|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
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
|
|
1-10 of 19 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
43' VERTICAL- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
|
Reply
|
|
by VA3GVS on December 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Follow up to my posts here on Eham Elmers 08 Dec and Eham reviews posted on 14 Dec 08 concerning ZeroFive 43' vertical antenna. After 2 modifications carried out on my ZeroFive antenna I finally gave a 5/5 for this antenna. Before mods I would have given it a 3 compared to other antennas I had previously used. As I mentioned in review I can't understand all the 5/5's without these mods which I'll note further in post. But now I am completely satisfied and concider it the best vertical available (with modifications). But as Phil KB9CRY would say "it's still only a vertical".
MY APPOLIGIES TO GOOD INTENTIONED EHAM ELMER AND TOWER TALK CONTRIBUTERS. I made mention in Eham Review that this ZeroFive antenna outperformed the Elmer & Tower Talk expectations and that their computer modules and criticism were wrong for this antenna. Well as Dan (Constant contributer to these forums, whose technical insight I've come to respect) very convincingly pointed out to me, the mods that I carried out to greatly improve the performance of this antenna were ideas born right here on these threads. Much of what was discussed here most likely had an influence on the ZeroFive and Array Solution's updated recommandations to convert 4-1 Balun to Unun and if required, add top loading to improve 80 and 160 meter performance (at the expence of decreased upper band performance 17 thru 10).
Brief outline of mods carried out to ZeroFive antenna are;
1st MOD= The addition of a 60ft #14 insulated str. wire (running 30 ft from each side of antenna with 2" of insulation removed from center of wire). This wire is then clamped to antenna, 15 ft up from base, and loosly strung in a slight upward vee to any 2 supports, 30 plus ft away, in a straight line to antenna. This mod has greatly improved both bandwidth and performance on 80 and 160 meters at the expence of slight decrease in performance from 17 meters on up.
2nd MOD= Other recommendation was to convert the AS-200-T from a Balun to an Unun. This mod has given me a 5 S unit increase on 80 and 160. (Jay from Array Solutions or Tom from ZeroFive can give you balun to unun conversion details thru PDF.
So if my Eham review (14 Dec 08) sounded like I was saying -ha ha your wrong Elmer & Tower Talk critics, well I guess I was, since what they said wasn't what I wanted to hear after investing the time and money to set up this Antenna and radial system. I was unwittingly shooting the messanger that had only rightfully stated their reservations towards this antenna concept and had made suggestions to improve it.
But now it rocks. Breaking pileups with 20 over reports on all bands from 20 to 160. Again Phil I know it's still a vertical and never will be a 3 or 4 element beam but where an attractive, inconspicuous neighbourly friendly great performing all band un-guyed antenna with a small footprint is required, the 43' ZeroFive antenna with modifications could be your ticket. DX Engineering has a similar 43' antenna claiming equal performance but not having tried one I can't speek for it's build quality nor performance but would suspect comparable results.
|
| |
|
RE: 43' VERTICAL- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
|
Reply
|
|
by W7ETA on December 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Try posting your review in the review section?
Best from Tucson
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: 43' VERTICAL- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
|
Reply
|
|
by K0OD on December 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VA3GVS says: "add top loading to improve 80 and 160 meter performance (at the expence of decreased upper band performance 17 thru 10)."
Actually that top loading would decrease 20 meter DX performance as well. I really doubt the change to a unun improves 80/160 performance by 5 S-units (or 25 to 30dB). Damn, now I'll have to get out my field strength meter and run some tests, balun versus unun.
--------
VA3GVS says: "But now it rocks. Breaking pileups with 20 over reports on all bands from 20 to 160."
So it works better than a 130 foot tall vertical on 160 with the addition of 2 30' wires coming off at 15'.
<<<Can you tell us EXACTLY what 80/160 meter piles you broke with S9+20 reports???>>>
|
| |
|
RE: 43' VERTICAL- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
|
Reply
|
|
by N3OX on December 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I really doubt the change to a unun improves 80/160 performance by 5 S-units (or 25 to 30dB)."
The balun configuration can be very, very, very bad.
Make sure one of the things you try is basically shorting across one winding of the UNUN with a wire if you try the test, because the worst-case common mode circuit with the balun can do essentially that.
73
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: 43' VERTICAL- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
|
Reply
|
|
by VK1OD on December 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With respect Gary, you no longer have a "43' vertical" (which is normally understood to be a 43' unloaded vertical unless stated otherwise).
Your mod #1 adds a capacity hat, and that capacitive *loading* substantially changes the antenna. The mod has benefit because efficiency on 160m of an unloaded 43' ground mounted vertical, notwithstanding the extravagant advertising claims, is appalling.
Capacitive loading as a means of improving 80m and 160m efficiency was discussed in at least one of the recent threads.
Your mod #2 is just doing something more sane than was recommended by ZeroFive and Array Solutions prior to my raising in a thread by ES1TU, the apparent lack of sense in using a 4:1 voltage balun in the way that they recommended.
BTW, the voltage balun issue was raised in my article early in 2006 which has had about 30,000 views in that time. The issue was well known.
Nice to know you found an open mind and tried the changes after the manufacturers 'fessed up.
Owen
|
| |
|
RE: 43' VERTICAL- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
|
Reply
|
|
by K0OD on December 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From your other posts we learn:
"Coax length is 150 ft of RG-213," and you're running a KW. That's a long run of coax which is a major source of loss on 80/160 in 43' verticals.
|
| |
|
RE: 43' VERTICAL- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
|
Reply
|
|
by K2DC on December 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RG-213 is a major source of loss on 80M/160M ?? According to the data sheets, it's 0.03 to 0.04 dB/100' at 1.8 MHz, and less than 0.1 dB/100' at 3.6 MHz. Unless you really hose the connector intallations, it's practically invisible on 160M.
73,
Don, K2DC
|
| |
|
RE: 43' VERTICAL- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
|
Reply
|
|
by K0OD on December 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Unless you really hose the connector intallations, it's practically invisible on 160M.'
Not when the SWR of a stock 43' vertical is over 100:1 on 160! It's pretty outrageous on 80 as well.
|
| |
|
RE: 43' VERTICAL- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
|
Reply
|
|
by W7SMJ on December 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gary,
Why would you give any product a "5/5" that requires modifications? A person shouldn't have to modify ANY commercial product.
Personally I would be a little upset having to modify something north of $399.00 to get it to perform!
73,
Scott
|
| |
|
RE: 43' VERTICAL- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
|
Reply
|
|
by N5LRZ on December 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I quite agree with VK1OD...
To change the basic design of any antenna and then write a review post changes on the the basic antenna is definately NOT the trasmission of facts.
Reviews should and ought to state the facts of the antenna as designed by the manufacturer, constructed per manufacturer instructions, installed per manufacturer instructions and not post adjustment of the user unless otherwise stated quite clearly in the writing giving both per manufacturer compared to post modifications comparisons in a clear fashion.
The obvious extensive alterations made to the original design of the manufacturer makes the new configuration a completely new design and renders null the old manufacturer design.
I agree with OD in his statement.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
Forum, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Forum Manager.
|
|
|
