eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

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



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited

Lawrence J Maso (NU4B) on March 2, 2009
View comments about this article!

HERE'S AN ANTENNA THAT'S CHEAP, FUN AND EASY TO BUILD, AND IT REALLY WORKS!

I first read about this antenna in the August 1982 issue of CQ magazine (pg. 30-32) in an article titled "A TREE MOUNTED VERTICAL YAGI ARRAY" written by EDWARD PETER SWYNAR, VE3CUI. It has always intrigued me, but I never did much with it. I have been using a Butternut HF5B mounted on the roof for many years. As the years go by climbing onto the roof and maintaining that antenna gets more difficult. Last summer I took it down which left me with one wire antenna.

About five years ago I purchased a Carolina Windom Short 80 antenna to replace my HF2V vertical. It is a multiband (80-10 meters) antenna and has been a pleasure to use. With the windom and 5 watts output I've worked over 200 DXCC “countries” including some neat places like Willis Island, Somalia, Temotu, Ducie Island, Papua- New Guinea, and too many more to list here. The windom really sparked my interest in wire antennas. There's just something about wire that fits with QRP. (I'm not one of those wire “purists”, on the other hand the simplicity, cost, and ease of installation caught my attention.) At the same time my DXCC count is getting to the point where the “new ones” are getting rare and more distant. The recent solar doldrums has added another dimension. This past year it became apparent that (as advertised) when the band is open the windom does an excellent job. But what about those times when a band (such as 15 meters) is marginally open? With 5 watts output and a so-so band opening you effectively become a SWL. This 2 element vertical array will give you the boost you need.

FIRST SOME INITIAL PLANNING: The antenna can be built for any band. The first question is on what band (or bands if building multiple antennas) do we want to operate. The first limitation is the height of the support - usually a tree. The driven element is a full size dipole. The length is found by the normal dipole formula - 468/MHZ. Lets try a 15 meter antenna, Using the formula (468/21) the approximate length is 22'3”. So for a 15 meter yagi at least 25 feet will be required. If more height is available, antennas for 17 meters or 20 meters can be built. (If a really, really tall tree is sitting on the lot, maybe 30 meters?) If less height is available, planning now for 12 or 10 meters would be in order. For this illustration the 15 meter band will be used, (At the end of the article I will list the numbers for other bands,)

The antenna can be built using a director or a reflector. This example will assume a director as most antennas will be built with that element, I will mention reflectors later. The length of the director is 94% of the length of the driven element. In this case the director is 22”3” x 94% which equals 20”11'. Our final measurement is the spacing between the 2 elements. The spacing is 10% of the wavelength of the desired frequency. The formula is (984/MHZ) x 10%.Using 21 MHZ in the formula gives us 4”8”. We are now ready to gather the parts needed to build the antenna.

Here are the parts needed to build the basic 15 meter antenna:

2 SPREADERS - CAN BE EITHER 1.5 x 1.5 INCH WOOD OR PVC PIPE.

45 FEET #14 WIRE - USE INSULATED IF THERE IS ALOT OF FOOT TRAFFIC AROUND.

4 END INSULTORS: HQ-2 OR DELTA-CIN RECOMMENDED.

1 CENTER INSULATOR W/ SO-239 CONNECTOR: HQ-1 RECOMMENDED.

7 EYEBOLTS - FOR ROPE TIES.

THE PARTS FOR THE ANTENNA SHOULD COST $30 - $35 IF BOUGHT NEW. FURTHER SAVINGS IF YOU HAVE THE STUFF LAYING AROUND.

Other materials needed (as with most antennas):

COAX W/ CONNECTORS - RG-8X OR SUPER 240 RECOMMENDED (LENGTH DEPENDANT ON INSTALLATION).

DACRON ROPE - (LENGTH DEPENDANT ON INSTALLATION).

1 STAINLESS STEEL PULLEY (OPTIONAL).

3 RF CHOKES (IF NEEDED TO SUPPRESS TRANSMISSION LINE RF).

SOLDER, ELECTRICAL TAPE, AND COAX SEAL.

CONSTRUCTION IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFOWARD BUT HERE ARE A FEW TIPS THAT MAY HELP:

1. Make sure the hot side of the dipole is on top of the center insulator. The insulator is marked for the positive side. The ground side of the dipole should be the side close to earth.

2. A good ground is very important. Make sure the station and coax is connected to a good ground system.

3. The director should be centered in relation to the dipole.

4. The coax will tend to pull the driven element out of a straight line. There is a support rope hole on the center insulator. A support rope attached at this point will keep the driven element straight,

5. The coax should be fed at 90 degrees to the driven element. If this is not possible use an angle not less than 45 degrees. A good ground system is very important in this case. Check for transmission line RF. Use chokes along the line if necessary.

6. Turning the bean is via the armstrong method. Setting stakes for your favorite headings (to tie off the array) will make turning the beam easy.

7. DO NOT INSTALL THIS OR ANY ANTENNA WHERE IT MAY COME IN CONTACT WITH ELECTRICAL WIRES. IF YOUR ANTENNA IS LOW TO THE GROUND IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO PLACE A WARNING SIGN ON IT IF ITS IN A PLACE WHERE SOMEONE MAY COME IN CONTACT WITH IT WHILE YOU ARE OPERATING.

The results were impressive given the condition of the 15 meter band. The antenna is a full size mono-band yagi with a very low angle of radiation, great for DX work. It is also very broad-banded. The SWR was 1.8 at 21.000 MHZ, resonant at 21.200 and 1.4 at 21.450 MHZ. I cut it for 21.020. In the table I list 21.100 MHZ which is where I would cut it if I made another one.

The first thing you will notice is the directivity, In receive mode you can expect signals to be at least a couple S units higher than a typical single horizontal wire dipole. On my K2 signals that came in at S7 with the windom became S9 or higher. S9 signals became 10 over and in one case 20 over 9. There will be additional noise with the vertical polarization but the increase in signal strength will more than compensate.

Transmit was just as satisfying as receiving. .I found the antenna to be very stable with no RF feedback into the shack. With 5 watts I easily broke a pile-up for ZD8UW. A friend down the road with a similar set up as mine (5 watts and a windom) could not contact the ZD8 station. I was also able to work K5D easily. In the ARRL CW DX contest I worked 20 countries from Europe, South America (including several Argentine stations), Africa, and the Caribbean.

With lack of activity (other than the ARRL contest) on 15 meters I decided to build a 17 meter version. The results were just as satisfying as the 15 meter version. I cut the antenna for 18.100 MHZ. The SWR is virtually 1:1 over the entire 100 KCs. My first QSO was with CV5A on IOTA SA-030. This was a new one for me. The next QSO was with CE1/K7CA. It was a rough copy both ways but the contact was made. One of the difficult things to do is to determine how well the DX station receiving a signal. RST reports are notoriously unreliable, My next 3 contacts were with European stations, At QRP levels and a marginal band opening exchanging signal reports can be difficult. Using the array all 3 of the European stations were able to copy all the information I sent (as to name, QTH, rig, weather, etc.) with relative ease. All three appeared to correctly copy everything I sent. The highlight using the 17 meter version was breaking through a K5D pileup a couple days after the DX'pedition started.

This antenna has several uses.

  1. While this antenna won't “make” DX like stacked yagi system on a tall tower, it will give a signal a nice kick when compared to a simple wire antenna such as a dipole, windom, of G5RV.

  2. The antenna is not made for contesting (although you can change the heading easily with a few trips to the yard and setting the headings to major population areas), it works quite well for general DX'ing.

  3. If a DX'pedition is taking place to a needed DXCC “country, the antenna can be preset to the required heading and its ready to go.

  4. The antenna is very lightweight. It can be rolled up easily and taken out on field day or anywhere else. If only one support is available, the antenna can be changed out in a few minutes. For instance, I took down the 17 meter antenna and raised the 15 meter antenna for the ARRL DX Contest. When the contest was over, I switched back to the 17 meter version. I roll up the unused antenna and stored it under the house.

Final notes:

  1. If a reflector rather than a director is desired, the reflector should be 106% of the length of the driven element and the spacing between the driven element and the reflector should be 15% of the wavelength.

  2. I would like to thank CQ magazine and VE3CUI for this interesting antenna and much of the information sited in this article.

I think those with a simple horizontal or vertical antenna will find this antenna useful. It is a fun and easy afternoon project that really works. And at 35 bucks, the price is right. Good DX'ing!

TYPICAL MEASUREMENTS FOR THE 2 ELEMENT VERTICAL ARRAY

BAND

FREQUENCY (MHZ)

DRIVEN ELEMENT LENGTH

DIRECTOR LENGTH

ELEMENT SPACING

10 METERS

28.100

16'8”

15'8”

1'8”

12 METERS

24.940

18'9”

17'8”

3'11”

15 METERS

21.100

22'2”

20'10”

4”8”

17 METERS

18.100

25'10”

24'4”

5'5”

20 METERS

14.100

33'2”

31'2'

7”

30 METERS

10.125

46'3

43'5”

9'9

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K0BG on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
First of all, the number of log book entries doesn't mean much as it has no relationship to any antenna parameter, good, bad, or indifferent.

Secondly, without any photos in the article, the concept is just that, a concept.

Lastly, I have always done my best to stay away from flora of any kind, as there is always interaction between it and RF. Typically, it isn't as minimal as some folks would have you believe.

If you're happy with its performance, great! I wouldn't be.

Alan, KBG
www.k0bg.com
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by NU4B on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
There was a diagram uploaded that didn't make it in the article. (For those you that use trees for antennas). You can see the diagram at www.qrpdx.com/ant.

Thanks.
 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by N9SKN on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks for a great article, Larry.
I might give one of those a try.
 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by AI2IA on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks for the article by Lawrence, NU4B.

Sometimes we've got to use trees, clothes poles, or anything we've got. Also, it is articles such as this that stimulate thought, even when presented as as concept. It helps us to think of variations or adaptations that might suit our situation or that of others.

It is always best not to block the path of inquiry or discussion. Rightly taken, these activities lead to creativity, new ideas, or recognition of unseen hazards, or diadvantages. Thus good can always come from it. Telling us why you don't like it can be just as useful as telling us why you do like it, and suggesting modifications adds value to the article.

Thanks again, Lawrence! - AI2IA
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by WB2GBF on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks for following up with the diagram. I'm sure a lot of hams will need it to better understand the article.

Dollar for dollar, a good wire antenna cannot be beat with respect to value. Regardless of what others may say, wire radiates well and the differences in losses due to diameter are small and can be written off as "engineering trade-offs" of weight and simplicity versus cost of the antenna and support. No, it won't be a contester's choice, but it also won't cost many tens of thousands of dollars either.

The only comment I want to add is height, especially for the higher HF bands. My experience has been that for any antenna for 20 and above, the higher the better. You clear local obstructions and reduce take off angle, which is always good for DX.

Thank you for the article.

Pat
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KE5KDT on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks for the article and the link to your very nice site. I tried posting the link and it would not work for me unless you drop the ant. or add html after ant. I'd like to give it a try "knowing" that it isn't perfect. Few things are. Thanks again. Bob
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by NU4B on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
You're right Bob! The address should be "www.qrpdx.com/ant.html". Sorry about that.

And yes, the higher the better. But if you can't, you can't. For most of us antenna installtions are a compromise. For 35 bucks, if your not happy with the performance, you can turn into a dipole. LOL

Thanks for all of the comments guys - all the best!

- Larry, NU4B
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by NI0C on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
K0BG wrote:
"First of all, the number of log book entries doesn't mean much as it has no relationship to any antenna parameter, good, bad, or indifferent."

NO relationship? really?

Most hams build antennas to fill their logbooks with nice DX contacts. In this regard NU4B has done remarkably well, especially with QRP power levels. In his article, he compares the vertical array with his windom antenna. I'm pleased that he took the time to write a nice article and report on his results, even if it doesn't entirely satisfy one cranky theoretician.

73,
Chuck NI0C
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by N0YXB on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
"First of all" blah, blah , blah. Just ignore commenst like this. This is a good article that points out a little creativity can get you a working antenna. Log book entries mean you are making contacts, and that's what this hobby is about.

Vince
N0YXB
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KT8K on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
A very informative and encouraging article. I've pondered doing this for years, and maybe this will get me going. My tall trees will possibly *just* fit a 40m version.
Thanks & best dx de kt8k - Tim
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KY6R on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
I wonder if it could be fed on both elements (where the elements are the same length) with 3/8 wl stubs - like the K1WA array is. This way, you could switch directions - because the stub that is not switched in electrically would add 5% - so it would be the reflector.
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K0BG on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
He might indeed ignore my previous statement, but nonetheless, using your log book to rate your antenna's performance is inane at best. It is akin to saying you have a good antenna because the SWR is low. What's more, QRP doesn't mean much either. Fact is, there are quite a few DXCCs issued for ERPs of less than one watt.

The point being, if you're going to rate an antenna, then rate it against some other antenna at the same QTH. Otherwise, it's just palaver.

Alan, KBG
www.k0bg.com
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by WA7NCL on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
AS you look at this antenna diagram on the web site and look at the parts list, the question comes to mind-- why are so many eham readers spending hundreds of dollars on wire antennas (G5RVs,windoms and "mystery antennas") and over $300 on glorified 43 foot pieces of tubing?

Build antennas outa wire! It's cheap and if you don't like how it works cut it up and try again.

Spend the $300 - $400 on an antenna impedance meter. You will be able to build and tune antennas that work way better that those you buy.
 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by WW5AA on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Good article, the problem for me is I like to work 160-6 on one antenna because of a small city lot. Although a low band DXer I work 17 meters (not for long as I get nose bleeds that high in frequency) with my 160 doublet at 60'. I'll agree with Alan, I confirmed K5D on 160 CW, 80, 40 and 17 meters SSB and only had a few hours available. All on first call, but that doesn't mean much since I have worked lots of DX on my 140' piece of RG8U at 6" with 5 watts. I hardly use my 40-10 beam because that is like shooting fish in a barrel.

73 de Lindy
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by NI0C on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
K0BG continues on, saying:
"if you're going to rate an antenna, then rate it against some other antenna at the same QTH. Otherwise, it's just palaver."

Didn't read the article, did you? Didn't even read my short posting that carefully, either.


73,
Chuck NI0C

 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K0BG on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Chuck, I did read the article, and I did read your comments. The two antennas here are both questionable. That does not mean you can't make contacts. You can. Fact is, you can make contacts with nothing more than a dummy load. My point stands. You cannot use a log book as a means of rating one antenna against another, no matter how good either one is, or isn't.

If I made a statement that my dipole out performed my beam because the SWR was (is) lower, you'd take me to task. Or if I said it's better because the bandwidth is wider. Neither of these "measurements" are definitive, and neither is a log book.

Alan, KBG
www.k0bg.com
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by AC0GR on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
I read the article, and saw where he said... "In receive mode you can expect signals to be at least a couple S units higher than a typical single horizontal wire dipole."

He then goes on to give examples of his results, however, his 'typical dipole' is a Windom. (probably Carolina)

Personally, I like my NCW, but I dont think I would ever use it as a 'reference' antenna when making gain comparisons. If anything, he should have at least compared the beam version to one without the director element. (a vertical dipole)
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by WU7X on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Dear Chuck,
Thank you for the very interesting article. I may quibble with some of your comments, but found your study very interesting.

I believe your original hypothesis was something to the effect of: "A vertical beam yagi made of wire elements will provide more DX contacts in my logbook than my existing OCF 80 meter antenna." You built your vertical wire beam and tested it. You were able to add more DX contacts into the log using it than the original antenna. to your satisfaction you proved your hypothesis. I don't think your hypothesis included generalized discussions about dipoles vs. beams, wire versus aluminum tubing, SWR of 1.1:1, etc. It was very focused. Your discussion also gave others the ability to duplicate your testing procedure. Once they do so, they can then come back and either support your hypothesis or they can contest it. that is called scientific technique. The bottom line is that the vertical yagi wire antenna works for you. Bravo!

Please continue posting the results of any further experiments you do.

Dale WU7X


 
Oh yes, you can!  
by AI2IA on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
"My point stands. You cannot use a log book as a means of rating one antenna against another, no matter how good either one is, or isn't."

I am glad that this misconception was stated, because you can learn a lot from it. This statement is a good example of thinking inside the box. People often impose constraints upon themselves and because of that, they cannot come up with good ideas.

There is no scientific "law" that says that you have to use statistical means or like physical means to compare one thing with another. You can indeed compare apples to oranges, if for example you are observing the weight or volume of seeds. You can compare actual aircraft to drawings of imaginary aircraft depending on what you are discussing. If you are judging by results, then you can compare anything to a record of results for practical purposes. If I used an antenna and it got me more DX log entries than another antenna, then the record speaks for itself. Why it got those results is another matter and probably is not that important to me at the moment than enjoying the better results. I can always go back and use diagnostic tools to "analyze" and interpret later.
 
RE: Oh yes, you can!  
by K5END on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
I was going to refrain from this argument, but you tempt me beyond my strength.

Quote, "There is no scientific "law" that says that you have to use statistical means or like physical means to compare one thing with another."


Actually, there is.

Any would-be "scientist" making a statement like that quoted above will find himself exploring not for new scienctific breakthroughs, but instead for a new career (assuming he wishes to remain gainfully employed) and likely end up reading palms or analyzing Zodiac numerology in a strip mall kiosk between the yoga shop and the adult tattoo parlor.


 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by WA2VUY on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Until I decide on a yagi I homebrewed an antenna exactly like this for 20M with the exception that I used a reflector rather than a director. It's been in use 5 months and works surprising well.
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by N4KC on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
With great trepidation, I wade into the middle of this (off-topic) discussion to say: the author clearly states he is comparing his vertical array to his off-centerfed dipole, and doing so the only way he can--by putting it on the air. I assume he has nothing else to compare the new antenna with, and the payment he received for writing this article and sharing his experiences with us is certainly not enough to buy lab grade field strength measuring equipment.

(For those who don't know, eHam does NOT pay for these articles.)

I appreciate the author's effort, both in designing and constructing an antenna and in taking the time and effort to share it with us.

I also acknowledge that K0BG is absolutely correct when he says anecdotal evidence, contacts made, and QSOs in the log book are not adequate evidence of an antenna's performance.

But I don't believe the author makes such a claim. He is simply--and according to his own words--telling us how the new one compared to the old one. That's all most of us could do.

And a heck of a lot more than somebody who did not even attempt the experiment in the first place could do! Please, let's not discourage hams from experimenting and then telling us about it.

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
www.n4kc.blogspot.com
(An open blog dedicated to rapid technological change
and its effect on society, media, and amateur radio)


 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K9NZ on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Gee some one should have told me not use trees as supports for some of my antennas before I worked
108 Countries on 160 meters with my tree mounted 3/8 wave inverted L. Oh well back to the drawing board.
Damn!
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KI9A on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Alan, K0BG, relax. Let folks experiment, and have fun. You wouldn't be satisfied, but, what your post lacks, is a suggestion on how you would make it better!! So, your post is nothing short of useless.

Larry, great job! I am making one for 30 meters, and going to give that a shot. Keep up the good work, and have fun. Don't pay attention to old farts like K0BG, who wouldn't satified with ANYTHING.

73- Chuck KI9A
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KI9A on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
K0BG sez:

"The point being, if you're going to rate an antenna, then rate it against some other antenna at the same QTH. Otherwise, it's just palaver."

Umm, Alan, read his post again. he did compare it. Duh.

 
We are hams here, not "rocket scientists"  
by AI2IA on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
"I also acknowledge that K0BG is absolutely correct when he says anecdotal evidence, contacts made, and QSOs in the log book are not adequate evidence of an antenna's performance."

Oh, give me a break - "anecdotal evidence"! Pah!

N4KC and K0BG, I don't know about you guys, but most of us do not wear white lab coats and pocket pen protectors when we fool around with antennas and come up with effective results, and are eager to share the fun with other hams in blue jeans!

Give me a break, will you? "anecdotal evidence"! Many of us can use a slide rule better than you can use a calculator, but we are not in a "who is the great scientist contest here." We are in the ham hobby, and we can make antennas with spit and wire, and we don't give a hoot about looking scientific. If it works, then it works. No thanks for sour grapes. - AI2IA
 
RE: We are hams here, not "rocket scientists&  
by G3LBS on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
This is definitely the way to go, particularly for older hams who cannot cope with heavy engineering, and heavy engineering is not very sophisticated when you think about it. It's positively vulgar!
I hang my spider quad from a catenary between trees and when I spring clean it in a few weeks time I will also hang one of these antennas, set on G-land. My quad has optimum spacing 1/8 wavelength all bands, which you can't say for any yagi or steppir.
W2/G3LBS
 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K0DCH on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Larry,

Thanks for the interesting article. I am always interested in antennas that involve trees, since I am up here in the mountains surrounded by the darn things.

As for some of the critical comments here: Ham radio is a hobby. Larry reported on a project that may be useful to other hams. Ham radio does not have to be done with the rigor of building a space ship. (Although it could.)

Ease up. (BTW: as I started reading the article, I predicted to myself that the first or second comment would be Alan's tedious repetition of proper antenna test protocols.)
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by N4KC on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
AI2IA, whoa! Re-read my post. We're saying the same thing.

The only white coat I ever owned I wore to the senior prom in 1966...with a pink carnation.

73,

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
www.n4kc.blogspot.com
(An open blog dedicated to rapid technological change and
its effect on society, media and amateur radio)


 
The men in the white coats.  
by AI2IA on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Please take this lightly:
N4KC did indeed write: "I also acknowledge that K0BG is absolutely correct when he says anecdotal evidence, contacts made, and QSOs in the log book are not adequate evidence of an antenna's performance."

Later, N4KC writes: "AI2IA, whoa! Re-read my post. We're saying the same thing."

However, AI2IA has consistently maintained that for ham hobby purposes QSOs in the log book are assuredly most adequate evidence of an antenna's performance.

So, N4KC, please explain how we are saying the same thing. At this point it appears that the men in the white coats may be coming after you! Otherwise, yes, we both give a "hats off" to Larry.

 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by W2CSH on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
K0BG Alen wouldn't be happy if if they hanged him with a new rope. I notice he's always the first one to provide a negative comment on any posting. Jeez Alen if you dont like or appreciate anyone's opinion or experience why dont you you go post to a web site where your negative comments will be appreciated. I suggest "Grouchy old Bastards.net"
 
RE: The men in the white coats...and black hats  
by N4KC on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Well, "Hats Off to Larry" was a #1 song by Del Shannon back in 1961, but I digress.

What I thought we were both saying (and agreeing amiably on) was that QSOs in a log made on one antenna compared to other QSOs accomplished with another antenna are certainly an indicator of relative performance of one antenna over the other.

I wouldn't presume to speak for K0BG--a very knowledgeable fellow if not always a diplomatic one--but I think he is saying that QSOs and on-air signal reports are not necessarily an indication of an antenna's performance compared to a standard source, isotropic or otherwise. I agree with that, too.

I am certain you and I agree that NU4B wrote a nice article and one that has several posters interested in trying--and experimenting with--something similar.

Including me.

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
www.n4kc.blogspot.com
(An open blog dedicated to rapid technological change and
its effect on society, media, and amateur radio)


 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by N6AJR on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
a couple of more ideas along this line,



one fellow I talked to a while back made a 3 element beam for 40 meters on the roof of his house, he was in California and his roof line "pointed " about 70 degrees to the east.




he used short sticks to hold the wires a couple feet off the roof, and ran a 40 m reflector about 2 feet above the roof of his house at one end of the roof, and a shorter 40 meter director on the other end of the roof and in the middle he used a stick in a vent pipe to hold the center and a stick on eiother side in the gutters to hold the ends up, and ran a 40 meter driven element above the roof in the center. . he ran the coax across the horizontal peak of the roof and then down to his shack, .




It kind of looked like a wire beam in an inverted v sort of shape, and it worked well to the east and eu. a 40 meter beam on your roof, cheap, but hard to turn.





another fellow who used to be net control on a listing net mad an interesting "beam" verticle. ( a maypole antenna?)



he used a 50 foot tall mast in the center and spaced 5 40 m dipoles out at an angle from the top of the pole to some stakes in the groun in a "sloper" manner but one was "pointing NW, one was "pointing" NE , one was "pointing SW, one was SE and one due south.



so he has this big pole up with 5 dipoles aranged in a circle and sloping down away from the base of the mast. He fed it with a single coax to a 5 position remote switch at the base of the pole, and then 5 coax's fron the switch to each of the sloped dipoles.





so when one position is selected the one wire becomes the driven element and the switch grounds the other 4 coaxes so in effect it makes the a little longer and they be come reflectors. so you end up with a very directional 40 meter "beam" for the price of a pole, some wire and a mfj remote coax switch. it worked very well, and I suppose you could build it for most any frequency..

 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KI4WCA on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Thank you for the article,I thought it was great.I have built wire yagis before, and they work well.The only thing I would worry about is how to keep the feeder at right angles for a great enough distance and the proximity of the low side of the array to ground.Both of these can cause pattern distortion.Of course the tree can too!That being said, if one finds no tower available this is quite useful stuff.
Bragging about snagging weird and exotic DX with a homebrew antenna is required for any ham article.We all know it is not scientific, and we never mention that the day we tested the antenna the propagation was superb to the point of bizarre.That does not matter.The fact that we designed it and used it for snagging the rare one is all that matters.An antenna article without anecdotal claims to heart stopping performance would be decidedly un ham like indeed.
Great article.Very usable information for the money poor and tree rich! 73 de KI4WCA
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KY6R on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Hello Tom, N6AJR -

I think you are talking about a K1WA Array (documented in the ARRL Antenna Book, and I can attest to it being a very good antenna - with very similar attributes as my 2 element SteppIR yagi and C3SS - yes A-B switched for a test):

5 half wave sloping half dipoles hanging from one tall metal mast - fed with 3/8 wl stubs (which add 5% length electrically and act as a reflector when they are switched out). The switched in element is the driven element.

* * * * *

The simplest way to get maximum gain, a great pattern, very good F/B ratio and the best S/N ratio I have been able to get with a wire array is the Bruce Array. I have a 20M 4 element Bruce - 6' up at the bottom on 4 Jackite poles:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ky6r/3317902794/

Also in the ARRL Antenna Handbook. But I digress . . .

73 - Rich
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KE6ANM on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
K0bg is quit right.
Everyone attacks him for pointing out the obvious.
With all the work and material used to create this monstrosity, a very good, effective antenna could have been built.
It is fun to experiment, but not every experiment should be repeated.
Why not just build an antenna that is built to actually benefit from the years of experience and engineering already tried and proved.
don't be so quick to jump on people like K0BG, and others who's experience can save hams time and money.
Listening goes both ways.
Have fun but don't try to raise the titanic just to prove a point!

 
No Clones  
by AI2IA on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
A word to KE6ANM - If everyone followed K0BG, they would all be made out of ticky tacky and they would all look the same.

KE6ANM - "Why not just build an antenna that is built to actually benefit from the years of experience and engineering already tried and proved."

Yes, indeed, wny not just give up the notion of creativity and experimentation altogether and become (and I dread to use these awful words that my opponents just love to sprinkle on this web site) an OUT OF THE BOX HAM. (Ugh! I said it!)

For live hams, as opposed to the undead ones, the hobby provides meaning by experimenting, not necessarily according to the strict rules of science or the fastidious opinions of K0BG, but playing around and coming up with something worthless or something we like and think is good. This is the hobby, get it? Now I am forced to use another ugly term of my opponents. If you don't get it, then you become (Ugh!) Yes, an APPLIANCE OPERATOR.

Now just look at what you made me do! You made me say those nasty words used by those cranky, crochety old hams, and I am now forced to admit that in certain instances they are correct.
 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KE7ZSN on March 2, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
As a new ham I will never post an idea on this Forum, and I can see why some of you "Extras" don't have the time of day for a beginner! No wonder we are not recuiting more new hams! Remember it's AMATEUR radio!
73
KE7ZSN
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KI9A on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
"As a new ham I will never post an idea on this Forum, and I can see why some of you "Extras" don't have the time of day for a beginner! "

Nothing like judging everyone, by the actions of one, huh? I can GUARANTEE you there are more that want to help, than there are grouchy old farts out there.

73- Chuck KI9A
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K5END on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
The wise will heed the wisdom of the wise.

The unwise will criticize the source of wisdom and go on about their merry, ignorant way.

To be ignorant of ones own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

The wise are aware of their ignorance.

To become truly wise one must first embrace the extent of his ignorance.





 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by W4VR on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
For some reason your antenna webpage diagram does not come up. Always a good idea to include a diagram or picture to get a clearer picture of what you are trying to accomplish.
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by NU4B on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
A diagram was uploaded but didn't get in the article. Use this address "www.qrpdx.com/ant.html" to view the diagram.

Thanks - Larry, NU4B
 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KL7AJ on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Trees are God's way of saying he likes ham radio. :)

Well done.
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KT8K on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Last Field Day I wanted some directivity for my 40m CW station at W8UM, so I built a 2 element wire inverted vee beam for 40m. It was crude, but gave me an S unit or two in the direction I wanted to favor.

I cut a 40m dipole and a 40m director wire to length for inverted vee use, then clipped the center points about 11 feet apart onto a rope which was then suspended 35' up between two telescoping masts. I used some yellow contractor string to pull the ends of the elements out into inverted vee shape and aligned them as parallel as possible. It worked fine, and in the coming FD I hope to make a 3 element reversible version using alligator-clipped add-on wires to make one of the directors into a reflector ... or maybe I'll just leave it East-West bidirectional with the add-on wires left off. It's still a bit of advantage. (BTW - we did great the last few years, and I warn y'all to Look Out for W8UM in FD09.)

I love making inexpensive antennas that kick butt, and also don't understand why anyone would pay big bucks for wires they can home brew much more cheaply, and with a much greater sense of satisfaction.
Best rx & 73 de kt8k - Tim

 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K8QV on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Let's see . . . a cheap, easily portable, lightweight antenna with gain. An antenna that works better than another one at the same location. An antenna that makes contacts and demonstrates certain principles of theory in the building of it.

What a useless endeavor!

Theoreticians will never grasp this, but the log book actually is the ultimate test and proof of an antenna's value. Making contacts is its purpose, after all. An antenna in the real world may be quite useful, practical, and superior to the available alternatives - even if it is not at optimum height over perfect ground - and even if it isn't 100 per cent efficient.

I suggest that rather than spending available hobby time making endless measurements and tweaking for absolute maximum efficiency, just work somebody!

Thanks for an interesting and useful article.
 
Simply put and well said.  
by AI2IA on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
K8QV says: "Theoreticians will never grasp this, but the log book actually is the ultimate test and proof of an antenna's value. Making contacts is its purpose, after all."

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you, K8QV!

from an old Amateur Extra Class who does not put down new hams or anybody else for that matter simply for being what they are.

1)Never let anyone in the ham hobby put you down.
2)Things that don't work or don't work well enought are just as important as things that do, because you can always learn something from them, and then chop them up for parts.
3)Don't be concerned about how you or your shack looks to others, just make it safe and pleasant to use for yourself.
4)Never hesitate to give a helping hand.
5)Know your limits and don't go beyond them in anything.
6)It's okay to be serious, but keep the fun in ham radio.
 
RE: Simply put and well said.  
by KY6R on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Actually, its most fun to:

1) Look through the ARRL Antenna Books and many great antenna websites (Cebik, W8JI, etc). Figure out of you want DX or local - or both. Single or multi-band? What concessions will you accept if pressing a single antenna into muti-band service?
2) Model the antenna in EZNec - or look for a posted model using Google
3) Choose one you think will work given your area
4) Build it and put it up. Use an antenna analyzer - for those antenna's that require it (many don't)
5) A-B test it against your doublet or dipole or vertical
6) See if the gain, directivity and S/N ratio match what you had read - and if the antenna meets your personal criteria for what "good" is
7) Smile when you log new DX (or locals) on an antenna that you understand and built
8) Ask if you can do better. Start at 1 again

All of these things are fun - the more you do, the more fun you will have. Even though I do all of the above - when I first connect that new antenna, I can tell if it will work well by how "hot" the receiver sounds - even on bands that require sunspots and there aren't any. I can immediately hear what the S/N ratio is. Its based in science, but has an art element to it as well. The supports that I use / build sometimes even look really nice. Those antennas seem to stay up the longest - hi hi.
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by NU4B on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
"As a new ham I will never post an idea on this Forum, and I can see why some of you "Extras" don't have the time of day for a beginner! No wonder we are not recuiting more new hams! Remember it's AMATEUR radio!
73
KE7ZSN"

Don't let this stuff scare you away. As you see most of the guys "get it". For some its just a bit too blue collar. All it was ever meant to be was an article about a neat afternoon project that won't break the bank (much like the original article in CQ), and it does work. Something to do on a sunny afternoon with your kid or a ham buddy or by yourself. Criticism is fair. Heck this is kid's stuff. If you want to see something really brutal, look at the comments on the DX cluster.

I've been a QRP'er and DX'er since I got my license (unbelievably) 30 years ago. My first rig was a HW-8, try DXi'ng with that rig (and people do) So I didn't just fall off the peanut truck. And while there are many many people out there with vastly more knowledge, I have picked up a few tidbits of information. For instance I'm now able to switch between 2 antennas and determine which antenna is delivering the strongest signal to my receiver. And I can determine which of 2 antennas will make a contact when one won't. And after 30,000 QSo's I can tell when a DX station is blowing me off because he can't copy me very well and when a DX station can copy well enough to carry on a conversation. None of this is very "scientific", but it is experience.

Of course I am being a bit sarcastic here. Reading the comments is kind of like DX'ing. You have to get past the noise and static to determine what's real. And here's one thing that's real. I received an email from a guy that had used these antennas years ago when the article was first published in CQ and liked them. He has since lost the information on these antennas and had been searching around because he would like to build another one. He thanked me for writing the article because the info in the article was exactly what he was looking for. So even if everybody had thrown tomatoes at me, it was still worth it because somebody was looking for just this info. So don't "not contribute" for fear of rejection. You never know when you might be helping somebody else out.

Incidently I did just work FH/G3SWH with the 17 meter array and 5 watts. Now I know this doesn't prove anything other than I worked this station with the 17 meter array, but I am (horror of horrors) going to add this QSO to my logbook!

One serious note, if you do build the array and you are planning to use it at a heading that will place the director in the general direction of the coax, be sure to include this in your calculation for coax legnth. You will need a tad more coax because the driven element will now be in back of the antenna in relation to the coax run.

Once again thanks all for the interesting conversation.
73, Larry, NU4B
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K5END on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!


There comes a time when every ham must choose his/her own path:


1.) To learn and/or understand the value of science and meaningful data; not an easy plight. These are the hams who read the literature and listen to the experts--in addition to their experimentation.

2.) To join the "Spit and Whittle Club."

EHAM, could you please create a forum group for the "Spit and Whittle" club? Seriously. Not kidding.

That would be a haven.

Some of the topics could be:

"How a G5RV is the best antenna known to mankind."

"How low SWR and QSO logs are all you need to know to evaluate an antenna."



 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by N4JTE on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Nice job Lawrence, having been the recepient of a few grumpy old men barbs myself for antenna articles here on eham I appreciate your well thought out article and probaly will try your idea for 17 meters. Take care and keep on building. Your illustration on your website was the icing on the cake.
Regards,
Bob
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by NU4B on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Can anyone think of any reason an antenna that exhibited low SWR might be important to somebody?
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by G3LBS on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Re my spider quad hanging by a single rope from a catenary between two trees -
I am getting a bit fed up with going out in the Buffalo snow to turn it - anybody suggest how to remotely turn it please - say with some sort of hanging motor like?
W2/G3LBS
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by N6AJR on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
KY6R yup, I think that may be the reference, in the handbook.

I do know any antenna in the air works better than one on paper.

so folks build it, and if it works , share it. I am sure Mr. Yagu and Mr. Uda got complaints and laughter when they put togetaher that funny looking bits of aluminumunuminumiunmim for their radios..

Wire is cheap, go build something.

My very first ham radio ( 1978 hooked to a ft101 e) was a magnet wire 10 to 80 m fan dipole held 2 inches off the roof of the apartment lived in by 2 inch square kiddies alphabet blocks. ( It worked :) )

so remember any antenna is better than no antenna at all.

also remember that living on remote DX adds 20 db gain and 100 feet to any antenna you choose to use.
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K5END on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
NU4B,

I did enjoy and appreciate your article, and please be aware that my acerbic criticism is not at all directed at your article or your project.

A weekend spent making an antenna from scratch with wire is a great weekend, in my book, and yours with directionality is one worth doing, for many reasons.

Thanks and 73.
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by AE5X on March 3, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
K0BG:
"Lastly, I have always done my best to stay away from flora of any kind, as there is always interaction between it and RF. Typically, it isn't as minimal as some folks would have you believe."



Hilarious!
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by NO9E on March 4, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Recently I suspended 3 wires from a branch of a tree, for 20,30 and 40m. With 15 ground radials SWR was good although some trimming was required for 20m due to interaction of 20 and 40m. The results were disappointing. Many stations clear on 40 and 60ft dipoles were in the mud on the vertical. Mostly 5-20db down, including DX. Must be due to poor soil - red clay of GA.

Then, for 20m only, I used a 40m element to load it on 20m with an improvised L network. This would be similar to PAR half-wave antennas. Slightly better than before but the performance identical with 1 or 15 radials. No problem with 1 KW.

$450 DX77 mounted some 6 ft up is similar in performance.

I contrast experiemces with dipoles in GA to FL: 33ft vertical with 15ft extra sloping elements mounted on a widow's nest (some 30ft high) some 100 ft from the beach. Just using a tuner I could work many station on many bands comfortably, even including some DX on 160m.

Hanging verticals from a tree is easy and can be done in minutes. Performance IMHO is strongly QTH related.
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by VA7CPC on March 4, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
This is a very interesting antenna.

With a single Jackite windsock pole, and some small loading coils mid-element, I could put one up for 20m portable QRP operation.

"Yagi in the Park" ???

Nobody has modelled it yet -- I guess I'll take that job. It will be interesting to see if K0BG's doubts are confirmed.

Charles
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by VA7CPC on March 4, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Here are the EZNEC "free" modelling results, at 20m:

For the dimensions in "http://www.qrpdx.com/ant.html",

with the bottom of the driven element 4.5' above "medium" ground (real, high-accuracy):

Max take-off angle: 15 degrees

Gain at max take-off angle: 3.29 dBi

take-off angle where gain is down 3 db: 7 degrees

F/B ratio: 8 dB

So it's a respectable antenna, especially for low-angle DX work.

If I change the ground to salt water (imagine the antenna erected on a dock), the picture changes:

Max take-off angle: 5 degrees

Max gain: 9.3 dBi

That's a lot of "gain per dollar" ! And it's all in the right direction.

Charles
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by VA7CPC on March 4, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Oops! I forgot to check SWR . . .

According to EZNEC, the dimensions specified on the Web page are too short, for both the director and driven element.

Resonance (when the bottom of the driven element is 4.5' high) is at:

Driven element: 34.7' long

Director: 32.7' long

and the maximum gain is up to 4.0 dB. The pattern looks the same.

Charles



 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KG4CLD on March 4, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Some photos or illustrations would have been nice, but I also believe all ideas have merit. It tends to spawn others into improving upon the original designs.

Lets see all those quick to ridicule come up with working models, complete with photos and illustrations. Let's see if you actions are as quick as your words!
 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K4MTN on March 5, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Great article Larry. We need more articles on wire antennas as some perform extremely well.
As for Alan, my Mother used to say, if you can't say something nice, DONT say anything at all.
73, Andy
K4MTN
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K5MO on March 7, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Good article!

By the way Eddy (VE3CUI) is still quite active on the net and on the air. Worked him on the 160 test a few weeks ago...nice fellow.

Never mind the Eham curmudgeons . There's some folks who completely define their existence by picking nits.

John K5MO

 
A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by VE3CUI on March 7, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Larry (NU4B), Eddy (VE3CUI) here --- yup, the very same guy who put pen to paper & wrote that original piece in CQ magazine oh-so-many years ago...!

I am VERY flattered (and delighted) that you found the original article to be "inspiration" enough to have you erect your own version there. Contrary to what the pundit(s) would say, I had no other antenna to do any antenna "A" vs antenna "B" tests when I first built my 20-meter version, so simple logbook / empirical(sp?) observations had to be the rule...and the quality & quantity of the DX stations worked after the thing went up were extraordinary (to ME, at any rate!).

My only regret is that I've never, ever had the ability or means to erect a 40-meter version of the array: now THAT would REALLY be something! No wonder specific "ghurus" who've doubtlessly invested hundreds in conventional arrays atop tall towers pooh-pooh the notion, I guess...!

Anyway, I'm glad that folks still find homebrewing wire antennas to be both rewarding, AND fun...and I'm personally proud to have been (and CONTINUE to be!) a part of it all. Keep that soldering iron hot, and the wire plentiful...!

~73~ Eddy VE3CUI
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by NU4B on March 7, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Hello Eddy (VE3CUI),

Thanks for the post, and of course for your article those many years ago. I have kept that issue of CQ specifically for that antenna. My how the years go by.

I have had a blast with this array since I built the first one around the first of the year. It really compliments my windom. This past week was really a good week as I picked up 3 new 17 meter "countries" using the array (FH, OD, and PY0F). I am heavily into DX'ing so everything revolves around what I can work LOL. Operating at 5 watts gives you a real sense of band conditions, antennas, etc.. On the OD station I tried to work him with the windom and he could not complete the call after several attemps. I quickly switched to the beam and he got my call immediately. I guess none of this is "scientific" - just real world. Having the ability to switch between both antennas is fascinating.

One use I failed to mention for this antenna is that when your using a horizontal antenna, trying to work stations off of the end of the antenna is of course a bit more difficult than broadside. These arrays fill in those gaps rather well.

VA7CPC ran the EZNEC modeling program for 20 meters with some interesting results. I am going to try and find his email and see if he would do the same for 17 meters.

MY only regret is that I did not build one of these for the Peter 1 Island expedition.

I am waiting for the wire to build a 20M version. Unfortunately my source ran out of stock. Maybe next week. In the meantime, Eddy, thanks again for the nice post and your vertical array lives on at NU4B.

73, Larry, NU4B
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by VA7CPC on March 11, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Looking for other Web sources on "vertical yagis" led to this incredibly interesting piece:

http://pages.prodigy.net/k2kw/learning.html

"Verticals for Contest Expeditions :
Learnings from the 6Y4A CQ WW CW Contest"

by Kenny Silverman, K2KW and Tom Schiller, N6BT

It's from March 1998, and confirms the vertical, 2-element Yagi as a good design.

Charles
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by VE3CUI on March 12, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Charles, et al,

It is personally very enjoyable for me to read pieces like that one referenced re. the DX-pedition using verticals antennas...thanks for sharing it with the likes of yours truly.

I detect a trend --- which is NOT an especially good one, IMHO --- wherein most all articles to-day on aerials make direct reference to EZNEC, and other such computerized antenna models. It's almost like the author has absolutely no legitimacy in what he's writing about, and so needs "evidence" from the likes of EZNEC to lend him credibility!

What a pity that the joys & adventure of "...fooling around with some wire" has deteriorated to the state wherein there are now seemingly TWO classes of Hams in Amateur radio, i.e. those still true-to-the-faith of yore stalwart "...experimenters and tinkerers", and those who are quick to condemn and criticize anything that doesn't fit into their self-imposed quantitative retraints of so-called pure science.

Rather than decrying the works of others, and delating their enthusiasm, why aren't these same ghurus, instead, out roaming the open glades & meadows in seek of bumblebees, so that these hapless insects might benefit from their scientific extrapolations outlining the specifics as to why it is impossible for them to fly...?!

Oh well, srtrive to keep the fun aspect of Amateur radio alive --- after all, it's why we became Hams in the first place, is it not...?

~73!~ Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K8CEB on March 13, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Lawrence. Very nice article from you. Thanks, I appreciate reading about it. One day I may try this out. I have many trees on my property. I understood why you posted this information.
I am using a wire 160 mtr Delta loop antenna, coax fed on ALL bands with great results just using my rig without an AMP to have conversations including K5D on 17 meters with great success. I have been told this antenna shouldn't work on bands other than 160 mtrs due to it being coax fed, not ladder line. But, irregardless what may be in books to read about it always is good to experiment and see what you can do with what you have on hand.
So, thanks again for your time and effort in bringing this article our attention.
73
Greg
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K8CEB on March 13, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Lawrence. Very nice article from you. Thanks, I appreciate reading about it. One day I may try this out. I have many trees on my property. I understood why you posted this information.
I am using a wire 160 mtr Delta loop antenna, coax fed on ALL bands with great results just using my rig and a tuner, without an AMP to have conversations including K5D on 17 meters with great success. I have been told this antenna shouldn't work on bands other than 160 mtrs due to it being coax fed, not ladder line. But, irregardless what may be in books to read about it always is good to experiment and see what you can do with what you have on hand.
So, thanks again for your time and effort in bringing this article to our attention.
73
Greg
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by K5TED on March 14, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Great article, and I might point out that in the spirit of amateur radio providing emergency communications that are relevant to the area, "dx" is not a concern as much as the ability to communicate coast to coast in the contiguous states. This can be accomplished with relatively high radiation angles that are typical of low height emergency antenna installations on 80m, 40m, 20m, 17m and 10m.
 
RE: A Tree-Mounted Vertical Array Revisited  
by KG4TKC on March 15, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Thank you NU4B for a well done article on experimenting with a homebrew antenna. This is one of the great fun parts of amateur radio. And as always ignore the self-appointed experts that crawl out of the woodwork here,they have infested every baseboard at eham,,:)

VE3CUI,I also enjoyed your posts,especially the last one. I have often thought of the bumblebee after reading some of the so-called experts here decrying someone else's experimentation. One thing is for certain,that poor hapless bumblebee better never ever mention his flight log around here,,:)

Thanks to you both,73 es GL-KG4TKC
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles
Feeding an LPDA Beam Antenna
The Best First Antenna, Hands Down


Other Antennas Articles
The Best First Antenna, Hands Down
Feeding an LPDA Beam Antenna
The REMBLA
An Automatic Motor Controller for Small Loop Antennas