EEA

RE: This One's a Keeper
by W7ETA on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Thanks for the article Bob 73 Bob

This One's a Keeper
by WA1RNE on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Bob; Nice article. Anyone looking for an inexpensive antenna project for 40 or even 30 meters should check this out. Dan, N3OX; Have you tried modeling this antenna with vertical polarization, fed at a side corner and same height above ground? Given the low height above ground, running vertical polarization should provide a lower take-off angle and better DX performance - if that is one's goal. Chris, WA1RNE

RE: This One's a Keeper
by W5GA on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
I was looking for something to replace my 40m GP. This looks like just the ticket. Many thanks! Doug W5GA

RE: This One's a Keeper
by N3OX on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Bob, WA1RNE... yep, I tried that. You have to switch the position of the stub, too. The vertically polarized antenna over what I use as "my" ground (Conductivity 0.002, Dielectric Constant 13) beats the horizontally polarized one below 17 degrees. Front to back is pretty much the same. The difference is notable for very low takeoff angles... when you're down below 10 degrees, you start to get 4dB, 5dB better than the horizontally polarized antenna. It would certainly be worth building in the option if you're looking for really long DX... long path, stuff like that. If you're trying to be loud domestically, the horizontal polarization version is better. If you're looking out over the saltwater and you feed the thing vertically, you'll be unstoppable on 40m ... I tried 0.03 S/m D.C. 80 ground and got something like 9dBi at 16 degrees takeoff angle ;-) Dan

This One's a Keeper
by W1JQ on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Nice idea. The concept is somewhat similar to a 2-el 40M wire yagi I built last year: two identical elements, you change the orientation by switching the stub and changing the feedline. Mine works great, and I'm sure yours does, too. Congratulations; it's really great to work DX with a homebrew wire antenna. Mike

This One's a Keeper
by KD5YUK on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
You're my antenna hero Bob--keep up the good work--always a solid signal into Tejas--73

This One's a Keeper
by KG6YDK on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
WAY TO GO BOB!!! Glad you are there to be my antenna elmer. best of luck See you on Omiss. Jack KG6YDK

This One's a Keeper
by WL7CMG on September 12, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Yes...I agree, great antenna....one loop is great, 2 loops BETTER...!!! For those of you concidering it, the Delta loops will work great too, and may work better for you as far as supports go. ALSO...!!! for all you loop lovers, if you like a horiz. loop on 75/80 meters, try putting a 5% larger reflector under it...WOW talk about a cloud sizzler!!! One of the best antennas there is for local and medium distance DX. If you have the room try it, you'll love it, even if the reflector is only "one moose high"....!!! 73.

This One's a Keeper
by N4JTE on September 13, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Thank you guys for all the nice comments, special thanks to Dan,N3OX, for model and placing on his website. Next challenge is to rotate it more to the West, I put a real compass under it and realised it was at 300 degree/120 degree heading,Xyl will never notice the missing tree, hi. Tnx again to all, hope to hear you on 40. Bob, N4JTE

This One's a Keeper
by W1YW on September 13, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
"Have you tried modeling this antenna with vertical polarization, fed at a side corner and same height above ground? Given the low height above ground, running vertical polarization should provide a lower take-off angle and better DX performance - if that is one's goal. Chris, WA1RNE " -------------------------------------------- This is correct. In general, the trade of vert pol/hor pol for best TOA is 1/4 to 1/3 wave in height. At low heights it is better to use vert pol. 73, Chip W1YW

This One's a Keeper
by KY6R on September 13, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
If you only have room for a single tall mast (made of metal), you can try an antenna that acts like a 2 element wire yagi. Its the K1WA array - which is a variation of a K8UR array. These are discussed in the ARRL Antenna Book, and I believe have also been in ON4UN's Lowband Antenna book. Hang 4 half wave dipoles from a single metal mast - feed the dipoles with coax stubs - and then bring them into a 4 way remote antenna switch. When you switch in one dipole, the dipole opposite (in back of) plus the center metal mast act as reflectors. You can use the 4 dipoles as guy wires as long as you use a fairly light weight but strong center mast. The height of the center mast can be less than a half wave dipole length - and the sloping wires are usually somewhere around 35 degrees slope. Another way to get decent gain is to feed two verticals or two vertical dipoles using something like the Commtek 2 element phasing box - you get directionality broadside and end fire - but if I remember right - gain is only in the end fire directions - which probably works on 40M for just about anyone in the US. You could even phase two shortened (top loaded) verticals this way - as long as you can handle "enough" radials (which I have found to be 64 slightly larger than 1/4 wl - but don't quote me on that - (I'm not "religious" regarding radials - heh heh).

RE: This One's a Keeper
by N6TZ on September 13, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
A couple of fellows have suggested trying vertical polarization. Think Noise On Receive..... Most noise sources are much stronger on vertical polarization. I would recommend staying horizontal and ejoying your listening pleasure. Hal, N6TZ

RE: This One's a Keeper
by N3OX on September 13, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Chip, W1YW says: "In general, the trade of vert pol/hor pol for best TOA is 1/4 to 1/3 wave in height. At low heights it is better to use vert pol." It's a decent rule of thumb, but it's best to look at your specific situation regarding earth characteristics, and if you can, at all possible, put up both and have the option, or do A/B tests to see which meets your needs best. Over average earth, with a "perfect" ground system (120 radials 0.5wl long, all that), a 1/4 wave vertical antenna is around 30% efficient. 70% of your power goes into heating the ground as the far-field radiation pattern is formed. Different soil properties have an substantial effect on the efficiency and gain of a vertically polarized antenna. Of course, efficiency doesn't tell much of the story, because you still get more radiated power in very low takeoff angles. It's some of the radiation that would be otherwise above 15, 20, 25 degrees that goes into warming the earth. Horizontally polarized antennas are less affected by the ground conditions. By 1/4 wave up you're losing very little in the earth. Here's the thing, though. For simplicity, look at the dipole 1/4 wave up vs. the 1/4 wave vertical, specificially at the crossover takeoff angle where the vertical is equally strong as the dipole. Over average earth and zero return current loss (really good radial system) that angle is 14 degrees. With 1dB of return current loss (pretty good ground system) the vertical matches or beats the dipole at 11.5 degrees and below. With 3dB loss in the grounding system, the angle goes down to 6 degrees. If you make the criterion that the vertical be 3dB stronger than the dipole (a possibly but not probably consistently noticeable amount), those angles become 5.5, 3 and 0.5 degrees. You have to be working really long haul DX to notice at all, and the antenna is going to be kind of weak domestically. I've modeled this a bunch of times, and I've seen it in real life. I've tried a vertical with a handful of elevated radials for field day on 40m. It was awful. A low dipole does SO much better. If I were trying to work greyline to Singapore instead of trying to make a bunch of contacts in the U.S., maybe I'd be better with the vertical, but in some sense, the better all-purpose antenna is a horizontally polarized one, even for European DX from here. Having the option to vertically polarize this beam is probably a good idea if you're a DXer and don't have especially poor ground. Much DX is going to be below 17 degrees takeoff angle, it only requires a couple of extra relays and stubs if you want to switch it, and the antenna is self contained so the ground return losses are eliminated (you still have lots of ground loss in the Fresnel zone where the pattern is formed; the vertical version of this antenna is still only 30% efficient) If you've got really good soil or saltwater it's going to be AWESOME. If you've got really poor soil (think lots of asphalt, ground clutter, buildings, etc), it's going to suck vertically polarized. Since it doesn't cost you much in effort and materials, trying it vertical is a great idea. I wouldn't say the same is true for putting up a ground mounted vertical, because the effort required is so much more. I *am* a DXer and a renter, and my backyard has no trees, so I went with the ground mounted vertical for 30, 40 and 80. It took me a day of hard, hot work to string out the 27 radial compromise ground system that I have and I have to be very careful with the lawn mower until they settle in. "Verticals are good for DX" If you're a 160m op, it's almost always true... 40m, it's getting a bit dicey... at 20m and up.. very rarely if not never... I mean, who can't put their 20m dipole higher than 16-20 feet up? It's so easy to switch with this antenna, and one would expect some advantage over all but the poorest soils, so do it! I'd be glad to have the vertical option when you're trying to work VK9 Cocos Keeling from the East Coast... I'd be glad to have the horizontal when I can turn down my power to 4W and have an armchair copy QSO with someone in Chicago. For general, all around, day to day mixed domestic and DX operation though, you'd probably be happiest, if you had to pick one, with the horizontally polarized antenna. Dan

This One's a Keeper
by WB3ERE on September 14, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
" So; appreciable gain in the selected direction with resulting front to back rejection of equal or better value from 2 elements at less than " The above quoted sentence, the last presented in the article, just seems incomplete, it leaves me hanging in mid thought. While the rest of the article is well stated, phrased and punctuated, these last few words are an obvious editing ommission. Am I the only reader wondering what happened to the rest of this article? 73 Ed

RE: This One's a Keeper
by N3OX on September 14, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
N4JTE posted the rest in the comments.... something got cut off. Dan

This One's a Keeper
by KZ8G on September 14, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Dear Bob (N4JTE), Very interesting idea but a simple diagram of the antenna would help greatly in its understanding. Can you provide one? Thanks, Stan KZ8G

RE: This One's a Keeper
by KY6R on September 14, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
I do agree with N3OX that for long haul DX - especially on bands below 20M, with a really decent radial system (or vertical dipole or vertical dipole array), that vertical polarization works well fror long haul DX, and not great for local stuff. Being able to switch horizontally or vertically would also give you the best of both worlds. I am pretty much only interested in DX, so that's where my experimentation has been since getting back into ham radio in 2001. Working the "penguins" DX-pedition a few years back when they went to Kerguelen was quite easy using a phased pair of Cushcraft MA8040V (top loaded and hatted with 64 buried radials). Each are only 24' high, and I had them 1/2 wl apart with homemade phasing / switching. I had _very_ low noise since we were approaching the botom of the cycle and because it was winter and also because it was grey line. I had about the same amount of gain listed in the above artical. The penguins were "only" running 100 watts - but wow - what superb operators! As far as noise and verticals is concerned, that all depends. It depends on whether or not you are within distance of man made noise - in that case I would agree that verticals can be useless in that case. But having verticals now in 2 QTH's with no man made noise to bother my vertical "experiments", I have found that verticals are not inherently "noisier" than horizontal antennas ("in general" - but general comments usually don't apply since there are so many variables). I now use a 2 element SteppIR yagi on 20 - 6M and a SteppIR BigIR vertical on 40 and 30, and will no doubt retrofit it with the 80M option soon. The 64 buried radials make this a wonderful "lower band" option. Before settling on the SteppIR's I had tried many different antennas. I used a 4 element Bruce Array fed as a vertical dipole on one of the two "inner" elements, and that was an amazingly "quiet" antenna as far as both man made and atmospheric noise is concerned. Of course, time of day, point in the sunspot cycle and season of the year all affect "noise" as far as verticals are concerned. I have found morning grey line winter conditions to be as quiet as any of the higher bands when they are not noisy. But I even remember working 3C0V and the crazy pileups on a Force-12 Sigma 5 short hatted vertical dipole on 20M because my horizontally polarized mini beam at the time (MA5B during the early afternoon in the middle of summer) was totally washed out by "high angle noise" due to minor flares that occured quite often near the top of the last cycle. The short hatted vertical dipole essentially had the characteristic of eliminating the high angle noise. It was a dog fight in the pileups - with no gain and with lots of stronger stations in the Eastern US getting through easily - but without a vertical (only 11' tall and no radials), I wouldn't have worked them. Its one of the most rare bits of DX that I've worked. Their DX-pedition was cut short and I haven't heard of anyone going back there since. If you only need to have gain in a bi-directional "peanut / broadside" pattern - seriously consider the 4 element Bruce Array. It only requires about the same two supports as you would need for a G5RV, and I have even had great success where the bottom of the array was only about 20' off the ground. (How many "Moose High" is that?). Like the antenna listed above (which I would LOVE to try with a switched phasing arrangement), it doesn't have to be 1/2 wl high on 40M if fed properly. A great article with lots of intersting comments and feedback. Thank you.

RE: This One's a Keeper
by WA1RNE on September 14, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Dan, N3OX: ref. your comment: "You have to be working really long haul DX to notice at all, and the antenna is going to be kind of weak domestically. I've modeled this a bunch of times, and I've seen it in real life." "I've tried a vertical with a handful of elevated radials **for field day** on 40m. It was awful. A low dipole does SO much better. If I were trying to work greyline to Singapore instead of trying to make a bunch of contacts in the U.S., maybe I'd be better with the vertical, but in some sense, the better all-purpose antenna is a horizontally polarized one, even for European DX from here." >>> For Field Day, you will be much better off with a dipole as most domestic signals are arrivign at high angles. The elevated vertical can work very well for long haul stuff, but not if the radials are "inches" off the ground. I've had excellent results with elevated verticals that : ** Use 4 radials that are 0.03 to 0.05 wavelength over average ground, or about 8-13 feet on 75 meters and 6-7 feet on 40 meters. ** In some cases are resonant. With the vertical I'm using on 75, I'm using a 36 foot vertical element with a significant Top Loading structure and 0.2 wavelength radials. All are 0.05 wavelength above ground. My results are pretty much a reflection of the data presented in papers written by Al Christman, Jack Belrose, VE2CV and others. Chris, WA1RNE

RE: This One's a Keeper
by N3OX on September 14, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Yeah, 6 or 7 years ago I had a 40m vertical with 4 resonant radials 15 feet off the ground and it worked quite well. I had no problem with the DX. I also tried the 40m antenna with 4 on-ground radials when I was starting out, even though I knew it was lossy, and it was terrible. I would have gone elevated at the current QTH but they'd have to stretch over most of the lot on 40m, and I couldn't fit any for 80. KY6R: Regarding noise and verticals, I'll second that. In the city a lot of noise sources end up being vertically polarized... but here in residential MD, I notice less noise on my vertical. I get powerline noise on my horizontal antennas, NOT on the vertical. I have a fairly quiet location, powerline and other manmade noise about equal with atmospherics on 20 and up, below that, the atmospheric noise is generally quite a bit stronger than the manmade noise. On the flip side, I tried a 40m shortened vertical dipole in an apartment complex a few months ago, and it would just get wiped out by manmade noise about half the time, whereas the horizontal antenna still provided copy. Yet another good reason to be able to switch! Dan

This One's a Keeper
by W1YW on September 15, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Elevated radials are superior in HF/MF use in cases where the counterpoise is a poor substitute for a true ground plane. That tradeoff is rather subtle, but basically anything less than 16-24 radials is best incorporated via their elevation. Sloping radials down at an angle makes the counterpoise into a partially radiating one, i.e. a dipole. Most commercial 'monopoles' are actually dipoles. 73, Chip W1YW

This One's a Keeper
by VA7FU on September 16, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
You know it`s a good one, BoB when you can consistantly hear me and my 3 watts on 40 m. VA7FU/VE7IPU Dennis

RE: This One's a Keeper
by W4VR on September 16, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Bob: Usually the author gets raked over the coals on these threads, but I was glad to see that you received mostly favorable comments on your article. The antenna works great, but don't expect much more than 10 dB f/b unless you get into phased arrays. I tried a switchable moxon earlier this summer and although the f/b on it was OK, the forward gain on it was nothing compared to my 40 meter 3-ele parasitic array. When you bend those legs inward such as in the moxon you lose something in the process...I'm convinced of that. Ron

RE: This One's a Keeper
by N3OX on September 17, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Regarding a 40m Moxon: "... although the f/b on it was OK, the forward gain on it was nothing compared to my 40 meter 3-ele parasitic array. When you bend those legs inward such as in the moxon you lose something in the process...I'm convinced of that." I think it was more that you were comparing a 3 element array to a 2 element beam that sacrifices a little bit of forward gain for good front to back. The 3 element array will give you the best of both worlds. You get a better compromise between gain and F/B, but of course, it's necessarily bigger. What you lose in the leg bending of a Moxon vs. a 2 element yagi is about 1dB of peak forward gain. What you gain is 15dB extra F/B ratio. If you scrap your proven 3 element array for a Moxon, though, you're likely to be disappointed! Dan

RE: This One's a Keeper
by W4VR on September 18, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
To N3OX: Dan, I agree with you that there is no comparison between a moxon and a 3-ele beam...that's why I took it down after trying it out for a couple days. The f/b was impressive though and comparable if not better than the 3-ele. For someone with a lot too small to accommodate full-size elements, the Moxon is not a bad choice for a beam. Ron

This One's a Keeper
by SM5JAB on September 19, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Very interesting article. I did the somewhat the same experience this summer which I have made a write up on www.isy.liu.se/~mj/HAM/ANT look under Parasitic Loop. We used 30 m as the band for testing, I imagine the differences would be small. I found the vertical polarisation much more effective for my major hobby: DX... The horizontal one was much more crowded though, I'd go for that one as a general purpose antenna. Keep on building! /Micke

RE: This One's a Keeper
by N4JTE on September 19, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Before I fade back into the woodwork just want to let anyone who needs a detailed sketch know that you can email me at bobr1919@hotmail.com. Send me your fax number and I will get it to you. Going to make it a three element this weekend, will keep you posted. Tnx again for the interest and thought provoking comments. Bob, N4JTE

RE: This One's a Keeper
by N8FV on September 25, 2006	Mail this to a friend!
Way to go Bob having been there with you for the last couple of years discussing ideas this one works well. the 2 el version was nearly as strong as your 3 el inverted V and switchable which the V never was but the 3 el ver on the air tonight was way cool from 59 plus a ton to 57 roughly at the flip of a switch. I have got to get out of this apartment and get some room for something besides my mutated G5RV not that I can really complain much about the wire mess I am running it works way better than it should but your signal changes tonight every time you reversed it were great when the band was fading for us and you called Gary pointing east I lost you in the noise till you switched back then you were back light due to cond but from zero copy to 100% copy with a flip of the switch. I guess I have to get my project out of the box and do a couple more mutations of this G5RV and see what happens just been to busy fishing to work on the antennas. Kudos Bob it really works. 73's N8FV Jim