You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

If and when you can Sean.

GG, I don't think I can disagree with your words, but in light of this test...how do you explain my test results and the video that supports the results on the EFHW A99?

Long ago I tried removing the radials off of my 5/8 wave I-10K, and the antenna match failed completely. In that situation a feed line and a mast we attached to the antenna. My lingering question has always been: why didn't the coax and the mast work to compensate for the bad match like it does for the A99?

This simple test showed me that a 5/8 wave antenna does not work well without radials, and the mast and feed line will not mitigate for the mismatch...that works to provide the match in one case and not the other. I realize a 5/8 wave is a little different from a 1/2 wave, mostly in the radiator length, but why does the A99 seem to work with the controlling conditions you noted above and the I-10K-------No-Way-No?

I think my test shows us something else to consider and I also believe this idea about EF 1/2 waves is supported somewhat by an article published by Steve Yates AA5TB, entitled "The End Fed Half Wavelength Antenna" http://aa5tb.com/efha.html

Yates leads me to believe the idea for the element necessary for and EFHW antenna to show sufficient return currents is only 0.05 wavelength in length at the working frequency.

I've talked to Steve personally about his impression on the A99 design, and he said he is not familiar with that particular design, but if it allows the 1/2 wave radiator to radiate by it self, and without additional radials...then the designs must be similar. He added however..."...there are several EFHW designs out there in the market, but for sure efficiency is also a necessary feature needing consideration."

Link: http://aa5tb.com/efha.html

My request for someone to try and duplicate my test and video results is based solely on Nothern1, sometime in the past in another thread, reporting his similar test showed him terrible results I claim. It was raining where Norther1 was at the time, and I'm still waiting on him to report back his follow up test.

I maybe talking about something else, but I'm open to changing my mind on this.

<blockquote data-quote="Marconi" data-source="post: 564083" data-attributes="member: 903">If and when you can Sean.GG, I don&#039;t think I can disagree with your words, but in light of this test...how do you explain my test results and the video that supports the results on the EFHW A99?Long ago I tried removing the radials off of my 5/8 wave I-10K, and the antenna match failed completely. In that situation a feed line and a mast we attached to the antenna. My lingering question has always been: why didn&#039;t the coax and the mast work to compensate for the bad match like it does for the A99?This simple test showed me that a 5/8 wave antenna does not work well without radials, and the mast and feed line will not mitigate for the mismatch...that works to provide the match in one case and not the other. I realize a 5/8 wave is a little different from a 1/2 wave, mostly in the radiator length, but why does the A99 seem to work with the controlling conditions you noted above and the I-10K-------No-Way-No?I think my test shows us something else to consider and I also believe this idea about EF 1/2 waves is supported somewhat by an article published by Steve Yates AA5TB, entitled &quot;The End Fed Half Wavelength Antenna&quot; <a href="http://aa5tb.com/efha.html" target="_blank">http://aa5tb.com/efha.html</a>Yates leads me to believe the idea for the element necessary for and EFHW antenna to show sufficient return currents is only 0.05 wavelength in length at the working frequency.I&#039;ve talked to Steve personally about his impression on the A99 design, and he said he is not familiar with that particular design, but if it allows the 1/2 wave radiator to radiate by it self, and without additional radials...then the designs must be similar. He added however...&quot;...there are several EFHW designs out there in the market, but for sure efficiency is also a necessary feature needing consideration.&quot;Link: <a href="http://aa5tb.com/efha.html" target="_blank">http://aa5tb.com/efha.html</a>My request for someone to try and duplicate my test and video results is based solely on Nothern1, sometime in the past in another thread, reporting his similar test showed him terrible results I claim. It was raining where Norther1 was at the time, and I&#039;m still waiting on him to report back his follow up test.I maybe talking about something else, but I&#039;m open to changing my mind on this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marconi, post: 564083, member: 903"] If and when you can Sean. GG, I don't think I can disagree with your words, but in light of this test...how do you explain my test results and the video that supports the results on the EFHW A99? Long ago I tried removing the radials off of my 5/8 wave I-10K, and the antenna match failed completely. In that situation a feed line and a mast we attached to the antenna. My lingering question has always been: [B][I]why didn't the coax and the mast work to compensate for the bad match like it does for the A99?[/I][/B] This simple test showed me that a 5/8 wave antenna does not work well without radials, and the mast and feed line will not mitigate for the mismatch...that works to provide the match in one case and not the other. I realize a 5/8 wave is a little different from a 1/2 wave, mostly in the radiator length, but why does the A99 seem to work with the controlling conditions you noted above and the I-10K-------No-Way-No? I think my test shows us something else to consider and I also believe this idea about EF 1/2 waves is supported somewhat by an article published by Steve Yates AA5TB, entitled "The End Fed Half Wavelength Antenna" [B][I][URL]http://aa5tb.com/efha.html[/URL][/I][/B] Yates leads me to believe the idea for the element necessary for and EFHW antenna to show sufficient return currents is only 0.05 wavelength in length at the working frequency. I've talked to Steve personally about his impression on the A99 design, and he said he is not familiar with that particular design, but if it allows the 1/2 wave radiator to radiate by it self, and without additional radials...then the designs must be similar. He added however[B][I]..."...there are several EFHW designs out there in the market, but for sure efficiency is also a necessary feature needing consideration."[/I][/B] Link:[B][I] [URL]http://aa5tb.com/efha.html[/URL] [/I][/B] My request for someone to try and duplicate my test and video results is based solely on Nothern1, sometime in the past in another thread, reporting his similar test showed him terrible results I claim. It was raining where Norther1 was at the time, and I'm still waiting on him to report back his follow up test. I maybe talking about something else, but I'm open to changing my mind on this. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom