any other antenna lengths beside 102 that dont need a coil ?

[Marconi]

No offense taken SK. Just rattelin' on based on my experiences and current understanding.

What I hope you get from me is my point of view and when I can I try to support my views with some argument or examples and not just a categorical claim that is at best just simple words.

We read MC's words as follows:

"A .64 wave length is the longest antenna that maintains the maximum amount of gain. This is why the 5/8 (.625) wave is such a popular design. The broadcast industry learned this back in 1934 (or so)."

How does this make sense? Why not just extend the 5/8 wave on out to .64 if it produces the maximum gain? What did the broadcast industry learn back in 1934, that the .64 wavelength produced better gain than the .625 so we should all use the .625 wavelength just to make it popular? I don't get it. Personally, I don't believe there is much distinction between the .625 and the .64, but these are MC's words.

:rknrl

 

[W5LZ]

What it amounts to is that if an antenna puts the signal where you want it, it works. If it doesn't put the signal where you want it, no matter what the antenna is, it isn't worth it.
That 'worthless' antenna can be almost anything, a 40 element quad pointed in the wrong direction, for example.
All antennas have limits in their abilities. And those limits are governed by things like where the antenna is and what's around it. It's physical properties have to be 'practical' or no matter how 'good' it is, you ain't gonna be able to have one, probably won't 'fit' where you can put it.
A '.625' versus a '.64' length antenna. A very ~tiny~ difference in radiation pattern, not to mention money, probably not worth the bother except in very specific and particular instances.
The only HF '5/8' wave antenna I've ever seen on a mobile (a moving one) was on a very large boat. There might be a dozen places in this state where you could fit one. I don't live at any of those places, and I ain't got a boat that size. Rats! Why a '.64' length antenna instead of a '.625' one? 'Cuz they sell!
- 'Doc

 

[Master Chief]

We read MC's words as follows:

"A .64 wave length is the longest antenna that maintains the maximum amount of gain. This is why the 5/8 (.625) wave is such a popular design. The broadcast industry learned this back in 1934 (or so)."

How does this make sense? Why not just extend the 5/8 wave on out to .64 if it produces the maximum gain? What did the broadcast industry learn back in 1934, that the .64 wavelength produced better gain than the .625 so we should all use the .625 wavelength just to make it popular? I don't get it. Personally, I don't believe there is much distinction between the .625 and the .64, but these are MC's words.

You are smarter than this Marconi. I'm saying the same thing you are, "I don't believe there is much distinction between .625 and .640." This is why my earlier posts say there is only a .015 difference and probably not even detectable. I also answered the "why not extend" question earlier. To answer again, depending on the frequency you set the antenna at, any frequency higher, your antenna would exceed the .64 length.

 

[Master Chief]

I should have directed my remarks to MC since he raised the issue about the 5/8 wave antenna being the premier industry standard for the broadcast radio industry.

Its clear that Marconi has a big ol' hard on for me. Hey Marconi, I don't swing that way! As far as me saying it is the "premier industry standard", you better go back and read it again. Try to get it right this time.

Maybe MC or someone else can provide some evidence that the broadcast industry actually does use the 5/8 wavelength idea as the preferred standard as opposed to other wavelengths like the 1/4 wave or 1/2 wave element.

Here you go again. Who said it was the "preferred standard"? Some stations use phased arrays, top loaded arrays, 1/2 wave, 5/8 wave. It depends what that particular station's needs are.

I feel I responded with a different point of view that was pretty simple since we all probably realize that the Earth's surface and location has many significant and different affects on the performance of antennas. I went to the trouble of suggesting why and I also provide a couple of references to support my thoughts on the subject and I tried to keep it simple. MC likely will not agree with me, but he may understand what this point of view is about.

You gave your opinion based on your research, nothing more. I don't disagree with your statements on ground and its affect on the signal.

SK, would we be better informed if I simply claimed to everyone that the broadcast radio industry has not benefited from the use of the 5/8 wavelength antenna since 1924 and that 1/4 wave and maybe even 1/2 wave elements still prevail?

:lol The broadcast industry has benefited from the use of the 5/8 radiator. Saying otherwise is foolish. I wouldn't doubt if the 1/2 wave element (most efficient radiator by the way) prevails however. This does not make what I've said incorrect.

Or, maybe I should have just posted some smiley faces and said MC is full of it. Maybe that would have better informed us all.

It would have informed us that you are an idiot, nothing more. Try not to stoop to this level in the future and keep to the subject at hand; people will respect you for it.

 

[Marconi]

We read MC's words as follows:

"A .64 wave length is the longest antenna that maintains the maximum amount of gain. This is why the 5/8 (.625) wave is such a popular design. The broadcast industry learned this back in 1934 (or so)."

How does this make sense? Why not just extend the 5/8 wave on out to .64 if it produces the maximum gain? What did the broadcast industry learn back in 1934, that the .64 wavelength produced better gain than the .625 so we should all use the .625 wavelength just to make it popular? I don't get it. Personally, I don't believe there is much distinction between the .625 and the .64, but these are MC's words.

You are smarter than this Marconi. I'm saying the same thing you are, "I don't believe there is much distinction between .625 and .640." This is why my earlier posts say there is only a .015 difference and probably not even detectable. I also answered the "why not extend" question earlier. To answer again, depending on the frequency you set the antenna at, any frequency higher, your antenna would exceed the .64 length.

MC, my point about the old study of the 5/8 wavelength radiator was not really about you. If you did make additional statements as you explain above, then maybe we do have something to agree on there.

I could not find your answer about "why not extend," but that too was not my point. I wasn't intending to arguing the issues between the .625 and the .64 wavelength debate. I was trying to provoke 007 to consider thinking about the issue I had raised.

Maybe I did miss your further explaination here as you were carrying on with 007. I think 007 also mistakenly takes some implications from discussions about that same report you suggested to us.

My purpose again was to call attention to the limitations placed on the study and that maybe we should not take the position that the 5/8 wave antenna over real earth will provide the same results. My source was a study suggesting that when we subject the 5/8 wave element to any soil condition other than being over Perfect Earth with infinite range and conductivity, then the gain will be severly diminished from the theoritical results derived by the study.

As I noted in my remarks I'm not the only one that suggests the question that the effectiveness of the 5/8 wave in the study is misleading if the limitations are ignored. I feel this way because I more often than not find diminished results here at my location when I compare my I-10K, Wolf .64, or the Imax to other various antennas.

When you make your claims about the virtues of the 5/8 wave and in particular the I-10K, to me you seem emphatic and categorical in its superiority and maybe even without exception. I was sold on the same idea some years ago, but it just did not pan out that way for me when I put it to the test.

So you see Master Chief, this is really not about you, you're just the one that suggested the study supports your claim in some way. I did make some silly rethorical remarks to 007, but again I was dealing with his reluctance to consider my point of view and that was not my argument to the issue, if I'm allowed to disagree without getting personal.

 

[CDX-007]

Hmm, well, a couple of things immediately come to mind...

You're right Switch Kit, simplicity is beauty! - and the proof is in the pudding.

When I was at the ripe old age of 15, back in 1975, I was known as the crazy High School kid who dropped his 5 section roof mounted mast up to 6-7 times a night just to test yet another omni on the market in the attempt to have the best of the best.
- Hey what can I say, I was in my mid teens and everything was a competition.

I chose the Hy-Gain Penetrator [THE antenna used by name on Jay-in-the-Mojave's site in direct comparison to the I-10K, and for a REASON!] over every other antenna I tried, and I tried them all, because all I knew was - It was better.
Better 6 miles away to my high School buddy Donn, better 35 miles away to Blue eyes on her MoonRaker4, and better 80 miles away to The Phantom on his stacked vertical 5 element Long John beams.

All my testing was done with the mounting hub at 1.5 wavelengths above ground so I doubt ground effect played as large a part in my testing as it would if the antennas in question were considerably lower, yet I still saw a marked improvement from most everything else to the Penetrator when I lived in Carmichael and could only have a 2 section mast from the ground up alongside the rain gutter, while stuck in a rental home for a year.

As far as the broadcast industry, bad idea to use it as a comparison as they want & do very different things with their arrays than we do.
They are after directivity, durability, compactness and simplicity of feed system, and that's why you see 1/4 & 1/2 wave arrays. They aren't as concerned about gain, they want angle and directivity.
Now, take KEZW 1430AM in Colorado, they used to have a single 5/8 for daytime omni and a switched 5 x 3/8 array for night time directivity. But for a simple, effective and great performing single omnidirectional low band antenna they chose a 5/8 ...until they had continuing problems with the 3/8 to 5/8 switching relay system and decided to scale back to a full time 3/8.

Now, what do you suppose is the recommended antenna with 3 meter FM kits for the home pirate FM radio station?
- A 5/8 omni. How about that.

Basically, anyone with experience in comparing multiple omni antenna designs, using the same coax, radio, mast location & height will have to give it up for the trusty (crusty?) old metal 5/8 omni.

Best damn all around antenna on my roof!

...but yes, it does need a coil, or other impedance matching system, and a set of 1/4 wave radials.

Oh, by the way, The Penetrator is a .64, not a .625
- 22' 6" high, plus 10" top hat radials which add to the resonant length, minus 2" of bottom hub & connector, and was tuned for center of the 40 channel band, 27.185mHz.

 

[W5LZ]

Any distinction between a '.625' and a '.64' wave length antenna at HF isn't going to be too significant. Just too many other variables between any two installations, 'styles' of construction, 'doo-dads' (cap-hats), etc, etc. If that comparison is done under very controlled circumstances (antenna testing range), the differences in radiation pattern and 'gain' isn't significant. Meaning a difference that's measurable without some pretty sophisticated equipment. When equipment like that is needed to tell any difference, that 'difference' just ain't gonna make any difference at all. Fractions of a dB don't really count unless there are a lot of them.
Taking the diameter of the radiator into consideration, 'normalizing' the differences in resulting length, amount to something like 6 - 7 inches at 27 Mhz. If you think that 6-7" will make even 1 dB difference in gain, you're mistaken, it won't. Arguing about antenna color makes about as much sense, in my opinion. (Pink! Okay, maybe fuscia how ever you spell it.)
Will one work 'better' than another in particular circumstances? Sure. Just depends on the circumstances (what/where and when). Ain't nothing -exact- with RF radiation in all circumstances...sort of.
Like one antenna more than another? Good for you, keep and use it! Like the 'other' one better? Good for you too, keep and use that one! If mine works out to '.6258391' of a wave length, good for me! Woopeeee...
- 'Doc

 

[Marconi]

007, I thought I was overboard about comparing antennas, but you take the cake in your claim to have:

”dropped his 5 section roof mounted mast up to 6-7 times a night just to test yet another omni on the market in the attempt to have the best of the best.”

Boy you were not only full of youthful energy back then, but you also had to have a real good working knowledge of the subject and speed just to do the assembly and erection that you claim. When I was 15 all I was interested in was girls and cars. I bet you were a blast at parties.

Did you say that was back in 1975? Why don't you tell us which antennas were you building, tuning, dragging up on your roof, raising up to over 50' feet, 6-7 times in the dark of a night and comparing back then? In 1975 we were doing good just to be able to play with mobiles and talk down here in Texas.

As usual 'Doc makes a lot of good sense in his last remarks. This discussion probably boils down in a nutshell to the fact that you guys are telling us that you see significant differences when comparing your 5/8 wave or .64 wave antennas to the lesser types, while on-the-other-hand I claim I just don’t see that much difference in most cases even when comparing with my homemade 1/4 wavelength Starduster to them big boys.

BTW, you never answered my question to your earlier in this thread, so I repeat:

007, I think you refer to your kit as improving bandwidth for the RS .64. What does theory tell us happens when we are able to expand bandwidth an appreciable amount?

I don't suggest that increased bandwidth isn't important in some situations, but isn't improvement in bandwidth and match always to some extent a compromise against gain.

One of the antennas I have that produces a better signal on many occasions over all of my other antennas that I compared is the Wolf Radio .50_11M. This is an end fed no-ground plane 1/2 wave that looks very much like the old Ringo. At true resonance the match is not very close to 50 ohms. Depending on the height, it is more like 30-35 ohms resistive showing a working 1.7 SWR. When I first got this one and tried it, I was disppointed in the match, but put it up against my I-10K which was working great. Boy! was I surpised when I saw more than half my buddies stations showing more signal on the 1/2 wave. It wasn't much, but it was noticable. I posted a bit about this experience back in 2003, but it went un-noticed for the most part as I recall. That is when I started comparing my antennas.

 

[bob85]

007 as a kid i had roof ladders permanently on the roof of the house so i could sneak up and down in the night, it was all about whooping your friends no doubt some of us were determined to have the best signal in our area and did not mind sneaking around losing valuable sleeep on school days to make it so, they called me mr rigcheck because i was constantly messing tweaking and testing antennas,

best 5/8 i had back then was the sigma2 or the wilson v1 vertical,
best antenna was a hard choice between the sigma4 and the ham international bigmac ( 32ft 5/8 over 1/4 colinear claimed to be a 7/8 ) they both had good and bad points,
the 5/8 groundplane never was and still aint the best performer for me be it mounted on a 30ft pole on the chimney , on a 36ft pole in an open field, on a 73ft pole in the same field or mounted anywhere from 12ft to 36ft at my present location,
when mounted at ground level theres no contest between the sigma style and any other vertical i have tested including a jpole at my location,

today it is a hard choice between the ham bigmac or the 7/8 sigma hybrid, i wish i still had the bigmac to help me decide,

not one of them ever altered my audio, no crisp highs thundering lows louder softer more punch nothing,
when tuned for 1:1 vswr they all sound the same, sometimes with a different signal strength but not always,

maybe i just have different ground conditions huh.

 

[CDX-007]

007, I thought I was overboard about comparing antennas, but you take the cake in your claim to have:

”dropped his 5 section roof mounted mast up to 6-7 times a night just to test yet another omni on the market in the attempt to have the best of the best.”

Boy you were not only full of youthful energy back then, but you also had to have a real good working knowledge of the subject and speed just to do the assembly and erection that you claim. When I was 15 all I was interested in was girls and cars. I bet you were a blast at parties.

Did you say that was back in 1975? Why don't you tell us which antennas were you building, tuning, dragging up on your roof, raising up to over 50' feet, 6-7 times in the dark of a night and comparing back then? In 1975 we were doing good just to be able to play with mobiles and talk down here in Texas.

As usual 'Doc makes a lot of good sense in his last remarks. This discussion probably boils down in a nutshell to the fact that you guys are telling us that you see significant differences when comparing your 5/8 wave or .64 wave antennas to the lesser types, while on-the-other-hand I claim I just don’t see that much difference in most cases even when comparing with my homemade 1/4 wavelength Starduster to them big boys.

BTW, you never answered my question to your earlier in this thread, so I repeat:

007, I think you refer to your kit as improving bandwidth for the RS .64. What does theory tell us happens when we are able to expand bandwidth an appreciable amount?

I don't suggest that increased bandwidth isn't important in some situations, but isn't improvement in bandwidth and match always to some extent a compromise against gain.

One of the antennas I have that produces a better signal on many occasions over all of my other antennas that I compared is the Wolf Radio .50_11M. This is an end fed no-ground plane 1/2 wave that looks very much like the old Ringo. At true resonance the match is not very close to 50 ohms. Depending on the height, it is more like 30-35 ohms resistive showing a working 1.7 SWR. When I first got this one and tried it, I was disppointed in the match, but put it up against my I-10K which was working great. Boy! was I surpised when I saw more than half my buddies stations showing more signal on the 1/2 wave. It wasn't much, but it was noticable. I posted a bit about this experience back in 2003, but it went un-noticed for the most part as I recall. That is when I started comparing my antennas.

Naw, I was on the Football team and had too many chicks chasing me as it was. The radio proved to be a great get away from all that.
Dang chics, all they want is sex sex sex...

Odd, as I have the Ringo, same basic design I bet, and it isn't less than 1.5 s-units below the Penetrator. I'm starting to wonder about your I-10K, Marconi, almost seems like anything out there can keep up with, or beat it...???
You think maybe you've found the one mounting height where it doesn't work well?
- I've been toying with the idea of getting one, and you're makng me even more interested in trying one out against my Penetrator.

My neighbor Ely, WR President I believe, just swapped out his MACO V5/8 for an I-10K and he described it as "Night and day, like I got a new radio, like switching from a stick to a beam".

To the best of my memory I tried the Penetrator of course, A99, Astroplane, BigStick, Super BigStick, IMAX 2K, Wilson Alpha V5/8, Sigma5/8, Ringo, Taylor GLR4, Starduster, Super BigStick with Wilson Alpha V5/8 radials (did nothing, but looked really cool!) R/S .64, A/S Super Magnum, Magnum44, a Super Maxim, a Jam Ram or Ram Rod or both, and the Hy-Gain CLR2.
I'm trying to remember if I forgot any.

Regarding the bandwidth of the R/S .64 to Penetrator conversion, It's the same, I just rechecked my Penetrator and I'm seeing right at 2mHz bandwidth at 2:1 swr. 26.950-28.950mHz, dead on 2:1, ZERO deflection even with calibrate wide open on 27.950mHz / 100watts / Drake WH7 meter.

.625, .64, .6687125, it's all just jelly in the jar until one enables you to pull 7 of 10 words out of the noise where the other only allows 4-5. Sometimes a 'hair' of difference is all the difference needed, and therefore, all the difference in the world. But I was simply throwing that factoid out there as I found my original Hy-Gain paperwork and did the calcs. I was actually (pleasantly) surprised to find it wasn't a .625.

Sounds like I have a 'Brother-in-ladders' out there...
I always had one leaned and guyed up against the bottom 10' section, even though it looked like heck.

I've not had an opportunity to try one of the 3/4 or 7/8 wave antennas but I just may have to. I really wanted to try out the Wolf .64 but he seemed to disappear and his antenna with him... ...???

I liked his idea of a switchable phasing for local or DX work.

What's the best of the 7/8 wavers? I fear the construction on some I've seen allows the top 2 sections to disappear in a reasonably healthy wind, I definitely don't want one of those!
I think that might have been the Sigma4, and I didn't bother to try that one because I had seen so many in the area going 'topless' in public

- Maybe I'll get my name on the waiting list for an I-10K so I'll have one to play with by next Spring.

73.

 

[Master Chief]

There is no waiting list for the I-10K. They are shipping immediately.

 

[bob85]

you should fear the construction of the 7/8waves they are VERY weak, i have 3 or 4 sirio vector 4000's 31-32ft all broke in the wind more than once and one original avanti 27.5ft, the avanti is much stronger but not as good a performer in my tets and others,
my i10k does work well here, it easily beats my imax mounted on same pole same coax and its one of the strongest antennas out there,
by all means get a 7/8 and play with it as an experiment but dont even think about using one as a permanent base antenna unless you never get bad weather or winds.

 

[CDX-007]

There is no waiting list for the I-10K. They are shipping immediately.

Whoa! - Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles!! What changed?

I know there were several locals out here who just couldn't get an approximate tentative time projection as to when one could maybe be possibly available so a number of them gave up and sold out for the MACO, IMAX or A.099.
- So what's your best inspired guesstimate of the current price of the I-10K?

And bob85, how did those 7/8 perform in comparison to your I-10K, when they were still intact that is :roll:

 

[bob85]

the 7/8 is imho the best performer at this location but i get sick of it breaking,
the weather aint bothered the i10k one bit since i put it up,
i would have had to repaire a stock vector 4000 a half dozen times over the same period.

 

[CDX-007]

Sounds like you need to order some 6061-T6 and fix dat bits for good!

How much performance difference would you surmise between the I-10K & the 7/8?