Showing posts with label antenna. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antenna. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Hygain Vertical Performance

The Hygain Vertical I purchased has been working well. I hope to run it thru more on-the-air tests over the next few weeks. But during the ARRL /140 contest, it performed well and I made contacts on 10M, 20M, and 40M with it. I have learned a lot about short vertical antennas and I hope to try some other things with it.

For a quick review, the antenna is the Hygain 18VS model. Total cost is $100. It is 18 feet tall and has a loading coil at the base. This is just about as simple as an antenna gets.


I have mine put in an umbrella stand so I can move it to the patio when we mow the lawn. I have a number of radials (minimum of 4) that I attach to the base of the antenna and one ground wire from the antenna base to a 12 inch stake driven into the ground.

This week, I have 10 radials attached to the antenna. Four of the radials are 17 feet and 6 are 13 feet. They are just laid on the grass.

The loading coil tap can be set to make the antenna resonant on just about any frequency from 10M to 80M. I set the tap so the antenna is resonant on 10M. So when I switch to 10M, I do not need my antenna tuner. When I am on 20M, 30M, or 40M I have to use my antenna tuner to get the SWR down under 2.

One of the ideas I have been thinking about is purchasing an antenna tuner to fit at the base of the antenna. These are a little pricy at about $260. That would make the antenna an all-band for sure. But, if I did that, the total cost of the antenna and tuner would be about what a screwdriver-type antenna would cost.

So, the addition of an automatic tuner and more radials are in the plans. I will install the antenna permanently after mowing season is gone. I'll drive a post in the ground to mount the antenna on. I think this will give a much better ground and perhaps improve the way the radials work. The antenna will really be ground mounted instead of 10 inches off the ground.

...AR

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

1010 Summer Phone Contest (Aug 1,2)

The 1010 Organization held their Summer Phone contest this past weekend. It gave me a chance to check out my "small vertical" and I was pleased with the antenna over all. I ended with 31 QSOs and 14 states distributed across the U.S.

My antenna is a Hygain 18 foot vertical with a loading coil at the base. It is ground mounted with 4 radials of 13 feet each and one ground rod. The loading coil is not needed on 20 meters, but I did have to use a couple of turns for 10 meters.
I was able to work just about everyone I could hear.

On Saturday, contacts were few and far between. I only made about 5 the whole day. Sunday, however, things opened up and I made the rest of the contacts from about 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. IF I had started earlier, I'm sure I could have doubled my count.

Anyway, it was fun. Click here for the 1010 website.

...AR

Friday, July 31, 2009

Extreme NVIS Antenna



(You can click on the pics to enlarge.)

There's more than one way to get on the air ... some good, some bad, and some just get by and there is something to be said for "Makin' do" with what you have.

I knew my neighborhood had antenna restrictions when we bought the house. We liked the house, so we took the bad with the good. I like it that there are restrictions to protect home values and no junk cars in the driveways. So you have to realize that those restrictions cut both ways but hopefully with a common good in mind.

Here is my HF antenna I have used successfully to work 80M and 40M. I am able to check in with the Sooner Traffic Net (3845 khz) on a regular basis as well as the weekly ARES Net (3900 khz). On 40M, I am able to check in with the 7290 Traffic Net on a daily basis.

During the Route 66 Special Event, I was able to make over 200 contacts on 80M to support the club's effort to participate in this fun special event.

Anyway, if you need an antenna for 80M or 40M, a G5RV is a good choice. While the G5RV is designed for 20M, it will work 80M and 40M with a tuner. The full-size G5RV is 102 feet long and fits nicely along my backyard wood fence. I do have a "wrap" on each end of about 10 feet, but the rest of the antenna is pretty much horizontal at about 5 1/2 feet off the ground.

The G5RV has a twin lead section that (ideally) should be vertical when the antenna is mounted 25 to 30 feet high. In my Extreme NVIS Antenna, I have the twin lead vertical for about 5 feet but then curved along the wood fence about a foot off the ground.

All I can say is that it works most of the time and I'm very glad for that!

... AR

Sunday, July 26, 2009

IOTA Contest - July 24, 25

This weekend was the IOTA contest and it was fun. A little aggravating at times with pile-ups on some of the more "exotic" calls, but still a good time.

I only made 15 contacts, but these included two Hawaii stations, one New Zealand, and two Australia stations plus several states ranging from TX to MT, MA, NY, and OH. There were also a couple of Canadian stations included.

Most were on 20 meters but I had one HI, MA, and OH on 40 meters. The antenna I used was my G5RV JR mounted about 20 feet high on the roof. I used my Yaesu FT-840 most of the time running about 75 watts.

I should have made more contacts, but time was limited ... come on Sunspot Cycle 24!

...AR

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Vertical Antenna Ground System

When I come across really useful information, I just have to pass it along. Rudy Severns, N6LF, did an incredible amount of work during the spring of 2008 to evaluate the effect of radials on the effectiveness of 1/4 wave vertical antennas.

For the whole set of articles, click here:


In his Vertical Antenna Ground System Experiment No. 4, he makes the following observations:

1. If you are limited to 4 radials for whatever reason, you can SHORTEN the radials (from a 1/4 wave) by up to 40 percent and improve your gain by 2.9 dB. Or you can add a ground rod (4 ft.) and improve your signal gain by almost 3 dB. But doing both does not seem to improve things any more than doing either one. I know, read it for yourself.

2. If at all possible, use at least 8 radials. With the 8 radials you improve your signal gain by about 2.5 dB over the 4 radials and the gain can be improved to 3.9 dB by shortening your radials by about 40%.

3. If you can get to 16 radials, then you have overcome most of the ground losses and shortening the radials is no longer a major factor. He says, "I would think that with 32 or more radials, you wouldn't worry about resonances in the radial screen. The problem is only important when fewer than 16 radials are deployed over average or better soil."

There is a lot more information at his web site and I have not made it through all of it yet. Very good stuff!

... AR

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Something You Already Knew - Maybe?

"My Feed Line Tunes My Antenna"... This article was written in the March 1956 issue of QST by Byron Goodman, W1DX. It has been reprinted twice since then - once in 1977 and once in 1991 so it has some good insight that has lasted with time.

Here are my excerpts from this ... basically, main points for me to remember. I hope these bits are useful reminders. I have to read this about once a day to keep it fresh in my mind ...

When we say 50 ohm coax or 300 ohm twin-lead, we are talking about the characteristic impedance of the line. "Characteristic impedance of a transmission line is the value of resistance that when used as a termination for the line, makes the input impedance of the line independant of the electrical length of the line."

The simple view of this: A 50 ohm load (antenna or other resistance) on one end of your 50 ohm coax feed line will measure as a 50 ohm load at the other end of the line regardless of the actual length of the line. No tuner needed here because the load matches the characteristic impedance.

SO: The system is resonant and the whole load is resistance only.

But what if your antenna is measured as a 100 ohm load and you are using a 50 ohm feedline? You no longer match the characteristic impedance of the line. The impedance you measure at the end of the line will vary depending on the electrical length of the line.
The electrical length of the feedline is measured in wavelengths. To calculate the electrical length of the feed line, you must know the frequency, the actual length (in feet) and the velocity factor. So your physical feed line might be 75 feet but the electrical length changes as you change frequencies.

When the antenna load is different from the feed line characteristic impedance then the impedance we measure changes as we move down the line.

The Half Wave Rule to remember:
Every 1/2 wavelength down the line, the impedance we measure equals the antenna load and, obviously, this changes with frequency. And this load is resistance only.

The Quarter Wave Rule to remeber:
Every quarter wavelength, the impedance we measure is resistance only but the value is not equal to the antenna load.

Who Cares? Well, I guess I do. The reminder here is that the antenna load is really a reactive load. The antenna load is a combination of resistance plus capacitance (capacitor) OR resistance plus inductance (coil). The tuners we use help to bring the reactance of the load to pure resistance.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Short Antennas & Automatic Tuners

Or, when do automatic tuners make sense over a manual tuner?

I just found a fascinating article in the May 2008 QST ... actually, it was a short response under Technical Correspondence to an article on automatic tuners. But it answered a question I've had for a long time.

One quote that caught my attention: "...typically, the [automatic] tuners have a tough time when coupling to 'short' antennas whose RR (feedline impedance, if you will) is lower than the prescribed 50 ohms."

The author continues, "...you'll note that in the general instance of the longer -- lower frequency -- antennas, where the feed point (Load) Z is below 50 ohms, the automatic tuners are reticent to couple efficiently, whereas if the feed line Z is above 50 ohms, the tuner is efficient."

A couple of things come to mind ... first, in dealing with short vertical antennas, the antenna Z can be very low, hence the need for radials and/or baluns to match closer to 50 ohms.

Second, if your antenna is "short", whether a shortened 160M dipole or a short vertical, with an impedance of less than 50 ohms, you might want to consider using a manual tuner for better matching range.

If your antenna sports a Z close to or even higher than 50 ohms, the automatic tuners can handle the match easier.
The antenna design impedance is affected by a combination of antenna length and height above ground.

This does explain why my auto tuner in my KW TS-440 cranks and cranks to match my NVIS antenna (G5RV at 6 feet high) but quickly tunes on my 40 meter doublet at 20 feet high.

One of these days, I'll have to measure what the impedance is on each of these two antennas.

Something to consider ... AR


Wednesday, March 25, 2009

What is a Short Vertical Antenna?

I'm quoting from Jerry Sevick's (W2FMI) book "The Short Vertical Antenna and Ground Radial". A short antenna has been defined as one that is small compared to a wavelength.

He gives the following equation on p. 10:
Beta*h less than 0.5
where Beta equals 2*pi / wavelength and h is the height of a ground-mounted vertical.
BTW: the "less than" sign confused the HTML publishing process so had to remove it.

Solving for h gives us the following equation:
h less than 0.5 * wavelength / 6.283

For 40m antenna, the h is less than 3.2 m. If we use 130 feet for the wavelength, then h is less than 10.35 feet. The author uses 11 feet for his purposes.

He maintains that a 40m 1/4 wavelength ground-mounted antenna has a power gain of 1.62 when compared to the mythical isotropic radiator. This antenna is 33 feet high. The 11 foot vertical has a power gain of 1.513! Pretty impressive, don't you think? But HOW?


He further comments that "the very small value of its input resistance" is the important property that makes its capture cross-section nearly equivalent of a full 1/4 wave vertical. A ground mounted 1/4 wavelength vertical has a theoretical input resistance of 35 ohms and a 20 foot has an input resistance of about 8 ohms while the 10 foot antenna has about 2.5 ohms input resistance.

I'm not sure I understand all of this either, but it is very interesting (to me anyway). Well, I have some more to reading to do....AR

Monday, March 02, 2009

Short Vertical Antennas

"The Short Vertical Antenna and Ground Radial" book by Jerry Sevick, W2FMI, is loaded with thought-provoking information. I have been reviewing this book because I'm using a home-brew vertical produced by Tulsa Amateur Radio Club for $20. The 10 meter portion of this antenna just fits on my patio cover support post (4x4 wood post and I used a bunge cord to secure the antenna to it). I have been tuning this for 10 meters as a 1/4 wave-length and on 20 meters as a 1/8 wave-length. I have made contacts on both bands so I'm looking for ways to improve the efficiency of the antenna, i.e. more radials perhaps. So I've returned to Sevick's book for some insights.

In the preface, he says "...a very short antenna had about the same power gain and radiation pattern as a full size half-wave antenna. The main difference was that the resistive component of the input impedance, the radiation resistance, was very small in comparison to that of a 1/2-wavelength antenna and, depending on length, could be a matter of a few ohms. In turn, the short antenna has a very high capacitive reactance, which has to be canceled by various loading techniques. A short vertical has an even lower radiation resistance and, depending upon height, can be a matter of only 1 or 2 ohms."

A little background to put this in perspective might help. The antenna referred to is ground mounted and, as such, one of the main features of performance is signal loss to the earth. A half-wave that is ground mounted will have an impedance of about 35 ohms maximum when the ground losses are minimized. A short vertical will have a 1 or 2 ohm impedance with no radials.

One of the charts in the book shows that as radials are added, the antenna load impedance goes up (or gets better) because ground losses are lowered and eventually reaches a max of 35 ohms with 60 radials. Right now I'm using only 4 so I have lots of room for improvement.

His book spends a lot of time developing a short vertical for 40 meters, so my 20 meter antenna should be a little easier(?) ... AR

Friday, February 13, 2009

An SWR Meter is a Dangerous Thing!

The Feb 2009 issue of QST has an article titled "Keeping Current with Antenna Performance". This article gives a whole new perspective on using an RF Ammeter to determine if your system is resonant. This article states "An SWR meter is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands." It continues, "Many assumptions have to be made (not always valid ones) when one uses low SWR readings as an indication of maximum radiated antenna power".

That sort of catches your attention, doesn't it? It sure did mine. Now bear in mind, I am intrigued by this article but I'll need to do some pondering to absorb what is being said here. It seems simple enough and I'm trying to capture the main things that struck me in the article for this blog. Hopefully, you'll follow up and read the whole thing!

The author Eric Nichols, KL7AJ, points out "That is why in the broadcast industry the FCC has always required the direct power measurement technique for determining transmitted power. This is done by measuring radio frequency current at the antenna feed point, where the feed point resistance is known."

The key quote, for me anyway, is:
"For any given antenna -- that's an antenna with a fixed radiation resistance -- maximum current always results in maximum radiated power."

In the article, two homebrew devices are outlined to measure relative current and assist us with getting maximum current indication for our antenna / transmitter / feedline. (The RF ammeter must be placed somewhere along the feedline, i.e. after the tuner in the system.)

This article is too good to miss. More to come as I dig it out ... AR

Monday, February 09, 2009

Atomic Clocks Aren't

The wonderful "always correct" clocks (and watches) we enjoy today are actually radio wave receivers tuned into station WWV, the standard time reference for the United States. The radio wave broadcasts are based on atomic time standards, but our clocks are not atomic - just radio receivers.

Tune your HF rig or SWL receiver to 5. MHz or 10. MHz and you will hear the WWV broadcast. It is very interesting to hear the beacon and watch your "atomic" clock be in sync with each other.

Canada has the CHU broadcast which just recently changed frequency. For seventy years the Canadian time standard was on 7.335 MHz but as of Jan 1, 2009, the National Research Council of Canada shifted their 40 meter signal to 7.850 MHz. The CHU also broadcasts on 3.330 MHz and 14.670 MHz.

After my original post (above) I started wondering how these clocks had a good enough antenna inside a very small appliance to pick up these signals. Well it turns out there's a whole different broadcast station that is picked up by our clocks ....

Here's a quote from http://tf.nist.gov/stations/radioclocks.htm

In the United States, the signals received by radio controlled clocks originate from NIST Radio Station WWVB, which is located near Fort Collins, Colorado. WWVB broadcasts on a frequency of 60 kHz. Your radio controlled clock actually has a miniature radio receiver inside, which is permanently tuned to receive the 60 kHz signal.

The 60 kHz signal is located in a part of the radio spectrum called LF, which stands for low frequency. This is an appropriate name, because the FM radio and TV broadcasts that we are accustomed to listening to use frequencies thousands of times higher. The lowest frequency received by any of the other radios in your house is probably 530 kHz, the bottom of the AM broadcast band. Even that frequency is nearly 10 times higher than the WWVB signal.

At 60 kHz, there isn’t enough room on the signal (bandwidth) to carry a voice or any type of audio information. Instead, all that is sent is a code, which consists of a series of binary digits, or bits, which have only two possible values (0 or 1). These bits are generated at WWVB by raising and lowering the power of the signal. They are sent at a very slow rate of 1 bit per second, and it takes a full minute to send a complete time code, or a message that tells the clock the current date and time. When you turn a radio controlled clock on, it will probably miss the first time code, so it usually takes more than one minute to set itself (sometimes 5 minutes or longer) depending on the signal quality and the receiver design.

Once your radio controlled clock has decoded the signal from WWVB, it will synchronize its own clock to the message received by radio. Before it does so, it applies a time zone correction, based on the time zone setting that you supplied. The time broadcast by WWVB is Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), or the time kept at the Prime Meridian that passes through Greenwich, England. While a few users like their clocks to display UTC (ham radio operators, for example), most prefer to display local time. This means that the time in your area is corrected by the number of hours shown in the table [ -6 hrs for CST].

Once your radio controlled clock has synchronized, it won’t decode the signal from WWVB again for a while. Some clocks only decode the signal once per day, others do it more often (like every 4 hours or every 6 hours). Those that decode the signal just once per day usually do it at night, since the signal from WWVB is much stronger once the sun goes down. In between synchronizations, the clocks keep time using their quartz crystal oscillators. A typical quartz crystal found in a radio controlled clock can probably keep time to within 1 second for a few days or longer. Therefore, you shouldn’t notice any error when you look at your clock display, since it will appear to be on the right second, even though it has probably gained or lost a fraction of a second since the last synchronization.

These [coverage] maps [on the above website] are based on a field strength of 100 microvolts per meter, which in theory should be a large enough signal for most receivers to work with. In fact, some receivers have much better sensitivity (20 or 30 microvolts per meter). However, simply having a large signal doesn't mean that the receiver will work. What really matters is the signal-to-noise ratio, or the size of the signal compared to the size of the electrical noise near the same frequency. Raising the noise level is just as harmful as reducing the signal level. For example, if the radio controlled clock is near a source of interference (like a computer monitor) the noise level will increase, and the clock might not be able to synchronize. If the radio controlled clock is in a building with a metal roof, much of the signal will be blocked. Therefore, the signal level will be reduced, and the clock might not be able to synchronize.

End Quote

The antenna dilemma becomes more intriguing, tho. But, since everything works, the LF of 60 kHz seems to work very well at low power with the internal antennas in the clocks across North America. Meanwhile, I'm listening to WWV using a 40 meter dipole up about 20 feet! ... AR