11 Meter Upgrade / Addition

[McHarley94]

ALways use an RF-Choke. Location and how to instal them is important.
Some hints are here.

Often those common mode currents are responsible for degration of the performance.

Im not a to happy about putting a single beam vertical. Two beams next to each other or a Cubical Quad is the best way to go for vertical beams..as otherwise the metal mast WILL have negative influence. Not saying it wont work...but you can count on it it wont have maximum performance.

Hope it is of use...

Kind regards

Henry

TY for the reply, Henry,

I will look over your suggestions, especially the RF-Choke as I had not considered this. And yes, a cube quad antenna was suggested to me yesterday, more specifically the Maco Y Quad. Are we speaking of the same concept?

 

[Henry HPSD]

Hello,

The maco Y-quad isnt a cubical quad.
Its two yagi's one vertical and one horizontal and a wire well...to make it look interersting. That refelector wire gained hugh fame due to the avanti moonraker antennas...But..these antennas will still have issues with the metal mast.
It will work... but not as good as a single quad.

Which is logical as you think of it....
Within a fraction of an inch you carfully set your element lengths and distances out of the box acoording the manual
...and then "poef" you just set a hugh metal mast in between them and then expect it Not to have any influence..

So all antennas who have the elements "in line" with the mast ... are to be avoided.

The best way to go is either stack 2 side by side or go for a cubical quad like the ones from Cubex, or perhaps from lightning.
That is... if you want vertical and directional.
But if it were me... i would stick with horizontal and put a metal antenna on top of it.,

PS
A cubical quad antenna is an antenna where all the elements are in a square shape and are roughly a fullwave lenght in circumference.

PS2
You might get the advise to go for a delta loop and change the angle to 45 degrees... that will work ...(you can also do this to a normal yagi (rotate it 45 degrees)) it is a better solution then putting a yagi completly vertical or to use that so-called Y-Quad..but then again...it is with reduced performance... its works... but not to its capabilities.

Hope it is of use,

Kind regards, Henry

 

[McHarley94]

The maco Y-quad isnt a cubical quad.
It will work... but not as good as a single quad.

So all antennas who have the elements "in line" with the mast ... are to be avoided.

The best way to go is either stack 2 side by side or go for a cubical quad like the ones from Cubex, or perhaps from lightning.
That is... if you want vertical and directional.
But if it were me... i would stick with horizontal and put a metal antenna on top of it.,

PS
A cubical quad antenna is an antenna where all the elements are in a square shape and are roughly a fullwave lenght in circumference.

PS2
You might get the advise to go for a delta loop and change the angle to 45 degrees... that will work ...(you can also do this to a normal yagi (rotate it 45 degrees)) it is a better solution then putting a yagi completly vertical or to use that so-called Y-Quad..but then again...it is with reduced performance... its works... but not to its capabilities.

Hope it is of use,

Kind regards, Henry

All good info and food for the brain, Henry...TY

Mounting two side by side is an interesting concept. So am I to understand that you're suggesting connecting a boom perpendicular to two vertical beams, say M104C's and then attach the mast to the center of that boom? If that is correct how far apart should the two verticals be?

So let me ask you this...Henry, say I was to replace the fiberglass vertical with an aluminum one as Mike suggests, say something like a Maco V-5/8 or a V-5000 and then mount that above an M104C, similar to the configuration Cable Guy has on his tower. I assume the M104C would work well for DX, but does mounting an aluminum omni directional over an aluminum horizontal beam have any positive affect in performance of said beam in regards to coms with locals who also have directionals, whether they be vertical or horizontal , or would the opposite orientation still still be detrimental? I didn't think to ask Cable Guy how his 3 element worked for local coms. Perhaps he could chime in again if he is still about.

All of this is both intersting and educational.
Many thanks for all the input.

Mark

 

[Henry HPSD]

Im not sure i fully understand your question, this obviously is due to my language barrier, my apologize...ill give it a shot:

If you mount a 5/8 wave above your beam, You should remove the radials and place it direct on top of the yagi, in that way the beam can work as radials.

Or...

You should place it "sufficient" higer and rotate the vertical in such a way the radials of the vertical are not inline with the elements of the beam. (but in a 45 degree angle ...if you have 4 radials)
I could model that for you...if you know the distance between the beam and vertical on the same mast.

In either case, performance wont be enhanced nor degraded when compared to both antennas on a single mast of theire own

For local work...antenna tip height rules, the type of antenna comes in secondary.
(that is ...if the individual vertical antenna is working without issues...)
Often it is better to just "add" mast instead of buying a new antenna.

The main reason why you hear so many different stories about antennas like antron 99 / Imax etc is that those type of antennas ( end fed verticals without radials) can have different outcomes in various situations.

That is cause the "second" half of the antenna is missing.
all antennas need "two parts".. including 1/2 wave verticals.
Just imagine you have a mobile antenna... but you dont attach it to a car.. You know it needs ground.. .SWR will be terrible..the pattern serously skewed etc.

That is also true in a lesser degree for an end-fed vertical.
The impedance is much higher, the voltages is much higher therefor the current is low... at the end of the end-fed,
Due to that relative low current at the feedpoint, the demand of "good ground" can be much less... but it still needs some...for that current to flow.

Normally this is ground is provided by "the mast" or "the outshield" of the coax.
And that is where problems could rise... if you have "the wrong" length of coax or mast heigth.. and it starts to radiate it could drop perfomance.

But that isnt always the case, hence the different outcomes for various situations.

Hope i did answer your question ?
If not please do ask...

Kind regads,

Henry

 

[Cable Guy]

I assume the M104C would work well for DX, but does mounting an aluminum omni directional over an aluminum horizontal beam have any positive affect in performance of said beam in regards to coms with locals who also have directionals, whether they be vertical or horizontal , or would the opposite orientation still still be detrimental?

I can't say for an aluminum vertical atop a horizontal beam as all I have put up was a fiberglass vertical. I can say that no other locals here run a horizontal setup, and it shows when the dx comes to town. Usually if the others can't reach em, I can after switching to the beam.

Does the configuration help local comms? Not really. If anything, it can be detrimental. If I leave the beam parked and pointed at a hashy horizon, that hash seems to permeate into the vertical reception, completely dropping a close local into the noise. I'm just saying that the beam seems to add noise to the vertical, not reception, so I leave the beam parked in a quiet direction then switch to the vertical.

So, yes, they do play with each other somewhat, I imagine the beam like a directional ground plane kit to the vertical, if that makes sense.

I have been contemplating removing the vertical and rotating the beam vertical instead, but after reading the previous posts, don't think I will be doing that.

 

[McHarley94]

Im not sure i fully understand your question, this obviously is due to my language barrier, my apologize...ill give it a shot:

Hope i did answer your question ?
If not please do ask...

Kind regads,

Henry

No, I believe you answered my second question quite well, Henry...Thank You.

My A-99 does not have the optional ground plane kit on it, and basically all the reports I have ever read regarding adding the ground plane kit to an A-99 were not good, so at the cost of nearly US$100 for the kit I'm thinking maybe it might be wiser to just invest a bit more and replace the whole antenna with something like the Maco V 5/8 or V-5000 and see how that does before I try a beam?

That being said, my first question which I think you may have overlooked was regarding "Stacking two side by side". That questions was as follows...

Stacking two side by side is an interesting concept. So am I to understand that you're suggesting connecting a boom perpendicular to two vertical beams, say M104C's and then attach the mast to the center of that boom? If that is correct how far apart should the two verticals be? Perhaps I am just misunderstanding what you meant by Stacking two side by side?

In any regard, Thank you for all your efforts to assist me

 

[McHarley94]

I can't say for an aluminum vertical atop a horizontal beam as all I have put up was a fiberglass vertical. I can say that no other locals here run a horizontal setup, and it shows when the dx comes to town. Usually if the others can't reach em, I can after switching to the beam.

Does the configuration help local comms? Not really. If anything, it can be detrimental. If I leave the beam parked and pointed at a hashy horizon, that hash seems to permeate into the vertical reception, completely dropping a close local into the noise. I'm just saying that the beam seems to add noise to the vertical, not reception, so I leave the beam parked in a quiet direction then switch to the vertical.

So, yes, they do play with each other somewhat, I imagine the beam like a directional ground plane kit to the vertical, if that makes sense.

I have been contemplating removing the vertical and rotating the beam vertical instead, but after reading the previous posts, don't think I will be doing that.

Very good, Cable Guy. Thanks for chiming back in. Everyones comments in this thread have given me a much better understanding of what is and isn't advisable when it comes to what I am looking to accomplish ;-)

 

[Henry HPSD]

Stacking two side by side is an interesting concept. So am I to understand that you're suggesting connecting a boom perpendicular to two vertical beams, say M104C's and then attach the mast to the center of that boom?

Indeed.
The distance depends a bit,
Normally a halve wave length or just beyond that is adviced.

I took a random 3el yagi:
On its own the antenna would have 7,6dBI (which is what is to be expected)

If we stack 2 of them vertical we will find:

4 meter distance will add about 2 dBi
5 meter distance will add about 2,6 dBi
6 meter distance will add about 3,1 dBi
7 meter distance will add about 3,4 dBi
8 meter distance will add about 3,3 dBi

As soon as you go beyond 6 meters large side-lobs will become appearant.
(you dont want that).
And after 7 meters the gain advantage will drop again.

So for overal best antenna pattern..5,5..6 meters would be best, but anything beyond 4 meter is worth the hassle.

it will look like this:




I can imagine the groundkit will not help in a lot of cases, but on the other hand it could help in some others (due to that common mode currents...((CMC)).
In anyway, i do find it expensive for just a couple tubes.

Im a stubborn guy i guess, i cant escape the strange feeling when i see an antenna with a additional "add-on option".... I mean... who sells an antenna which supposely isnt optimized in first place ? I find that odd

If i were you, would first install a RF choke (4 turns RG213) 1 meter below the feedpoint. Do not tape it the mast but leave it "hanging". Tape the coax just above and below the RF Choke to the mast ..so there is some tension on the RF choke in the way you force it away from the mast, a couple inches is fine.
Also make sure you ground youre mast, and ideally connect the outer braid of the coax to that groundpoint too.

You could make your own groundplane kit by just installing a couple aluminium tubes with u bolts at the feedpoint. Short tubes will do...say 4x1 meter or so. If you do that you can install the RFchoke directly at the feedpoint. (again dont tape the RF choke to anything ...it needs to be "free").
That might help to deal with the possible CMC mentioned

The decision of buying a vertical or not is one you have to make on your own. If it truly is only local work what you want... spend money in antenne heigth...and well yes a vertical .. but first (antenna tip) height...that is priority nr 1.

I have an 18 meter mast and i just have a wire hanging next to the mast:
This one: extended double zepp
That beats any 1/2 ..5/8 wave all the time.

Im a "DXer" myself, its easy to get hooked (hint hint), and without a doubt a horizontal beam will open a new world for you.

Kind regards, Henry

 

[McHarley94]

Indeed.
The distance depends a bit,
Normally a halve wave length or just beyond that is adviced.

I took a random 3el yagi:
On its own the antenna would have 7,6dBI (which is what is to be expected)

If we stack 2 of them vertical we will find:

4 meter distance will add about 2 dBi
5 meter distance will add about 2,6 dBi
6 meter distance will add about 3,1 dBi
7 meter distance will add about 3,4 dBi
8 meter distance will add about 3,3 dBi

As soon as you go beyond 6 meters large side-lobs will become appearant.
(you dont want that).
And after 7 meters the gain advantage will drop again.

So for overal best antenna pattern..5,5..6 meters would be best, but anything beyond 4 meter is worth the hassle.

it will look like this:

View attachment 72227


I can imagine the groundkit will not help in a lot of cases, but on the other hand it could help in some others (due to that common mode currents...((CMC)).
In anyway, i do find it expensive for just a couple tubes.

Im a stubborn guy i guess, i cant escape the strange feeling when i see an antenna with a additional "add-on option".... I mean... who sells an antenna which supposely isnt optimized in first place ? I find that odd

If i were you, would first install a RF choke (4 turns RG213) 1 meter below the feedpoint. Do not tape it the mast but leave it "hanging". Tape the coax just above and below the RF Choke to the mast ..so there is some tension on the RF choke in the way you force it away from the mast, a couple inches is fine.
Also make sure you ground youre mast, and ideally connect the outer braid of the coax to that groundpoint too.

You could make your own groundplane kit by just installing a couple aluminium tubes with u bolts at the feedpoint. Short tubes will do...say 4x1 meter or so. If you do that you can install the RFchoke directly at the feedpoint. (again dont tape the RF choke to anything ...it needs to be "free").
That might help to deal with the possible CMC mentioned

The decision of buying a vertical or not is one you have to make on your own. If it truly is only local work what you want... spend money in antenne heigth...and well yes a vertical .. but first (antenna tip) height...that is priority nr 1.

I have an 18 meter mast and i just have a wire hanging next to the mast:
This one: extended double zepp
That beats any 1/2 ..5/8 wave all the time.

Im a "DXer" myself, its easy to get hooked (hint hint), and without a doubt a horizontal beam will open a new world for you.

Kind regards, Henry

Very Good, Henry. You and the others have given me a lot to think about and I can't thank you enough. I appreciate all the time you've taken ro answer my questions...

Mark

 

[BC Coyote]

all the reports I have ever read regarding adding the ground plane kit to an A-99 were not good

The groundplane kit on an A-99 does nothing to help reception or transmission, it will however help to reduce common mode currents on the coax cable.
If you run an A-99 and have issues with RF getting into the shack creating hums or squeals or other undesirable issues, then installing the groundplane kit will help eliminate those issues.

 

[Henry HPSD]

Your more then welcome Mark,
It is a lot better to be on a forum then ask these questions on FB and get 100 shouters to provide a reply without facts.

@ BC Coyote..
Well, actually ( in worse case scenarios) it could help with transmit and receive.
Just to have it said, im not a fan of the optional kit.

If the coax for example becomes part of the antenna systems it is logical it will also contribute to its gain and thus antenna pattern.
Sometimes this is a good thing... (as the halve wave end-fed needs something to radiate against)...but... it could also degrade the performance.

W8JI has some examples on his site. https://www.w8ji.com/ground_plane_verticals.htm and

End-fed Vertical and J-pole

We also know CMC's can provide additional noise, which will mean our reception will be less.

For most it seems difficult to notice CMC
But you can measure CMC's rather simple;
You could buy the MFJ853 for example, and it is not difficult to construct one for your self. There are lots of simple homebuild versions on the net. Google HF RF current meter and you will find them.

To measure degration of the antenna pattern is far more difficult.

Hope this is of use,

Kind regards, Henry

 

[McHarley94]

Your more then welcome Mark,
It is a lot better to be on a forum then ask these questions on FB and get 100 shouters to provide a reply without facts.

Hope this is of use,

Kind regards, Henry

So Henry (or anyone else with a constructive opinion for that matter), If I may can I ask your opinion on the Maco V-Quad?

Based on this article, which I believe is a bit dated, the antenna can be oriented as a V or an L which I am guessing would benefit in making either DX or Local contacts respectively. I know someone locally who actually has this antenna mounted in the L orientation and the reports they get with this antenna surpass those made from his aluminum omni directional. And just for reference the V-Quad's elevation is actually slightly lower than the omni directional.

I look forward to your input...Thanks

 

[Henry HPSD]

So Henry (or anyone else with a constructive opinion for that matter), If I may can I ask your opinion on the Maco V-Quad?

Based on this article, which I believe is a bit dated, the antenna can be oriented as a V or an L which I am guessing would benefit in making either DX or Local contacts respectively. I know someone locally who actually has this antenna mounted in the L orientation and the reports they get with this antenna surpass those made from his aluminum omni directional. And just for reference the V-Quad's elevation is actually slightly lower than the omni directional.

I look forward to your input...Thanks

I wonder what you mean with the V-QUads elevation is actually slightly lower than the omni direction...

I quickly scanned the article, it left some questions with me...
And there are some statements that are ....lets say open for debate.
It certainly is not true that this antenna does not need heigth compared to others. And i wonder how he managed to get those vertical polarised detailed information as all i see is horizontal polarisation pictures.
And in those pictures it is clear he wouldnt be able to place it vertical with the obstacles around it. ( it will hit the roof)
Perhaps he mentioned it in that article...? ill have to read it later...allready 0715 local time here hi.
But it is usefull to get an idea about the assembly !
And i dont want to blame the guy, i fully understand not all are into the theory behind it... (neither am I).

The opinion.....

Well, if i need something to work DX with small turning radius and had limited antenna heigth.. this could be "the" option.

There could be a situation where the antenna height leaves a beam pointing directly at your rooftop... where the delta loop which sits on the mast stands clear from obstacles.

If you want vertical, and want a bit of horizontal... a vertical polarised delta loop is also the way to go.

in all other situations there are most likely better options.

Kind regards,

Henry

 

[McHarley94]

I wonder what you mean with the V-QUads elevation is actually slightly lower than the omni direction...

Kind regards,

Henry

Good Day, Henry...thanks for the reply. Sorry I was not more specific in this regard. Let me try again.

A local operator I know has both the Maco V-Quad and a Sirio 827 for use on 10m - 11m.

The 827 is mounted on a 34 ft telescoping mast. The antenna itself is approximately 21 ft in length.

The V-Quad is on a tripod with a 10 ft mast and a rotor fixed to the top of a single story structure, so at the base of this antenna I'm guessing it's about 22 ft. The antenna is orientated in the "L" shaped configuration similar to how it appears in the drawing in the article I shared above (the drawing with the red arrows).

So being the V-Quad's elements are about 12 ft in length and the mounting height of the antenna is 22 ft, in this configuration I'm guessing the highest point of the antenna would be approximately 34 ft. which ia about the same height as just the mast that the Sirio is mounted on.

As I mentioned, they are getting much better reports at say 40 miles out from the V-Quad then they get from the Sirio, so optimally if the V-Quad was mounted on top of that 34 ft telescoping mast I can only assume it would perform even better yet.

I hope that clarifies things a bit better. I look forward to you thoughts

Mark

 

[McHarley94]

I wonder what you mean with the V-QUads elevation is actually slightly lower than the omni direction...

If you want vertical, and want a bit of horizontal... a vertical polarised delta loop is also the way to go.

in all other situations there are most likely better options.

Kind regards,

Henry

Hi Again Henry,

So I just did a search on the forum and read where you (and a few others) recently replied to another member regarding his questions on the V-Quad. In your reply there you pretty much answered most of my questions, so I thought I would come back here and state as such before you went though all the effort to repeat yourself. Guess I should make it a pracctice to search first...sorry about that.

That being said if you have any further input regarding theheight and "L" verses "V" configuration I attempted to clarify in my most recent post above it of course is always welcome.

With that I being said I would like to once again express my appreciation for everything you and the others have offered up thus far.

Sincerely,
Mark