wolf radio antennas

[Master Chief]

I do not believe that the slight difference in the design of the feed point would ever be seen on the recieve end of the average Joe Cb'er's "S" meter.

If this was true, all 5/8 antennas would perform the same. More loss in the feedpoint equals less signal into the antenna.

The I-10K is a nice antenna, however it's overpriced. Plain and simple.

It's not overpriced. To build an antenna of this quality costs money. It may be expensive, but quality items usually are, for good reason.

If you want to talk about build quality, sure the I-10K is strong, but if you think the Wolf is not, you must have never seen one in person. It will take Huricane wind and lighting.

I believe you.

 

[Cheech]

I want to see some side to side test on those antennas as well so we can see the real results of the two antennas.

 

[Moleculo]

I would like to see you back up your statement with facts from a web site or a reputable antenna book, not opinion or manufacturers hype, that a hairpin match that Jay uses is better or provides less loss or that it is more efficient than a gamma. They are both matching networks/impedance transformers. Should be pretty easy right...

http://www.cebik.com/trans/matcha.html

I'll give you the short version of the article. Cebik shows the loss range of 3 types of matching systems by calculation: T (basically double gamma match), beta match, and 1/4 wave tuning stub. The beta generally had slightly less loss than the T match. Here's one quote from the article: "Clearly the (worst-case) hairpin has far lower losses than any inductor. However, the inductor-based beta match cannot be classified as extremely lossy."

Another article:
http://www.cebik.com/a10/ant40.html
Cebik doesn't answer the question directly on that one, but he does point out that the gamma match, because it is an unbalanced match distorts the radiation pattern, especially on yagi antennas. I've seen this documented in a few different sources. The hairpin match is a balanced match, so it doesn't tend to suffer from that problem.

As a whole, I don't think the subject is very well documented. I do believe, however that is well researched. I think there is a very real reason why Hy-Gain, M Squared, and Force 12 all use hairpin matching systems with their antennas.

 

[Marconi]

I believe Cebik makes sense in his writing, but the examples he sites here are comments about skewing of beam patterns and matching devices for beam antennas. How does this relate to the omni's we are discussing? Good stuff though.

The one true test of vertical omni effectiveness is probably best determined by how much of the current available really reaches the radiator where it is radiated. Which ever does that best is probably making the best signal. Something also must be said about decoupling of the feed line among the various types as well and I have no answer for this.

For me the next factor important in determining effectiveness has to do with current distribution on the radiator and how high up that will occur before it begins to dissipate. The higher the better and from a purely physical standpoint the gamma feeds higher up the radiator. Plus the two loading coils on the radiator are also noted to be helpful in forcing current higher as well, at least that is probably true of the first one above the gamma tap point.

Just my observations, from a theorists point of view.

 

[WolfRadio.com]

I would be interested in a fair and accurate comparison of the two antennas myself. I have never had, or even seen one of Jay’s 5/8 wave antenna’s, except on the Internet. But, I think he has one of mine, I am almost positive that he bought one of my antenna’s (Point 64 omni) about 3 or 4 years after I started making them. Anyway, I honestly don’t expect to see a big difference in the gain of the two antennas. It’s not that hard to make a good 5/8 wave antenna, so a significant difference would mean somebody made a mistake.

Since this is my first post on this site I would like to say Hello to all who participate. I am happy to see that people hold my work in high regard and approach the subject with great interest and an open mind. With this attitude, all are sure to come away with an even better understanding of one of the most fascinating fields in the universe: The manipulation and launching of electromagnetic energy.

Marconi….. didn’t you say you had both?? What’s the low down on the A-B comparison? I have a metering set up that allows me to see differences to a ¼ dB. It may require something that accurate to see the difference.

As far as losses in the different feed systems of a ground plane – if it’s made right it should be negligible. How and where the current flows in the element, now that’s important!!!
Eddie C.

 

[Marconi]

Hello Eddie, great to hear from you again and I welcome you to the forum.

To Eddie and King in particular. I do not have a Wolf .64 or you would have heard much buzz from me already. I do have one of Jays I-10K’s and it is a great antenna, but I have issues with it. I also have one of Eddie's no ground plane 1/2 wave verticals I think it is called the .50-11M vertical. It is basically a Ringo styled product and has a very small foot print in the air, as does the A99. It looks like a Maco V58 without ground plane.

Believe me it is very well constructed, and as I said, Eddie uses only the best parts in his kits. Problem with this one is that it is unpredictable as to tune at one height and then moving to another. If you could tune it at installed height this might be overcome. Understand what I mean here. I can tune it at 13' above earth and get what most would consider a reasonable tune (low SWR and showing good results on an analyzer). However on raising it, the tune goes away and the SWR changes, typically drops in frequency. This probably has to do with how the antenna is able to produce the counterpoise it needs and how the reactance changes with presence to the earth. With that said, I will tell you that I would never consider a 1.7 – 2.0 SWR to be bad and when I did tune at 13’ and raised it higher to about 20’+ it worked very well, but with a higher SWR. I even had local signal reports with it that surpassed my I-10K at times, which was installed at about 45’ to the base. It is just made a very strong signal in some directions or to some stations, not all stations, but some around the area. It was just my feeling that the 50-11M would not be acceptable to most CB operators if the same tuning results happened in their installation.

I would love to have one of his .64 antennas and compare it with my I-10K, but at the time, the 50-11M was what I was looking for to replace my A99 in a pine tree plus when I got around to it Eddie was not producing his verticals either.

I am a firm believer that the design features Wolf uses in his .64 are superior to all others in a theoretical since for this category of antenna. That is not to say that it will or won’t show a bigger signal in ever case over all others, it is just when everything is considered about the design it really looks good and his prices are fair.

Now there is an issue raised in this thread about feeder losses. I cannot state that one is better or worse than another, but in the use/case of the antennas we are referring to here, I doubt there is a viable difference. Over the years I have worked most of them including the old ones and basically I like them all. The one big thing I look for in an antenna is the receive nature of the element, so for me the f-glass antennas take a back seat to all the rest mentioned here.

Your last statement is where I'm coming from too. Great work Eddie, my hat's off to you.

 

[EDUK8TR]

Since this is my first post on this site I would like to say Hello to all who participate. I am happy to see that people hold my work in high regard and approach the subject with great interest and an open mind. With this attitude, all are sure to come away with an even better understanding of one of the most fascinating fields in the universe: The manipulation and launching of electromagnetic energy.

Eddie C.

Welcome to the forum Eddie. :!: Its great to see your participation here. I'm sure your contributions to the different topic areas of the forum will be very informative. :idea:

73's :!:

Wayne C.

 

[Marconi]

Wayne tell us how the typical ambient noise level around your .64 is? Do you have anything else up and working to compare, and if not what do you think regarding this function in your antenna.

Recently, due to hurricanes in this area of the Gulf Coast in Texas, I pulled all my antennas down. I even pulled the A99 in the pine tree down. I currently have up an Imax at 10' feet. I can talk to the UK on it when conditions permit, but I have trouble hearing much, even locally most all of the time. I seem to always have a constant S7> noise level. It is also my recollection that when I had other antennas up at the same time in the past and on a switch box these f-glass jobbers were always a bit noisy.

Your comments.

 

[EDUK8TR]

Wayne tell us how the typical ambient noise level around your .64 is? Do you have anything else up and working to compare, and if not what do you think regarding this function in your antenna.
Your comments.

Eddie,
I typically don't have too much noise over 2 s-units. Obviously there are times when it is more. I'm sure everybody has those days. :roll: If I was to make a comparison it would have to involve the Imax 2000, CDX-44 is currently using. Jim lives about 4 miles from me. Jim many times doesn't hear weak signals that I'm able to pull out. Of course the variables involved (ie, location, installation, rig used, the list goes on...) of such a comparison skews any real technical aspects. :? Prior to installing my .64 I had what I consider a temporary setup, which was an A-99 on a short piece of mast hoseclamped to the sewer vent on the roof of the house. I was able to make decent contacts with that setup, but Jim would do better when we compared. My .64 is installed ALOT higher in a tree with more attention to proper installation technics than the A-99 install. Jim has a .64 that is "on deck" to be installed. Once we get a break in the weather and I can get someone to help me I'll try and get his put up. Jim said he had a guy he QSO's with on AM over 50miles away log S-units from the Imax. Once he gets the .64 up, he'll see if there is any difference. I've had others ask me about TVI and to date I haven't had any complaints. I do have neighbors in close proximity, and I'm certain they would let me know of any issues. :shock: They know the antenna is there due to the activity involved in its initial installation. Again, alot of variables are involved. When it comes to my .64 I can only attest to the fact that I have been very pleased with its performance. I was glad it tuned easily due to the nature of its location. I pretuned it by setting it up about 10ft. off the ground prior to its final installation. I didn't have the height issues in tuning that you indicate that you encountered. I didn't have to make any changes to it once it was up. I have had it for several years now and its still perkin.

 

[Marconi]

Well Wayne that is a good report. I have been down that same road with several antennas that I own as well. I recall hearing many times when I had one of my Stardusters up, hey Marconi how are you able to hear that dude out there, is he in your back yard. Sometimes that even happened with guys just blocks away. I just grinned. Maybe I couldn't hit them with the big signal everybody else made, but I could sure hear good.

Regarding the tuning of the .50-11M, so as not to be misunderstood. The tuning of that antenna is most likely unique to that style antenna. I can only assume that owners of the old Ringo's probably experienced the same situation or else they ignored the SWR completely. Whatever the tune was or is on my .50-11M, it still works just fine, makes a great signal, is very quite, and is almost invisible installed on a slim push up pole.

Even though my leg is not completely healed up as yet I really feel like gettin' out there and puttin' it up about 20' and do some good talking again and leave the new shine on that Imax as it sits in the dark of the garage in storage.

 

[WolfRadio.com]

Believe me it is very well constructed, and as I said, Eddie uses only the best parts in his kits. Problem with this one is that it is unpredictable as to tune at one height and then moving to another.

I have long since improved the height sensitivity problem with the P-50. Just recently I have been working to improve the physical strength, (where the 1st section connects to the sleeve) and power handling. The new dielectric is now Teflon/epoxy and there is a one-inch diameter solid fiberglass rod that intersects the union of the sleeve and 1st section making it almost indestructible. I have a few more tests to run and I will be ready to release the improved version. Marconi, you are correct in that the changing length of the counterpoise below the antenna affects the match along with the changing height above ground. Antennas of this nature (without radials) are more susceptible to this problem.

Thanks for the warm welcome to the forum, Ed

 

[Marconi]

'Doc thanks for the PM. On 11-29 I had full knee replacement surgery. I'm doing better now and able to get off the drugs for the most part. So I started pitching in again. I ain't havin' fun yet, but I hoping that will come soon.

I wore the other one out so much I was starting to walk in circles, so I thought it was time.

 

[W5LZ]

...just don't go yelling "Mr. Dillon!", or people'll start calling you Chester...
- 'Doc

 

[Marconi]

You got the picture.

 

[Marconi]

Holdem5, I can't speak for Eddie with Wolf, but I think he was saying that the mode he mentions was for his new P50 antenna. It maybe like the .50-11M that I have, but it is not his .64 ground plane.