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: Zero-Five 10-40 Ground Plane vs. S9 31 foot Vertical  (Read 7071 times)
N3OP
Member

Posts: 18


WWW

Ignore
« on: September 03, 2012, 03:21:07 PM »

I recently moved to a house that has antenna restrictions, so I am thinking about installing a Zero-five 10-40 ground plane or a S9 31 foot vertical with about 16 radials.  The antenna will be installed behind some trees to help hide it.  Which one do you think will give the better performance on 10-40 meters.  I mainly work SSB, PSK31 and RTTY with 100 watts or less?

Thanks,

Reggie
Logged
W9GB
Member

Posts: 2623




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2012, 03:34:03 PM »

Reggie --

Comparing an Apple and Orange .... as far as antenna construction.

S9 antenna designed for portable, ease of setup and only weighs 4 pounds.
Zero-Five antenna uses rugged materials for permanent installation in outdoor environments.
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2012, 06:52:00 PM »

Reggie,

I wonder where we are going today with antennas. I think we are losing common sense.

We now seem to think a hunk of various length non-resonant verticals of any flavor, many with very poor ground systems, are an improvement over a trap vertical that has much higher efficiency.

If I had 500-600 bucks to spend, which is what a vertical and marginal working tuner would cost, I could have a much better signal that running a feedline with terrible SWR into a vertical with no matching and a terrible ground system.

I would buy a good trap vertical and a little wire for a ground, and have a much better signal.

73 Tom
Logged
KA7NIQ
Member

Posts: 258


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2012, 05:26:44 PM »

I recently moved to a house that has antenna restrictions, so I am thinking about installing a Zero-five 10-40 ground plane or a S9 31 foot vertical with about 16 radials.  The antenna will be installed behind some trees to help hide it.  Which one do you think will give the better performance on 10-40 meters.  I mainly work SSB, PSK31 and RTTY with 100 watts or less?

Thanks,

Reggie
Neither antenna will beat a simple Hustler Trap Vertical.
Logged
A9KW
Member

Posts: 105


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2012, 08:15:06 PM »

I recently moved to a house that has antenna restrictions, so I am thinking about installing a Zero-five 10-40 ground plane or a S9 31 foot vertical with about 16 radials.  The antenna will be installed behind some trees to help hide it.  Which one do you think will give the better performance on 10-40 meters.  I mainly work SSB, PSK31 and RTTY with 100 watts or less?

Thanks,

Reggie
Neither antenna will beat a simple Hustler Trap Vertical.

And you know this for a fact, you tested them both side by side.
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2012, 03:32:48 AM »

A little electrical planning or engineering goes a long way for perfromance, so I agree with KA7NIQ. A reasonably good trap vertical would be a much better performance choice.

73 Tom
Logged
N8CMQ
Member

Posts: 355




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2012, 03:43:20 AM »

I agree with Tom, you can radiate your signal with a trap vertical, or heat the interior of your coax with an untuned vertical.
Logged
A9KW
Member

Posts: 105


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2012, 05:53:07 AM »

I disagree
Unless you tested them all in the real world side by side, it would not be fair to the poster to give your recommendation.
Logged
KF7DS
Member

Posts: 190




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2012, 05:56:25 AM »

I disagree
Unless you tested them all in the real world side by side, it would not be fair to the posted to give your recommendation.

I have tried both the S9 and Zero Five and they are noisy and need tuners at the feedpoint.

My 6BTV works better than either and is quiet in comparison

Tom knows more about antennas than most

Don KF7DS
Logged
W0KAN
Member

Posts: 9




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2012, 07:01:43 AM »

I agree with W8JI and the others that a trap vertical would be a better and cheaper antenna for multi band use.

It's not like he has a commercial interest in the antenna you pick.

If you are really determined to use a non resonant antenna then you will need to invest in a remote antenna tuner. If you have the antenna tuner and will be installing it around trees then why not just use a piece of wire pulled up into a tree?  A piece of wire is way cheaper then something from S9 or Zero5.
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2012, 07:12:28 AM »

I disagree
Unless you tested them all in the real world side by side, it would not be fair to the poster to give your recommendation.


Ham radio is starting to move backwards, or get like CB, so far as antenna claims go.

Someday someone should do all the Hams a big favor, and test them side-by-side in a good legitimate test, and publish the results.

A good test would put all the utter nonsense creeping into antenna claims to rest. I'm surprised and disappointed QST has not done that already.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5774




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2012, 07:28:24 AM »


Ham radio is starting to move backwards, or get like CB, so far as antenna claims go.

Someday someone should do all the Hams a big favor, and test them side-by-side in a good legitimate test, and publish the results.

A good test would put all the utter nonsense creeping into antenna claims to rest. I'm surprised and disappointed QST has not done that already.


Well put!
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
KB5UBI
Member

Posts: 97




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2012, 09:37:53 PM »

I think the key word was legitimate. Is it in their best interest to pick winners?
Logged
W5WSS
Member

Posts: 1725




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2012, 03:20:17 AM »

I have worked with the multi band verticals of various lengths and they do offer utility to a growing number of hams facing antenna constraints.

When the multi band vertical is made to reach it's maximum potential field strength over a range of 4 bands it "can" almost equal in maximum potential field strength a single band ground mounted vertical that has also been optimized Comparing apples to apples.

The expense of the multi 4 band optimized vertical is IMHO prohibitive and counter productive when compared to a single band ground mounted equal.....But

Not so bad when we desire the same results from the other three bands then we need three more single band verticals.or a solitary trap vertical that IMHO offers the best value by far for most pursuits except in my special case where I deliberately sought to find an even less costly and roughly equivalent solution and believe I have accomplished the goal with the following:

I have used a 22 ft vertical wire sloping away and upward from the window sill point of origin, and a mediocre elevated,ground isolated, tuned 1/4 wave counterpoise of radials bundled together in pairs of two per band 2-10m,2-12m,2-15m,2-17m and 2-20m fashioned such traveling away in opposite directions and sloping downwards until they are taught and held by plastic tent stakes and located directly adjacent to the antenna feed point end this occurs at 4ft above ground   with an interior auto tuner located directly at the antenna/radial base end of the wire.located just on the inside of the window sill.

The cost of the wire about $20.00.

The performance on the design bands is as expected and I know the difference.

My only motive is to share this information pertinent to this thread. 73
Logged
N8CMQ
Member

Posts: 355




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2012, 04:07:46 PM »

I have worked with the multi band verticals of various lengths and they do offer utility to a growing number of hams facing antenna constraints.

When the multi band vertical is made to reach it's maximum potential field strength over a range of 4 bands it "can" almost equal in maximum potential field strength a single band ground mounted vertical that has also been optimized Comparing apples to apples.

The expense of the multi 4 band optimized vertical is IMHO prohibitive and counter productive when compared to a single band ground mounted equal.....But

Not so bad when we desire the same results from the other three bands then we need three more single band verticals.or a solitary trap vertical that IMHO offers the best value by far for most pursuits except in my special case where I deliberately sought to find an even less costly and roughly equivalent solution and believe I have accomplished the goal with the following:

I have used a 22 ft vertical wire sloping away and upward from the window sill point of origin, and a mediocre elevated,ground isolated, tuned 1/4 wave counterpoise of radials bundled together in pairs of two per band 2-10m,2-12m,2-15m,2-17m and 2-20m fashioned such traveling away in opposite directions and sloping downwards until they are taught and held by plastic tent stakes and located directly adjacent to the antenna feed point end this occurs at 4ft above ground   with an interior auto tuner located directly at the antenna/radial base end of the wire.located just on the inside of the window sill.

The cost of the wire about $20.00.

The performance on the design bands is as expected and I know the difference.

My only motive is to share this information pertinent to this thread. 73

Convenience of band changing without having to pull one vertical element and plug in another one, or to remotely tune a random length vertical, or even to lose power heating coax with an indoor tuner, are good reasons to use a good trap vertical.
A good quality, ground mounted quarter wave trap vertical over an extensive radial field will provide low cost operating for a very long time.
It will cost a bit more than $20, but the ease of use, in the long run is worth it to me, and that is why many people with the same setup recommend it to others when asked.
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!