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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "BEST" Vertical for 80 and 160 meter bands  (Read 6642 times)
AF3Y
Member

Posts: 3739




Ignore
« on: July 15, 2012, 02:12:54 PM »

I SHOULD HAVE SAID BEST MULTIBAND VERTICAL..... SORRY.

Restricted to a vertical here at my Florida QTH and currently have a 31' tall S-9 Vertical up and working DX rather well, with the exception of 80 and 160.  It does not work well at all on either band and wont do anything on 6 meters either.  I have tried an 80 meter coil(made by the S-9 manufacturer)  on the S-9 vertical(actually a wire vertical inside of a fibreglass pole), but very little help there. I have a radial field of 26 radials with 4 of them at 45+ feet, and the balance between 15 and 40 feet each. (utilizing whatever space I had to install them)
I have a Hustler 6BTV that worked on 80 fairly well, with NARROW bandwidth at my S.C. QTH, but does not work very well here. Think I will leave it disassembled in the shed.......

I have been thinking about the MFJ 2990 vertical which is advertized as a 160 -6 multiband vertical, and at $360 wont break the bank either..  I know, I know.... its MFJ. Actually, having bought a few MFJ products over the years, including my antenna anyiyzer, and all were OK.  The few reviews on the antenna posted here on eHam are kinda mixed, but I do like the idea that it can handle legal limit (Using a vertical, I gotta have SOME KIND of help.hi hi.)

I know of a couple other multi band verticals, one of which looks like a christmas tree, or something from mars. Not sure the neighbors would like the looks of that, even tho it IS a vertical.

Any suggestions?  Yes, I DO miss my tower and Force 12 C--3SS and my delta loop(s) and wires at the S.C. QTH. But, I guess that is the price you pay for living in paradise.. hi  

73, Gene AF3Y

 
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 02:16:03 PM by AF3Y » Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5774




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2012, 02:20:59 PM »

I think would either try a 43 foot vertical with a capacitive top hat or maybe a Gap Voyager.  33 feet is too short. You could also use a 100 wire attached to top of current vertical and make it a inverted L which can play well on 160 and 80
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6039




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2012, 05:42:04 PM »

The 43' vertical can work well with base loading and even better with top loading as W8JX says. Based on radiation resistance only the 43' vertical has twice the radiation resistance that the 31' vertical does and that works out to twice the radiation efficiency for a ground loss dominated installation.

Top loaded the 43' vertical has roughly 3X the radiation resistance that the base loaded 43' vertical does. In The AntenneX magazine archives you can find my design for a 38' top loaded 160 meter vertical to get an idea of how to do it.

To put things in perspective I am presently using a 30' base loaded vertical with 90 short (12-25 ft) radials. The 160 meter radiation efficiency is about 15%. Top loading the 43' vertical you might achieve a radiation efficiency of 50% or more.
Logged
K3VAT
Member

Posts: 709




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2012, 03:29:56 AM »

I SHOULD HAVE SAID BEST MULTIBAND VERTICAL..... SORRY.
... currently have a 31' tall S-9 Vertical up and working DX rather well, with the exception of 80 and 160. ... I have a radial field of 26 radials with 4 of them at 45+ feet, and the balance between 15 and 40 feet each. (utilizing whatever space I had to install them)
...   Any suggestions?  ... 73, Gene AF3Y

Gene (DX Forum Guy Grin) - This is a tough call because ALL multiband (10M-160M) are a compromise, sometimes quite a bit especially on those two bands that you have an interest in (See Joel Hallas' two recent articles in QST on the 43' antenna) .  The 80M coil for the 31' vertical is the least effective method of loading as others have pointed out and probably why you're not seeing the results that you expect.

Your radial field is good for the size of your lot, but for shortened verticals (or using them as an L-antenna as w8jx correctly suggested below), it is emphasized that the radial field is even more important so, if possible, there is where you could realize some improvement - any chance of adding more radials, say another dozen or so of the 45+ kind?
 
As you have other antennas for some of the higher bands I would forget about using the vertical for those bands and concentrate on 40M downward (unless you need an antenna to work the 'locals' on 10M thru 20M).  So I'd like to recommend that you consider the Butternut HF2V (specifically designed for 40M and 80M with height=32').  Research this antenna on the "Products Review" section and Search the technical forums.  As an radiator, this antenna is resonant on 40M and suffers the least loss on 80M for anything commercial less than full-size (~65').  It is fairly unobtrusive (see photo and tech specs at: http://www.bencher.com/ham/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4&products_id=12.  I've used this antenna with forty-eight 45' radials and it works wonderfully.  For 160M there are a couple of different schemes that will get you on that band, albeit, with corresponding performance sacrifice.

GL, 73, Rich, K3VAT
Logged
N4UM
Member

Posts: 472




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2012, 10:29:32 AM »

Just add a top loading wire and turn it into an inverted L for 80.  Put a loading coil in the wire for use on 160 and jumper it for use on 80.  Helluva lot cheaper than buying any kind of new antenna.
Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 977




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2012, 11:48:12 AM »

Gene, do you have any structures (trees, etc.) where you could tie off vertically
up about 50 or 60 feet to run a 1/4 wave inverted L wire antenna?

Pete
Logged
AF3Y
Member

Posts: 3739




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2012, 03:21:03 PM »

Gene, do you have any structures (trees, etc.) where you could tie off vertically
up about 50 or 60 feet to run a 1/4 wave inverted L wire antenna?

Pete

Pete, actually, I do (Neighbor's oak tree) if I can coerce the neighbor into letting me put it up there. I get along with him OK, so I would say its 60-40 that he would not care.  I will talk to him this week.

If that wont work, I have a smaller tree here in my yard which I could probably get a wire into up about 35- 40' or so. It would be closer to the vertical, Around 35 feet horizontal, where the neighbors tree is more like 50 -60 horizontal.  I will see what I can work out.  Thanks for all replies!!  73, Gene AF3Y
Logged
KC4MOP
Member

Posts: 733




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2012, 04:13:28 AM »

Hello
If the antenna you saw that looked like a Christmas tree / from outer space, it might have been the HyGain 18HTJR.
You're right, the neighbors would not like seeing that nearby. An old 1950's design. 80M was not easy to adjust and would not handle legal limit, even though it is advertised, and one website claiming 5KW power handling..........it's B.S.!!!
There have been studies for the 43 foot vertical and the use of a remote tuner at the base, but I do not think it will be a performer for 160M.
The last reply for an "L" is great!! 60 feet high and the rest is a loading wire. A good radial system and you have arrived!! The latest excitement is a remote tuner at the base of the antenna. The MFJ998RT was very highly rated.

Fred
Logged
K3VAT
Member

Posts: 709




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2012, 10:25:33 AM »

Just add a top loading wire and turn it into an inverted L for 80.  Put a loading coil in the wire for use on 160 and jumper it for use on 80.  Helluva lot cheaper than buying any kind of new antenna.

Tim & Gene & others mentioning the Inverted L:  These (the Ls) can be a great antenna; however, this antenna (S9 31'er) is packaged as a self-supporting (guyless) vertical using lightweight telescoping fiberglass tubing - the entire antenna weights just 60 oz.!  These attributes make it unsuitable for an inverted L (IMHO) - What one might do is use a "T" top or even a dual "T" capacity hat, the T wires and support dacron doubling as guy ropes.  With a little base loading inductance to trim up the tuning and a large hat, the antenna would definitely be usable on 80M.

If you'd like to go the Inverted L route, then you'd need at least one counter guy (2 are better) and this may be somewhat difficult on a small lot.

73, Rich, K3VAT


« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 10:29:17 AM by K3VAT » Logged
AF3Y
Member

Posts: 3739




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2012, 01:43:42 PM »

Just add a top loading wire and turn it into an inverted L for 80.  Put a loading coil in the wire for use on 160 and jumper it for use on 80.  Helluva lot cheaper than buying any kind of new antenna.

Tim & Gene & others mentioning the Inverted L:  These (the Ls) can be a great antenna; however, this antenna (S9 31'er) is packaged as a self-supporting (guyless) vertical using lightweight telescoping fiberglass tubing - the entire antenna weights just 60 oz.!  These attributes make it unsuitable for an inverted L (IMHO) - What one might do is use a "T" top or even a dual "T" capacity hat, the T wires and support dacron doubling as guy ropes.  With a little base loading inductance to trim up the tuning and a large hat, the antenna would definitely be usable on 80M.

If you'd like to go the Inverted L route, then you'd need at least one counter guy (2 are better) and this may be somewhat difficult on a small lot.

73, Rich, K3VAT




You are quite correct Rich, I had been thinking about how flimsy the antenna is. I am pretty certain anything with any weight on or attached to the top would cause a fishhook looking antenna pretty soon.  No room here for guys either.  I may still buy the MFJ vertical. Heck, its only money......... Oh well Undecided  73, Gene AF3Y
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5774




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2012, 01:52:56 PM »

I am pretty certain anything with any weight on or attached to the top would cause a fishhook looking antenna pretty soon.  No room here for guys either.  I may still buy the MFJ vertical. Heck, its only money......... Oh well Undecided  73, Gene AF3Y

Would not really need guys but a simple rope attached opposite to the wire "L" attached to it anchored somewhere.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
K2CMH
Member

Posts: 275




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2012, 09:26:03 AM »

For close to the same amount of money, you should check out the DX Engineering 43 ft vertical.  It is well built and easy to assemble.  Their tilt-over arrangement seems to me to be more robust than other designs out there.  I can't really give you a performance opinion because I don't have anything else to compare it to other than to say I do make contacts.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5774




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2012, 10:36:34 AM »

I do not see a big improvement  on 80 or 160 with it but at 20 and above performance would suffer.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 977




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2012, 10:45:07 AM »

I'd go with a 1/4 wave inverted L with decent vertical elevation over any short vertical. Even with a compromised radial system, it should do a respectable job.

Pete
Logged
VA3RR
Member

Posts: 8




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2012, 06:15:39 AM »

+1 on the inverted L.  In fact, if you have two support points, why not a 'nested inverted L' like the G7FEK and get at least 3 bands.  I got a lot of segment warnings after converting G7FEK's EZNEC file to 4NEC2, so I 'played' with it a bit to make it resonant on 80, 40 and 15.  

CM G7FEK Antenna converted to 4nec2
CE
GW   1   25   0.05   0   0.6   0.05   0   24.5   .003
GW   2   25   0.05   0   24.5   40.05   0   24.5   .003
GW   3   25   0   0   0.6   -0.05   0   24.5   .003
GW   4   7   -0.05   0   24.5   -11.05   0   24.5   .003
GW   5   1   0.025   0   0.3   0.05   0   0.6   .003
GW   6   1   0.025   0   0.3   0.025   0   0   .003
GW   7   1   0   0   0.6   0.025   0   0.3   .003
GS   0   0   0.3048
GE   1
GN   3   0   0   0   13   0.005
EK
EX   6   6   1   0   1   0   0   0
FR   0   0   0   0   3.7   0
EN
« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 06:26:11 AM by VA3RR » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!