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: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: All band verticals  (Read 13663 times)
K5USF
Member

Posts: 83




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: September 18, 2012, 03:36:37 PM »

I use a 40 footer with a homemade, low loss, high power, remote controlled mechanical tuner at the base.  It works just fine.  Unfortunately, that is the only antenna I can use based on lot size, no trees and HOA peeps.  Whenever I can get out of the desert, the next home will have a dipole or two and a log beam.  

If you lack the necessary technical knowledge/experience, it is easy to get sucked into the product marketing.
Logged
KA7NIQ
Member

Posts: 267


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #31 on: September 18, 2012, 08:12:35 PM »

Around 1980-90 advertisements started appearing tell people traps were lossy, and even assigning silly numbers like "one dB per trap" to trapped antennas.


Nice rant Tom, now how about taking on OCF dipoles or double bazookas or  ...  Wink

Stan K9IUQ

At the last Tampa Hamfest, I witnessed 2 Hams about to get into a fistfight over the Double Bazooka antenna! 
The Ham who owned a Commercially Made (overpriced) Double Bazooka was bragging it up, and the other Ham nicely told him it actually has a bit LESS gain then a dipole.
The Double Bazooka owner became quite hostile, and started talking crazy, about how many people he killed in Viet Nam, etc etc.

You could see in his eyes he was totally brainwashed by the Double Bazooka, and he was ready to engage in combat with a fellow Ham, who was just telling him the truth.

LOL, I was having some fun once at a Tailgate, and a guy was trying his best to sell his "spare" Carolina Windom. He claimed he had one at home, and it worked so well, he wanted to "pass on his spare one" to a fellow Ham.

I played stupid, and asked him why it worked so well. He claimed it was all because of the "Vertical Radiator" LOL
That's when I "let him have it", and told him the only vertical radiator at his QTH was his Toaster  Grin

He was pretty cool, and thought that was funny. I wound up buying a Kenwood MC 50 mike he was selling, but told him "I'll Pass" on the Carolina Windom.



Logged
W5DXP
Member

Posts: 3639


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2012, 06:06:42 AM »

He claimed it was all because of the "Vertical Radiator" LOL

Radio Works turned a common-mode problem into an extra-cost feature.Smiley
Logged
KA7NIQ
Member

Posts: 267


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #33 on: September 19, 2012, 07:20:40 AM »

He claimed it was all because of the "Vertical Radiator" LOL

Radio Works turned a common-mode problem into an extra-cost feature.Smiley
I once worked a station with a pretty darn good signal Cecil.
Being curious, I asked him what he was running. He answered "I am running a Kenwood TS 950 SDX and an Alpha Belden" I kind of zeroed in on the Kenwood 950, especially because it was an SDX, with the Mosfet Finals!
Then, I asked him about the antenna again, not being familiar with an "Alpha Belden"

He kind of had me going for awhile, thinking that perhaps the Alpha Belden was some new type of antenna ?

Then, he told me he was running an Alpha 76 into Belden Coax, to a Windom at 75 feet.
He was one of the few Windom owners who admitted his coax was probably radiating.



Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20666




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: September 19, 2012, 09:26:25 AM »

Alpha Belden are just the first two letters in the ham radio alphabet.  Simple.

They're followed by Cushcraft, Delta, Eagle, Flex, Gamma, Hallicrafters, Icom, Jupiter, Kenwood, etc.
Logged
W5DXP
Member

Posts: 3639


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #35 on: September 19, 2012, 12:09:54 PM »

He was one of the few Windom owners who admitted his coax was probably radiating.

When I was at Texas A&M during the 50's, I ran an OCF dipole fed with 300 ohm twinlead through a Heathkit B-1 Balun on the top floor of a garage apartment with no RF ground. Burned holes in my lips when I got too close to the metal microphone but I made a lot of contacts.Smiley
Logged
KA7NIQ
Member

Posts: 267


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #36 on: September 19, 2012, 06:20:26 PM »

He was one of the few Windom owners who admitted his coax was probably radiating.

When I was at Texas A&M during the 50's, I ran an OCF dipole fed with 300 ohm twinlead through a Heathkit B-1 Balun on the top floor of a garage apartment with no RF ground. Burned holes in my lips when I got too close to the metal microphone but I made a lot of contacts.Smiley
Wow Cecil, in College in the 50's ? I wasn't even hatched till 1954!
I will be 58 years old, Oct 9th
So you have been a Ham, longer then I have been alive!
This Sun Spot Cycle sucks, huh ?

Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 997




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2012, 03:56:11 AM »

They also have not worked out how to package the Brewster angle into a packet  yet. Many hams seem to think that vertical work the same regardless of where we place them in the world.

You hear a 1 or 2 stations on the bands with these magic 43 ft verticals.   These stations are all living in areas with high ground conductivity. You never hear anyone from the dessert in Arizona boasting about his magic 43 ft vertical.

The problem with traps is that nobody makes high power versions of them that can truly take legal limit. To make a trap that will handle 2500 watts is expensive and challenging.

I dont know why people mess with these cumbersome vertical designs when something like a simple parallel   multiband  vertical antenna system works without all the fuss. You can build a 40 through to 10 meter multiband vertical just by paralleling the verticals like a fan dipole.  You can then put a trap on the 40 meter vertical for an inverted L for 80 or 160.

Many hams have also forgotten about the Battle Creek vertical. My version uses parallel verticals for the higher bands and coaxial traps for the low bands. Cheap and very effictive.  No UNUNS, Baluns or complicated tuners or switchboxes.  All these designs are floating around on the net for free. K9AY also has a patent and a design for a multiband parallel vertical that is very unique. Any ham could duplicate this design with ease. No traps or anything complicated, as easy as building and tuning a dipole.


OK, has anyone noticed the change in antennas?

Back in the 1960's, a company called Gotham sold hunks of aluminum in various form, sometimes with a loading coil and alligator clips for tuning, as cheap all-band antennas.

As the Ham population became better educated, antennas evolved into trapped antennas that tuned to every band automatically.  They had the tuning mechanism on the antenna, optimizing length and SWR without any need for tuning. The traps added very little loss, certainly much less than 1 dB total loss for all the traps. Nearly all trap verticals were within a fraction of a dB of a full size monoband vertical, with the exception of really short verticals on 80 or 160 meters.

Around 1980-90 advertisements started appearing tell people traps were lossy, and even assigning silly numbers like "one dB per trap" to trapped antennas. Uneducated consumers would go outside, count the traps, and conclude they lost 6 dB on every band because of traps. People would rush out and buy even lossier systems just to avoid lossy traps.

Some manufacturers that used traps, at least two I can think of, used traps but called them something else!! This way they say "no lossy traps" even though they had a trap that was made lossier than a normal trap just so it would not look exactly like a trap.

Some people started using coax stubs as traps, hiding them inside the vertical. Coax stubs are many times lossier than an L/C circuit, usually having a Q of around 50 or less in common "trap" lengths. A real trap might have a Q of 200-300, 4-6 times better with much lower loss, yet the companies could say "no lossy traps". They would move the feedpoint up, totally misquote some engineering data, and sell a magical ground mounted vertical that needs no ground other than a few wires they don't call a ground. My 8 foot tall mobile antenna would typically BEAT those antennas in signal comparisons. QST and another test compared one of these magical hidden coax elevated gap antennas to an old trap vertical on the ground, and the old trap vertical won.

Then, most recently, the strangest thing of all appeared. Someone re-discovered almost anything will make contacts. It was like artificial Christmas trees appearing in the woods. Many were mechanically well-built antennas, sometimes mimicking the shape and style of antennas known to work very well (groundplanes), but they relied on an antenna tuner to match and were electrically one fixed length. They were just disguised, like the traps that were not traps, so no one really thought about what they were. They were, in effect, just a short "longwire" turned up on end, and a short "longwire" was known to be one of the worse antenna styles to use for performance.

It seems to me we are going backwards in design to the Gotham vertical era, where one length of tubing was magically tuned on all bands. The only difference is we moved Gotham's tapped coil into the house so we don't have to run outside. We greatly increased the losses, because now we have an unmatched coaxial feedline, and on upper bands we have some pretty high radiation angles wasting power, but we can make contacts.

The reviews read like Gotham advertisements. All warm and fuzzy and full of love:

http://www.w8ji.com/gotham.htm
Logged
N4UM
Member

Posts: 483




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2012, 04:47:57 AM »

Many, many decades ago H.L. Menken noted that "No one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American consumer"...or something like that.

I guess he must have been talking about people that buy antennas.

Personally. I prefer isotropic antennas.  They're quite small, can be erected just about anywhere and require no tuning or adjustment.  They're great for multiband work and can operate on any frequency from VLF to light.  They require no "lossy traps" or "tuning stubs" and are the perfect solution for hams living in HOAs.
Logged
KE2TR
Member

Posts: 191




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: September 22, 2012, 08:32:14 PM »

After having many different type of verticals or phased dipole arrays I installed a 43' wire vertical at my qth for the reason we are selling the house and didnt want to put up a two element vertical array for 75. I installed as much junk box wire in the ground as I could muster and also use the chain link fence that goes around the pool thinking it might help. I did try a 6BTV and to be honest even after doing fine adjustments to the antenna it only worked well on 10&15mtrs but the 43 ft vertical cleaned its clock on 20mtrs, 1st thing it has a much lower angle of take off and with station in the middle east its 10 db louder than the Husler. I also installed a blaun design 4:1 UnUn at the base a swell and match it in the shack with a MFJ989D without issues. I dont use the vertical on 40 cause I have a pair of phased verticals hidden in the back that work real well on that band but have been of 75mtrs and have worked some decent DX which surprised the heck outa me. I did do tins of reading and thought about either base loading it or linear loading the vertical for 75 but I will give up 20 and until I get a tower up which will more than be when we move up state, I'll leave it be. Its no 4 SQR but its not all that bad and I have built man antennas for 75.
I really dont agree with Tom as far as the 6BTV being a better multi band vertical, many of the antennas I have owned in the past which have had traps have always performed  but they were never outstanding. When a buddy of mine replaced his TH7 with a F12 C3E it was a big eye openner, basicly a 2 element monoband for ward stacked beam which except for FB was consistant as far as being a better antenna on every target. When I sold my old qth which we used to contest from which had stacked monoband beams on the top three bands I ended up having locations were I really was limited as far as antennas were concerned so I started with a 6BTV, its was never any better than ok, you could make contacts but it sucked wind as far as other antennas I tryed. I dont live in an area of hi ground conductivity but with a decent amount of wire in the ground verticals do work. I feel way to many folks dont try didfferent antennas because they dont model the right way on there programs, modeling these idea's give you a base line but dont really tell the whole story as to how it will really work at YOUR qth.
Logged
W5WSS
Member

Posts: 1783




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2012, 03:39:50 AM »

Zenki, yeah although I am Not doing so at the moment I HAVE done similar as an experiment.

The results were interesting

I added a second 22ft wire trapless vertical parallel to the 43 ft wire trapless vertical. The second wire was identical in diameter and type.

The spacing between the two antennas in this experiment was changed ranging from tie wrapped plastic wraps holding the two wires taught tightly side by side to 2ft spacing and parallel. Conversely, To traveling away 45 degrees from their same point of origin resulting 45 degrees apart at their far upward ends. In either case at the station end, or said another way; at their vertical base each were connected identically to each of the two individual auto tuner ports, and operated as separate verticals. Though mutual coupling of the two antennas must occur and understood to be such as it was. The tuner found the new Rr and adjusted easily,.And in either case where each was serving at a frequency where they were operated as a 1/2 wave length whereas expected, stressful on the tuner power was adjusted accordingly.

The design goal of this experiment was to operate each wire trapless vertical as individual physical lengths known to be more conducive to Field strength manifestation in the lower angles for hf longer range work.

An area of concern: When attempting such an experiment one must beware because due to mutual coupling as related to antennas that are closely coupled High RF voltage and current can manifest backwards along either or said another way the other antenna element and locate into the second dc isolated port but not respective to RF isolation two very serious separate issues.

So preliminary assumptions are that yes it is promising as an added feature provided that one can accomplish The proper RF isolation at the tuner ports.

I want to go with 3 individual lengths  66ft 43ft and 22ft.

Everything being done identically while each vertical trapless wire travels away from each other being held at 33 degrees upward separation on the far end and try and evaluate my findings.

Yes the former two were demonstrating that there exists a feasibility for parallel wire trapless verticals sharing 30 percent of the responsibility each utilizing a 1/4 wave to 5/8 wave range respective to their physical length. Offering a utility equivalent to a trap vertical and possibly exceeding a trap vertical because one can offer some length gain beyond a quarter wave while simultaneously radiating  with a similar pattern.....thin wire can be substituted with Aluminium tubing to the same for top band while wire can be utilized from 60m and up.







All other conditions were held unchanged as far as a tuner and balun location and counterpoise.

Logged
KA7NIQ
Member

Posts: 267


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2012, 08:22:27 AM »

Around 1980-90 advertisements started appearing tell people traps were lossy, and even assigning silly numbers like "one dB per trap" to trapped antennas.

Advertising can and will sell anything. It does not matter if it is a lie. Telling the same lie over and over and over makes it the truth. Just look at the Political Candidate Advertisements.  Cheesy

I bought one of those Gotham antennas. It was a real pain going outside to change the tap to change bands. But I was only 15 years old and did not know any better. I did know that any Antenna advertised month after month had to be good.  Cheesy Cheesy

Nice rant Tom, now how about taking on OCF dipoles or double bazookas or  ...  Wink

Stan K9IUQ

I wish he would Stan! Seriously, I nearly had to break up a fist fight between 2 Hams, both in their late 60's, who were ready to come to blows over the Double Bazooka Antenna!
The one Ham (correctly) told the brainwashed Ham who owned the Double Bazooka, in a nice way, that his antenna had less, not more gain, then a dipole!

The Double Bazooka owner became furious, and started talking crazy about "all the people he killed in Viet Nam", etc etc.
This infuriated the Ham who was telling the truth, and I saw a fight coming.
I asked them BOTH to chill out, and reminded them that this is JUST a Hobby.

Once they all chilled out, I suggested we all go "find out the truth" together.
So, the 3 of us (I already knew the truth, but played dumb) walked around the Hamfest together. We found an old brass pounder, out in the tailgate section of the Hamfest. He was selling old tubes and Keys.
He explained that a Double Bazooka traded a little more bandwidth for a loss of gain, vs a Dipole.

To my surprise, the Double Bazook owner finally accepted what we were trying to tell him!

The Old Brass Pounder suggested a Folded Dipole to him vs the Double Bazooka, since he wanted a little more bandwidth on 75 meters.


Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   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!