Because I was asked - Best Vertical

[hotrod]

Hotrod I agree. By chance have you used both the V4K and the A/P up high, because I'm curious about the bases of your expectations? I don't mean to pick on you, but I ask because you would typically be among a very few...that would ever suggest the A/P to show anywhere near the performance of the Vector.

I'll wait for Homer to respond, but I could learn something talking about terrain, based on the perspective you present. I just never thought about the subject this way before.

sorry marconi but i havent used either. i do have a local here with the older astroplane
and he does as good as anyone else. and depending on direction sometimes better than
me .my expectations were just that, how i expected them to perform.i really wasnt
meaning the a/p would show the same performance as the vector, my understanding
was homers a/p was as good as all other antennas EXCEPT the vector.ive heard
from locals here and seen it so when i said expected that,homers finding with the a/p
really didnt surprise me much.i enjoy homers tests his terrain is much like mine...hilly

 

[hotrod]

bump. would the moderator consder putting this in thesticky section

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

.................................. which raises another question how hard /or unstable is it raising up a 30ft. antenna vs a astroplane?does the extra effort math the extra gain,sorry for these qiestions but its 2 ive always wondered about in the terrain that u live in.as mine is very similiar

as far as the difference in raising them it's just simple weight and leverage . the taller/heavier antenna is gonna take more effort . and there's the argument for tip height ......

W8JI and a few others over at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,75921.0.html don't care for the vector and seem to believe no vertical beats a 1/4WGP as long as the top of their tips are equal . i don't believe that because when i compared my 1/4 wave with a tip height of 27 ft to my 5/8 with a tip height of 30 1/2 ft the 5/8 did much better contact wise and needle wise . the 5/8 did better when i raised it up another 9 ft , but no where near as much as it did going from the 1/4 with the 5/8 having a 3 1/2 ft tip height advantage . but my antennas were home-made so maybe i had something wrong on the 1/4 ......... i haven't tried a astroplane .

 

[Marconi]

as far as the difference in raising them it's just simple weight and leverage . the taller/heavier antenna is gonna take more effort . and there's the argument for tip height ......

W8JI and a few others over at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,75921.0.html don't care for the vector and seem to believe no vertical beats a 1/4WGP as long as the top of their tips are equal . i don't believe that because when i compared my 1/4 wave with a tip height of 27 ft to my 5/8 with a tip height of 30 1/2 ft the 5/8 did much better contact wise and needle wise . the 5/8 did better when i raised it up another 9 ft , but no where near as much as it did going from the 1/4 with the 5/8 having a 3 1/2 ft tip height advantage . but my antennas were home-made so maybe i had something wrong on the 1/4 ......... i haven't tried a astroplane .

Booty, you know that I've been claiming almost the same thing as those eham guys for some years now. That doesn't make the eham guys right, but ever wonder where I got the idea for my seeing all my antennas doing about the same...as long as the current maximums or the tips are close to the same height?

Only when I was able to model, was I able to posted something as evidence, but you guys didn't believe that either.

I think the difference in all these antenna we talk about is due primarily to the difference in height of their 1/2 wave current maximums, and the Sigma4/Vector probably provides the best structural advantage...with this height thing in mind. I still leave open the possibility that something extra might be going, in the phasing of the Sigma/Vector however, but I don't think it is as much as most think even if true. I think considering its enormous height advantage is where the Sigma/Vector really shines.

I believe you guys when you say you see differences, but on the same token you complain that I've done something wrong or didn't consider something in my testing and presentations and that could be true. On the other hand, I tend to believe you guy's results also suffer from some issues, so do you consider that could be true?

You took a chance posting your idea over there, but I think you were just looking for responses. For the most part, I thought the guys were pretty fair with you, because hams can be mean in the worst way. I suspect the responses were not exactly what you wanted to hear though.

I was just about to post to Homer's thread on the Merlin, and I doubt you will like my idea on that one either, but I ask you to just consider the ideas before you launch off into a disagreement. I hope I can make myself clear. I regret that I may not have been doing a good job of that lately.

 

[Zman]

Don't bother arguing with the guys over there on Eham and QRZ. They "know it all" about everything it seems...

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

Don't bother arguing with the guys over there on Eham and QRZ. They "know it all" about everything it seems...

there are some smart cookies over there zman . my results don't reflect what they are saying but i figure it's due to a mistake(s) on my part or the install/location of my antennas . i choose to go with what works for me , but i do want to make another 1/4WGP (with tubing rather than wire) down the road to see how it performs vs my vector style with their tips within a few inches of each other .

marconi , i thought of you and your results and S/W plots when the mean ol' porkbutts didn't seem to like my overgrown coat-hanger , but my results didn't support what they were saying . the vector style being able to have a fairly high tip with a modest feed-point height does give it a advantage as far as installing and not having to guy-wire . i've wondered if the taller/longer capture area could be a contributing factor too ...... but i don't know if that's true or possible ......

 

[hotrod]

botty you make a point about the vector being so tall. and a modest feedpoint.
the sirio v4k might be impressive not sure if i trust it here in pa. however a homebrew
would like yours likely would.
marconi i think maybe the differences were seeing might be our location no 1
antenna works best at every location im finding that out first hand.my former
location was fairly flat and a imax/a99 worked really well .now im in a hole and
2 same antennas give me completely different results.only my 2016 has gotten me outta
this hilly area well.i havent tried any others im not working currently so cb funds are
limited to none..lol. just my observations nothing scienctific

 

[Marconi]

You're right hotrod, but these ideas are hard to discussed in light of all of the possible variables, and then we all might miss the point.

We have a few threads on this forum already that took over 20,000 post to exhaust the ideas and possibilities, and they might not be through yet.

 

[nav2010]

4. End Fed Half Wave (EFHW):
Performance adequate, but without radials not as good as either the Dipole or the 1/4 wave GP. When the radials are added and the antenna meticulously tuned, performance is on a par with some 5/8 waves. Most complex matching section. More potential losses. More power limited due to matching network.

Not wearing that one. Dipole sucks.

 

[HomerBB]

I have had some great QSOs on a dipole, but I understand why you'd feel that way. When we've used antennas with greater gain a dipole can seem a step backward.
One of the EFHWs I made was fitted with a proper set of radials. After meticulously tuning it with the GP in place it proved a fine antenna.

 

[Needle Bender]

Excellent review!

It would be interesting to hear your comparison of the AP & V4K if the AP was elevated to equal tip height, and was given a full 1/4 wave vertical top instead of the cap hat, plus rotated up to 90°.

And what about your single element rectangular quad, if you were to try it vertically polarized and pointed toward those 80+ mile stations, I wonder how it would compare to the V4K.

 

[HomerBB]

Excellent review!

It would be interesting to hear your comparison of the AP & V4K if the AP was elevated to equal tip height, and was given a full 1/4 wave vertical top instead of the cap hat, plus rotated up to 90°.

Should I do this it will have to wait until Spring. I sold the AP for chicken feed, and parts of the V4k is in the 5/8 currently in the air.

And what about your single element rectangular quad, if you were to try it vertically polarized and pointed toward those 80+ mile stations, I wonder how it would compare to the V4K.

The loop is out there and needs to be restrung with the wire element. We'll see.

Of course, the loop isn't an Omni Vertical, but . . .

 

[Needle Bender]

Should I do this it will have to wait until Spring. I sold the AP for chicken feed, and parts of the V4k is in the 5/8 currently in the air.

The loop is out there and needs to be restrung with the wire element. We'll see.

Of course, the loop isn't an Omni Vertical, but . . .

OK, I thought it was you I talked to a while back while you were using it. How deep were the side nulls?
How was the impedance, near 50Ω?

I would like to know more about your experience with it.

 

[HomerBB]

I didn't have it up long until I was turning it into a 2 element Quad.

It began its life cycle as a horizontal Loop Skywire, which generated a healthy discussion.

Then it became a vertically mounted and polarized loop before transitioning into the 2el Quad.

If memory serves me, I may have mentioned that in the thread Outdoor Loop
The loop required an impedance transformer as it has a natural impedance just exceeding 100 Ohms. For that I used an e1/4ƛ 75 Ohm RG59 section of coax.

ƛ/4 x .66 = length, ƛ determined by your center frequency. In my case 35.92* /4 x .66 = 5.9268 or 6'

wavelength calculator

*27.385 MHz

 

[Needle Bender]

Nice. Homer, have you found anything which provides better performance than (or even as good as) the 2 element Quad?

I can't recall who it was then, but someone I talked with was using a full wave rectangular shaped loop, (1005/freq^MHz) as a single element bi-directional/ semi-omni, but it had a 2.75:1 ratio and was fed at the center of a long side, so in 11m terms a 13.5'H x 5'W loop for vertical, fed 1/2 way up one side, or a 13.5'W x 5'H for horizontal.
This shape is supposed to drop the feed point impedance to about 50Ω so it can be directly fed by 50Ω coax and is supposed to provide about 2dB gain over a dipole with much less noise and commensurate receive gain.

I haven't tried one yet, but may. Might be an interesting comparison to erect it where I now have the lower Gainmaster and use the higher one for comparison to see if it beats it.