Elecraft

Verticals

Classic

List

Threaded

26 messages Options

Bill Levy

Verticals

I had no trouble at all keeping in touch with my family using an early R5
vertical in 5H3 land when I was working there.
My XYL had my Log Periodic on a 75 tower and I had the R5 vertical with a
Metrum 500 watt amp, 12 volt battery and an Icom 735 in those days.

I would not ever consider the vertical an optimum antenna but as a bush
antenna to complete an 8000 mile low radition angle circuit I was more than
satisfied.

I remind new amateurs that it is important to decide what the mission is
and then design the station accordingly.

Dipoles and Verticals are great basic starter antennas and it only gets
more complicated from there. If I have a tree at hand I prefer an inverted
V over a vertical but in 5H3 deep in the bush filming wildlife on a TV
contract I didn't always have trees at hand!

73 All,

Bill N2WL
ex 5H3WL, 5Z4PI and VQ9WL
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Ted Edwards W3TB

Re: Verticals

When in Iceland with the Navy 30 years ago, I found the Butternut HF6V very
handy and effective. Big radial field with it.
There were no trees at all, and the constantly windy location would have
made short work of a tower.

I guyed it in measured 5 directions with guys that would let the tie-point
move about a foot above the center and below the center of height -- which
had the effect of not introducing a reverse bend at the base. I was also
able to buy 140 kg. test monofilament fishing line -- the kind of thing
only ocean-fishing ports would have. It was 2 mm. thick and very hard to
tie into knots, but it stood up to everything.

Yes, I know the opinion that a vertical radiates equally poorly in all
directions --- but it works in situations where nothing else is possible.

What I am finding impressive now as verticals go is the Gap series, because
they are really center-fed dipoles rather than ground planes.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:39 AM, William Levy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I had no trouble at all keeping in touch with my family using an early R5
> vertical in 5H3 land when I was working there.
> My XYL had my Log Periodic on a 75 tower and I had the R5 vertical with a
> Metrum 500 watt amp, 12 volt battery and an Icom 735 in those days.
>
> I would not ever consider the vertical an optimum antenna but as a bush
> antenna to complete an 8000 mile low radition angle circuit I was more than
> satisfied.
>
> I remind new amateurs that it is important to decide what the mission is
> and then design the station accordingly.
>
> Dipoles and Verticals are great basic starter antennas and it only gets
> more complicated from there. If I have a tree at hand I prefer an inverted
> V over a vertical but in 5H3 deep in the bush filming wildlife on a TV
> contract I didn't always have trees at hand!
>
> 73 All,
>
> Bill N2WL
> ex 5H3WL, 5Z4PI and VQ9WL
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

--
73 de Ted Edwards, W3TB and GØPWW

and thinking about operating CW:
"Do today what others won't,
so you can do tomorrow what others can't."
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

w7aqk

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by Bill Levy

Bill, N2WL said:

I had no trouble at all keeping in touch with my family using an early R5
vertical in 5H3 land when I was working there.
My XYL had my Log Periodic on a 75 tower and I had the R5 vertical with a
Metrum 500 watt amp, 12 volt battery and an Icom 735 in those days.

--------------------------------------------

Bill and All,

And just which antenna do you think was doing all the work???

The R5 is a decent antenna, and it probably worked well for you. However, I
think it may well have been the Log Periodic that was doing all the heavy
lifting, don't you?

I have used an R7 and an R8 with good results, but I don't get overly
confident that I'm the one really making the contact possible unless,
perhaps, the person at the other end has a similarly modest antenna. With
my R8 I worked VP6DX on 80 and 160, both SSB and CW, but I don't for a
second give the credit to my end. They just had good ears, that's all!

I have a nice ARCI "Miles per Watt" certificate on my desk for a 40 meter
contact I made with DJ6ZM while I was running 1.8 watts with an HW-8 (and
the R8). However, all you have to do is take a peek at Tof's antenna setup
in Munich to see how and why the contact was possible.

I'm as guilty as the next person about getting a bit excited if I make a DX
contact I think is somewhat rare or difficult. However, reality sets in
when I hear what the other station is using.

There is a fellow ham just up the street from me who works DX all the time
that I can't even hear a peep out of. He has a good beam, and I don't.
That obviously tells me something.

Antennas are evaluated all the time by comparison to a "reference" antenna.
Probably QSO's should be similarly evaluated by comparing the antenna
systems at both ends. The old adage that "if you can hear them, you can
work them" is probably mostly true, but it may not be your fault!

Dave W7AQK

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Barry

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by Bill Levy

Bill Levy wrote

I had no trouble at all keeping in touch with my family using an early R5
vertical in 5H3 land when I was working there.

Bill N2WL
ex 5H3WL, 5Z4PI and VQ9WL

Having those callsigns gave you an extra 20 db gain. I've tried a few verticals over the years and found them to be poor performers.

Barry W2UP

Hisashi T Fujinaka

Re: Verticals

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Barry wrote:

> Bill Levy wrote
>> I had no trouble at all keeping in touch with my family using an early R5
>> vertical in 5H3 land when I was working there.
>>
>> Bill N2WL
>> ex 5H3WL, 5Z4PI and VQ9WL
>
> Having those callsigns gave you an extra 20 db gain. I've tried a few
> verticals over the years and found them to be poor performers.

I use a AV-640 and I would suggest it over NO ANTENNA any day. And it
fits on a city lot without too many complaints.

This is a non-technical opinion, but a bad antenna is way better than no
antenna. I'm a big fan of experimenting and seeing what works and then
getting on the air. I can't believe some of the contacts I've made.

--
Hisashi T Fujinaka - [hidden email]
BSEE + BSChem + BAEnglish + MSCS + $2.50 = coffee
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

James Rogers

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by Barry

I have to jump in here and give some support to my friend Bill Levy.
Years ago, in my earlier years of amateur radio I could not afford a
beam or rotator, so I delved in the antenna section of the handbook and
came up with an array of three phased verticals on 20M. This was during
the time of the Danny Wiel and Gus Browning DXPeditions. I found the
verticals to be quite effective, as I worked many of the exotic
destinations of Danny and Gus. W4ECI, "Mr. Ack" as he was know locally,
and the sponsor of many of these DXPeditions, once asked what I was
running? It gave me a great sense of pride to tell him, 100W and
homebrew phased verticals.

A friend in Virginia, K4XT, whom I work regularly on a sked, is running
a pair of R7s phased appropriately and is quite satisfied with them.
Before he had a big US Tower and multi-element tri-bander. Just got
tired of all the hassle and runs the verticals.

Any antenna, verticals, or the big yagis require some degree of
expertise to use them to their best effectiveness.
Verticals get a bad rap most of the time because of the old adage,
"verticals radiate poorly in all directions". In my experience,
verticals used and installed properly are quite an effective antenna.

Jim, W4ATK
Celebrating 61 years of Amateur Radio
P.S. All of my antennas today are in my attic. I will see you on the DX
bands!

On 9/11/2014 7:29 AM, Barry wrote:

> Bill Levy wrote
>> I had no trouble at all keeping in touch with my family using an early R5
>> vertical in 5H3 land when I was working there.
>>
>> Bill N2WL
>> ex 5H3WL, 5Z4PI and VQ9WL
> Having those callsigns gave you an extra 20 db gain. I've tried a few
> verticals over the years and found them to be poor performers.
>
> Barry W2UP
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Verticals-tp7592925p7592961.html
> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Verticals

I need to agree with Jim and others in support of the verticals.
I've been #2 in the world the last two years in the 100W/simple
antennas (verticals, dipoles) class of CQ DX Marathon. My antennas
are variously an 80/40 trap inverted V at 40', an R5 or an N6BT
Q51 (bandswitched dipole for 20-10) at 18 feet.

Those antennas have been responsible for DXCC Honor Roll CW and Mixed
as well as a major part of the 2500 (once I make my next submission)
in DXCC Challenge since moving to Florida 16 years ago and getting
back on the air after being essentially off for the previous 15. In
addition, the R5 and/or Q51 are responsible for 72 countries and 250
grids on six meters even though neither antenna is designed for that
band.

The verticals and low dipoles are not [nearly] as good as the big
towers and [stacked] mono band beams I had in Ohio but they're a
long way better than no antenna or a random wire snaked around the
fence line.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2014-09-11 10:03 AM, Jim Rogers wrote:

> I have to jump in here and give some support to my friend Bill Levy.
> Years ago, in my earlier years of amateur radio I could not afford a
> beam or rotator, so I delved in the antenna section of the handbook and
> came up with an array of three phased verticals on 20M. This was during
> the time of the Danny Wiel and Gus Browning DXPeditions. I found the
> verticals to be quite effective, as I worked many of the exotic
> destinations of Danny and Gus. W4ECI, "Mr. Ack" as he was know locally,
> and the sponsor of many of these DXPeditions, once asked what I was
> running? It gave me a great sense of pride to tell him, 100W and
> homebrew phased verticals.
>
> A friend in Virginia, K4XT, whom I work regularly on a sked, is running
> a pair of R7s phased appropriately and is quite satisfied with them.
> Before he had a big US Tower and multi-element tri-bander. Just got
> tired of all the hassle and runs the verticals.
>
> Any antenna, verticals, or the big yagis require some degree of
> expertise to use them to their best effectiveness.
> Verticals get a bad rap most of the time because of the old adage,
> "verticals radiate poorly in all directions". In my experience,
> verticals used and installed properly are quite an effective antenna.
>
> Jim, W4ATK
> Celebrating 61 years of Amateur Radio
> P.S. All of my antennas today are in my attic. I will see you on the DX
> bands!
>
> On 9/11/2014 7:29 AM, Barry wrote:
>> Bill Levy wrote
>>> I had no trouble at all keeping in touch with my family using an
>>> early R5
>>> vertical in 5H3 land when I was working there.
>>>
>>> Bill N2WL
>>> ex 5H3WL, 5Z4PI and VQ9WL
>> Having those callsigns gave you an extra 20 db gain. I've tried a few
>> verticals over the years and found them to be poor performers.
>>
>> Barry W2UP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Verticals-tp7592925p7592961.html
>> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Jim Brown-10

Re: Verticals

On Thu,9/11/2014 6:50 AM, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
> I use a AV-640 and I would suggest it over NO ANTENNA any day. And it
> fits on a city lot without too many complaints

Yes, and that's something that blanket criticisms of antenna choices
fail to consider. On his tiny Evanston, IL city lot, my friend K9OR has
an AV-640 on his roof and a low 80M dipole between trees. He has a lot
of fun with it.

On Thu,9/11/2014 8:56 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> I need to agree with Jim and others in support of the verticals.

Here's my take on this sort of antenna decision -- with a limited number
of possibilities, which are likely to work the best?

http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf

http://k9yc.com/VerticalHeight.pdf

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Wes (N7WS)

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Great job!

But you're in Florida, I wonder how this would work out in the desert of
Southern AZ?

Wes N7WS

On 9/11/2014 8:56 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

>
> I need to agree with Jim and others in support of the verticals.
> I've been #2 in the world the last two years in the 100W/simple
> antennas (verticals, dipoles) class of CQ DX Marathon. My antennas
> are variously an 80/40 trap inverted V at 40', an R5 or an N6BT
> Q51 (bandswitched dipole for 20-10) at 18 feet.
>
> Those antennas have been responsible for DXCC Honor Roll CW and Mixed
> as well as a major part of the 2500 (once I make my next submission)
> in DXCC Challenge since moving to Florida 16 years ago and getting
> back on the air after being essentially off for the previous 15. In
> addition, the R5 and/or Q51 are responsible for 72 countries and 250
> grids on six meters even though neither antenna is designed for that
> band.
>
> The verticals and low dipoles are not [nearly] as good as the big
> towers and [stacked] mono band beams I had in Ohio but they're a
> long way better than no antenna or a random wire snaked around the
> fence line.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Verticals

> But you're in Florida, I wonder how this would work out in the desert
> of Southern AZ?

They would probably work better to Asia and Oceania from the desert of
Arizona than they work from the sandbar of Florida.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2014-09-11 3:08 PM, Wes (N7WS) wrote:

> Great job!
>
> But you're in Florida, I wonder how this would work out in the desert of
> Southern AZ?
>
> Wes N7WS
>
>
> On 9/11/2014 8:56 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>
>> I need to agree with Jim and others in support of the verticals.
>> I've been #2 in the world the last two years in the 100W/simple
>> antennas (verticals, dipoles) class of CQ DX Marathon. My antennas
>> are variously an 80/40 trap inverted V at 40', an R5 or an N6BT
>> Q51 (bandswitched dipole for 20-10) at 18 feet.
>>
>> Those antennas have been responsible for DXCC Honor Roll CW and Mixed
>> as well as a major part of the 2500 (once I make my next submission)
>> in DXCC Challenge since moving to Florida 16 years ago and getting
>> back on the air after being essentially off for the previous 15. In
>> addition, the R5 and/or Q51 are responsible for 72 countries and 250
>> grids on six meters even though neither antenna is designed for that
>> band.
>>
>> The verticals and low dipoles are not [nearly] as good as the big
>> towers and [stacked] mono band beams I had in Ohio but they're a
>> long way better than no antenna or a random wire snaked around the
>> fence line.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Robert Nobis - N7RJN

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by Wes (N7WS)

Wes,

I am in Arizona and am using an N6BT Bravo-5a vertical and it works well. I have worked over 1500 stations since installing the antenna with about 30% of these being DX in Asia, Latin America and Europe. Could I do more DX with a three element beam at 60+ feet? Probably, but since I live in a community with an HOA that has restrictions, this is not an option for me.

Bob - N7RJN
[hidden email]

On Sep 11, 2014, at 12:08, Wes (N7WS) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Great job!
>
> But you're in Florida, I wonder how this would work out in the desert of Southern AZ?
>
> Wes N7WS
>
>
> On 9/11/2014 8:56 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>
>> I need to agree with Jim and others in support of the verticals.
>> I've been #2 in the world the last two years in the 100W/simple
>> antennas (verticals, dipoles) class of CQ DX Marathon. My antennas
>> are variously an 80/40 trap inverted V at 40', an R5 or an N6BT
>> Q51 (bandswitched dipole for 20-10) at 18 feet.
>>
>> Those antennas have been responsible for DXCC Honor Roll CW and Mixed
>> as well as a major part of the 2500 (once I make my next submission)
>> in DXCC Challenge since moving to Florida 16 years ago and getting
>> back on the air after being essentially off for the previous 15. In
>> addition, the R5 and/or Q51 are responsible for 72 countries and 250
>> grids on six meters even though neither antenna is designed for that
>> band.
>>
>> The verticals and low dipoles are not [nearly] as good as the big
>> towers and [stacked] mono band beams I had in Ohio but they're a
>> long way better than no antenna or a random wire snaked around the
>> fence line.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Guy Olinger K2AV

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

In Jim's second linked PDF, he makes reference to W6GJB's (Glen) ground as
being very poor, presumably because these measurements show so much more
loss than "average" ground in the model. The question is what do you have
to do to get the model to hand you 13.5 dB differentiation with those same
changes in height IN THE MODEL. The assumption is that Glen's ground is
abnormally bad. Suppose Glen's ground is very ordinary and speaks for a
majority of space challenged situations. What then?

NEC4 underestimates ground loss for all but commercial grade dense ground
radial fields. One will be well-served by taking the W6GJB measured results
as the RULE rather than the exception for any vertically polarized RF
current near ground. There is a very good lead on why and what is not taken
into account in NEC program code regarding ground losses in compromised ham
situations, but it will not be published until it's absolutely nailed to
the wall, and the NEC fix coded and tested. That may be quite a while.

In the meantime, to better model ground losses for comparison use in
optimizing an antenna configuration, always use WORST TERRIBLE ground in
the model. You will be far closer to the truth. WORST TERRIBLE ground =
(0.0007,1). Yes, that's point ZERO, ZERO, ZERO seven, not a mistake. But
even as vicious a correction as that is, it does not work out as bad as a
pile of anecdota indicate.

WORST TERRIBLE ground will demonstrate ground sensitivities as you make
adjustments to an antenna system. If you are doing modeling and intend to
pass results along to anyone else ever, then assume that most people have
terrible ground circumstances. This will be largely true, because vertical
users are most frequently driven to those circumstances because of cramped
erection possibilities so common to us folks with ordinary limited space.
Cramped spaces are usually full of ground defiling lossy stuff like
concrete, "rubble fill", asphalt, concrete slabs, rusty buried pipes,
basements, and other stuff that turns ground type into WORST TERRIBLE.

Your design maximized over WORST TERRIBLE ground will minimizing coupling
current into all-too-common RF sucking stuff in typical hamdom "ground".
This will take care of the ground-challenged mass majority of hams, without
inconveniencing or harming in any way those awful spoiled people who live
over super-dirt.

In Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign, the famous (infamous?) motto
was "It's the economy, stupid!". In affairs regarding verticals the
parallel motto is "It's the ground losses, stupid!"

The solution which maximizes results over WORST TERRIBLE ground is the one
you tell friends you want to keep and publish abroad.

This is why we picked FCP dimensions that were non-resonant (5/16 wave
single wire folded counterpoise for use in situations where commercial
grade 80m or 160m radials are not practical.) It was a compromise between
high counterpoise feed reactance and ground loss. A couple dB were at stake
in the choice of dimensions over WORST TERRIBLE ground.

Jim is showing a 13.5 dB variation with varying heights at W6GJB, all
related to ground losses, or relative lack thereof. Raising 100 watts to
1500 watts is only 11.8 dB. On the wrong side of that range and you waste
all your amp power, and more, in ground losses. And it WILL be seen at some
time in the future that Glen is the norm and not the exception.

Note to self: "It's the ground losses, stupid!"

Think about how the vertical on the roof at K9OR avoids at least some
amount of ground losses. In the 60's I had a trap vertical over raised
radials 1 foot up from a copper roof on a 3 story row house. It worked
GREAT. The same antenna later turned into a ghastly dummy load near the
grass after I moved to the suburbs and had to put it somewhere behind the
house where it couldn't be seen.

73, Guy.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Jim Brown <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Thu,9/11/2014 6:50 AM, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
>
>> I use a AV-640 and I would suggest it over NO ANTENNA any day. And it
>> fits on a city lot without too many complaints
>>
>
> Yes, and that's something that blanket criticisms of antenna choices fail
> to consider. On his tiny Evanston, IL city lot, my friend K9OR has an
> AV-640 on his roof and a low 80M dipole between trees. He has a lot of fun
> with it.
>
> On Thu,9/11/2014 8:56 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
> I need to agree with Jim and others in support of the verticals.
>>
>
> Here's my take on this sort of antenna decision -- with a limited number
> of possibilities, which are likely to work the best?
>
> http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf
>
> http://k9yc.com/VerticalHeight.pdf
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Jim Brown-10

Re: Verticals

On Thu,9/11/2014 1:24 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
> In Jim's second linked PDF, he makes reference to W6GJB's (Glen)
> ground as being very poor, presumably because these measurements show
> so much more loss than "average" ground in the model.

I said the ground was very poor because it is mountainous, very rocky.

> The question is what do you have to do to get the model to hand you
> 13.5 dB differentiation with those same changes in height IN THE MODEL.

Note that the lowest field strength was with the feedpoint on the
ground, which turns the coax between there and the choke into a single
radial laying on the ground.
> The assumption is that Glen's ground is abnormally bad. Suppose Glen's
> ground is very ordinary and speaks for a majority of space challenged
> situations. What then?
>
>
> Note to self: "It's the ground losses, stupid!"

Yup.

>
> Think about how the vertical on the roof at K9OR avoids at least some
> amount of ground losses.

> In the 60's I had a trap vertical over raised radials 1 foot up from a
> copper roof on a 3 story row house. It worked GREAT. The same antenna
> later turned into a ghastly dummy load near the grass after I moved to
> the suburbs and had to put it somewhere behind the house where it
> couldn't be seen.

Yes, two great examples of "If I Can Put My HF Vertical On My Roof,
Should I?" with the answer being a definite yes, as predicted by my work.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Bill Levy

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by Bill Levy

I think some folks misconstrued my Vertical comments.
They work. They load. They radiate.
They worked for me in the circuit I wanted to complete.
Doesn't matter what the other station has.

The first time I was 5Z4PI it was 1973 and I had a Hallicrafters Safari
rig.
Beauty of that rig was built in 12/110 and 240 supplies.
One VFO, long before the dreaded RIT was invented.
Made a trap dipole. Printed 250 qsl cards.

In those days I was running a 100 watts and a dipole.
When the States opened up the guys I worked ran 4 el Hygain 204BA's and KWs.

That isn't the important thing.

Before the states were open I worked everyone else in the world with modest
transceivers and antennas with my dipole and 100 watts. The only reason we
have giant towers and amps today is because everyone else in this wealthy
country does.

But before the band is open to the states all the DX is very happy working
the rest of the world with modest gear.

The other night I heard a fellow in Pakistan tune and then call CQ on the
frequency my KX3 was tuned to.
KX3 ran 10 watts to a Log Periodic. He barely heard me, said I was in and
out of the noise.
When I powered the baby amp on he could hear me Q5.

Back to my old R5. It worked as good as the trap dipole did 15 years
earlier. Perfect for ragchewing and hamming up.

The rest of the world is very happy playing a different game then us before
the bands open up to the States!
WE are nothing but a wall of noise.

I am glad we have K3's that are bullet proof to adjacent channels and can
tune down to 100 cycles.
It's beautifully made stuff and I wouldn't leave home without one!

73 all, Bill N2WL
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

David Gilbert

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by Barry

Not to heap coals on the fire, but I also owned an early R5 and it was a
terrible performer. I had it over a year and when I finally got rid of
it and put up a simple 20m vertical in the exact same spot on the roof
and fed it against random length wires as a "ground plane", the
improvement was astounding. I don't think the basic concept was so bad,
but the implementation was horrible. I realized what I had as soon as I
opened up that little box at the base and saw what some clueless person
thought could act like a matching network.

In general, though, I think it is a mistake to characterize all
verticals a poor performers. It's all a function of efficiency
(avoiding losses) and location. Check out the ground conductivity
charts across the U.S. and you'll see huge differences, with some areas
essentially acting as terrestrial dummy loads. Nearby structures that
can absorb energy or distort patterns represent other possible culprits
for bad results with verticals. I used nothing but verticals for most
of three decades, but mine were always on a flat roof and well in the
clear of anything nearby.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 9/11/2014 5:29 AM, Barry wrote:

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by Bill Levy

> The rest of the world is very happy playing a different game then us
> before the bands open up to the States!
> WE are nothing but a wall of noise.

How true ... I can work other 100W and vertical dipole stations almost
anywhere as long as I can hear them over the neighborhood big screen
TVs, the phase noise from the Icom and Flex transceivers, and the key
clicks from the Yaesu transceivers ... and as long as the other station
can hear me over the kilowatt splatter and constant noise from all the
stations in the US, VE, PY, YV, I, DL, etc.

Yes, get the base of a vertical up away from the lossy dirt if you can
but that's no more common sense than getting the dipole as high as you
can. Big antennas/high power are there because it enables those who
must be first in the pile-up to do so in spite of the noise and bad
signals around them. We've done it to ourselves by not insisting that
all manufacturers make *clean* transmitters and everyone show restraint
in their operating habits.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2014-09-11 5:14 PM, William Levy wrote:

> I think some folks misconstrued my Vertical comments.
> They work. They load. They radiate.
> They worked for me in the circuit I wanted to complete.
> Doesn't matter what the other station has.
>
> The first time I was 5Z4PI it was 1973 and I had a Hallicrafters Safari
> rig.
> Beauty of that rig was built in 12/110 and 240 supplies.
> One VFO, long before the dreaded RIT was invented.
> Made a trap dipole. Printed 250 qsl cards.
>
> In those days I was running a 100 watts and a dipole.
> When the States opened up the guys I worked ran 4 el Hygain 204BA's and KWs.
>
> That isn't the important thing.
>
> Before the states were open I worked everyone else in the world with modest
> transceivers and antennas with my dipole and 100 watts. The only reason we
> have giant towers and amps today is because everyone else in this wealthy
> country does.
>
> But before the band is open to the states all the DX is very happy working
> the rest of the world with modest gear.
>
> The other night I heard a fellow in Pakistan tune and then call CQ on the
> frequency my KX3 was tuned to.
> KX3 ran 10 watts to a Log Periodic. He barely heard me, said I was in and
> out of the noise.
> When I powered the baby amp on he could hear me Q5.
>
> Back to my old R5. It worked as good as the trap dipole did 15 years
> earlier. Perfect for ragchewing and hamming up.
>
> The rest of the world is very happy playing a different game then us before
> the bands open up to the States!
> WE are nothing but a wall of noise.
>
> I am glad we have K3's that are bullet proof to adjacent channels and can
> tune down to 100 cycles.
> It's beautifully made stuff and I wouldn't leave home without one!
>
> 73 all, Bill N2WL
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Eric Ross

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by Bill Levy

Bill brings up a good point. For some people the results are all that
count and 100 foot tower with multi-element beams and legal limit amps
is the only way to go. Fortunately, that is only some people. I listen
to friends who have been very successful with a long wire and a 10 watt
QRP rig (in one case a crystal tuner) and who have had many successful
DX QSO's. This is exciting to me because it requires one to know every
part of the system from top to bottom in order to squeeze out the
maximum capabilities. Sure, its not in the "unlimited" class, but the
same challenges and excitement are there. The person you can hook up
their shop's metal roof and hold a conversations across the country
deserves my applause. I also applaud those who did the careful planning
and care to create a elegant "super" station. Ham radio is fun
precisely because it is so many things to so many people.

In the past I used a Hustler 5BTV and recently a simple trap dipole and
they do different things. Right now I really like my NVIS dipole
because I spend most of my time chatting with the locals and DX is not
that important to me. I am sure that I will be experimenting with
something different in the future.

Eric, WB7SDE

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014, at 02:14 PM, William Levy wrote:

> I think some folks misconstrued my Vertical comments.
> They work. They load. They radiate.
> They worked for me in the circuit I wanted to complete.
> Doesn't matter what the other station has.
>
> The first time I was 5Z4PI it was 1973 and I had a Hallicrafters Safari
> rig.
> Beauty of that rig was built in 12/110 and 240 supplies.
> One VFO, long before the dreaded RIT was invented.
> Made a trap dipole. Printed 250 qsl cards.
>
> In those days I was running a 100 watts and a dipole.
> When the States opened up the guys I worked ran 4 el Hygain 204BA's and
> KWs.
>
> That isn't the important thing.
>
> Before the states were open I worked everyone else in the world with
> modest
> transceivers and antennas with my dipole and 100 watts. The only reason
> we
> have giant towers and amps today is because everyone else in this wealthy
> country does.
>
> But before the band is open to the states all the DX is very happy
> working
> the rest of the world with modest gear.
>
> The other night I heard a fellow in Pakistan tune and then call CQ on
> the
> frequency my KX3 was tuned to.
> KX3 ran 10 watts to a Log Periodic. He barely heard me, said I was in and
> out of the noise.
> When I powered the baby amp on he could hear me Q5.
>
> Back to my old R5. It worked as good as the trap dipole did 15 years
> earlier. Perfect for ragchewing and hamming up.
>
> The rest of the world is very happy playing a different game then us
> before
> the bands open up to the States!
> WE are nothing but a wall of noise.
>
> I am glad we have K3's that are bullet proof to adjacent channels and can
> tune down to 100 cycles.
> It's beautifully made stuff and I wouldn't leave home without one!
>
> 73 all, Bill N2WL
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

--
Eric Ross
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Elecraft mailing list

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by David Gilbert

I have to agree. The R5 was terrible. In a restricted neighborhood I
planted one about 8 feet off the ground painted with camo colors. I got
out - but not well. I decided to try the GAP Titan. Night and day
difference. I eventually went to a pair of phased verticals on 20 with
elevated radials - 4 each. Killer antenna system. I made the radiators
out of steel conduit welded together. Eventually I put up a compact,
multi-band dipole (W9INN design SK RIP). I had the best of both
worlds. I could switch between vertical or horizontal radiators and go
with which ever gave the best results. I still have very much the same
setup. A 3 element beam often did not produce as good a signal as the
phased verticals.

73, Doug -- K0DXV

On 9/11/2014 3:51 PM, David Gilbert wrote:

>
> Not to heap coals on the fire, but I also owned an early R5 and it was
> a terrible performer. I had it over a year and when I finally got rid
> of it and put up a simple 20m vertical in the exact same spot on the
> roof and fed it against random length wires as a "ground plane", the
> improvement was astounding. I don't think the basic concept was so
> bad, but the implementation was horrible. I realized what I had as
> soon as I opened up that little box at the base and saw what some
> clueless person thought could act like a matching network.
>
> In general, though, I think it is a mistake to characterize all
> verticals a poor performers. It's all a function of efficiency
> (avoiding losses) and location. Check out the ground conductivity
> charts across the U.S. and you'll see huge differences, with some
> areas essentially acting as terrestrial dummy loads. Nearby
> structures that can absorb energy or distort patterns represent other
> possible culprits for bad results with verticals. I used nothing but
> verticals for most of three decades, but mine were always on a flat
> roof and well in the clear of anything nearby.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
> On 9/11/2014 5:29 AM, Barry wrote:
>> Bill Levy wrote
>>> I had no trouble at all keeping in touch with my family using an
>>> early R5
>>> vertical in 5H3 land when I was working there.
>>>
>>> Bill N2WL
>>> ex 5H3WL, 5Z4PI and VQ9WL
>> Having those callsigns gave you an extra 20 db gain. I've tried a few
>> verticals over the years and found them to be poor performers.
>>
>> Barry W2UP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Verticals-tp7592925p7592961.html
>> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Dave Heil

Re: Verticals

In reply to this post by David Gilbert

There was nothing really wrong with the R-5. I used one for almost all
of my 12 and 17m operating as 9L1US in the 1990-91 time frame. Maybe
all you needed to do would have been to mount it on a steel railing atop
a three story building on a 400 ft. hill overlooking the Atlantic. :-)

The large toroid in the matching network in the plastic box fractured
into several pieces by the time I was 5H3US. Cushcraft wanted to sell
me the entire box full of components only at a very high price and I got
rid of the rest of the thing.

I keep a Hustler 6BTV with 25 radials here in case I lose a wire antenna
or have a rotator problem.

73,

Dave K8MN

On 9/11/2014 21 51, David Gilbert wrote:

>
> Not to heap coals on the fire, but I also owned an early R5 and it was a
> terrible performer. I had it over a year and when I finally got rid of
> it and put up a simple 20m vertical in the exact same spot on the roof
> and fed it against random length wires as a "ground plane", the
> improvement was astounding. I don't think the basic concept was so bad,
> but the implementation was horrible. I realized what I had as soon as I
> opened up that little box at the base and saw what some clueless person
> thought could act like a matching network.
>
> In general, though, I think it is a mistake to characterize all
> verticals a poor performers. It's all a function of efficiency
> (avoiding losses) and location. Check out the ground conductivity
> charts across the U.S. and you'll see huge differences, with some areas
> essentially acting as terrestrial dummy loads. Nearby structures that
> can absorb energy or distort patterns represent other possible culprits
> for bad results with verticals. I used nothing but verticals for most
> of three decades, but mine were always on a flat roof and well in the
> clear of anything nearby.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E

David Gilbert

Re: Verticals

Well, the toroid in my R5 was anything but "large" (I don't even think
it was 1.5 inch diameter) and there was no way that network was
efficient. I might also point out that, generally speaking, it is often
extreme overheating (usually voltage overstress) that causes a toroid to
fracture into several pieces.

As I say, the reality is that simple vertical elements (I made one for
20m and a separate one for 15m, later replaced with a 40m vertical for
40m/15m) fed against a haywire collection of ground plane wires
stretched across the roof significantly outperformed the R5 in the exact
same location.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 9/11/2014 9:22 PM, Dave Heil wrote:

> There was nothing really wrong with the R-5. I used one for almost
> all of my 12 and 17m operating as 9L1US in the 1990-91 time frame.
> Maybe all you needed to do would have been to mount it on a steel
> railing atop a three story building on a 400 ft. hill overlooking the
> Atlantic. :-)
>
> The large toroid in the matching network in the plastic box fractured
> into several pieces by the time I was 5H3US. Cushcraft wanted to sell
> me the entire box full of components only at a very high price and I
> got rid of the rest of the thing.
>
> I keep a Hustler 6BTV with 25 radials here in case I lose a wire
> antenna or have a rotator problem.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave K8MN
>
> On 9/11/2014 21 51, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> Not to heap coals on the fire, but I also owned an early R5 and it was a
>> terrible performer. I had it over a year and when I finally got rid of
>> it and put up a simple 20m vertical in the exact same spot on the roof
>> and fed it against random length wires as a "ground plane", the
>> improvement was astounding. I don't think the basic concept was so bad,
>> but the implementation was horrible. I realized what I had as soon as I
>> opened up that little box at the base and saw what some clueless person
>> thought could act like a matching network.
>>
>> In general, though, I think it is a mistake to characterize all
>> verticals a poor performers. It's all a function of efficiency
>> (avoiding losses) and location. Check out the ground conductivity
>> charts across the U.S. and you'll see huge differences, with some areas
>> essentially acting as terrestrial dummy loads. Nearby structures that
>> can absorb energy or distort patterns represent other possible culprits
>> for bad results with verticals. I used nothing but verticals for most
>> of three decades, but mine were always on a flat roof and well in the
>> clear of anything nearby.
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave AB7E
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>