wolf radio antennas

[JAFO]

If you like your antenna, just enjoy using it.
Just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents...LOL
Results i got from switching from A-99 to Imax 2000
was about a 1/4 S-unit difference here.
My friend replaced a A-99 with a Imax on his end and
i noticed the same 1/4 S-unit difference.
I've lost track on what this thread is even about...LOL

- Makes me wonder about quality control or how the latest product would compare to earlier runs.

When I did my test between the two I had no bias nor knowledge of what to expect in the real world as I had been out of radio for quite a number of years and had never tried an IMAX.

I didn't expect it to be all that different in performance from the other fiberglass antenna (A-99) and was reminded of earlier years (the A-99 / Penetrator comparison) when I received that "2 S-unit difference" report.

In considering the thoeretical difference between a 1/2 and ,64, there should only be a small difference in gain - about 1-2dB NEAR FIELD, the bigger difference should be seen at a distance as Eddie's radiation angle and coverage distance graphs show:
http://www.wolfradio.com/pics/3_lobcl_b.jpg
http://www.wolfradio.com/pics/3Lnew_b.jpg

I'm curious to know what reports there are from anyone who has added the radial kit to the A-99, did it increase performance? It didn't for me, except for helping to remove unwanted RF from the shack, only about 1/3 of it, that is.

Also, Marconi asks a good question, Eddie, I expect you're using a relay to shunt the coil and will require either a control lead against the coax ground, or have a DC blocking network at each end, using just the coax...?? (that would be cool)

73

 

[JAFO]

Jody, I'd like to add to that, during the first year I owned my Penetrator I was told the Avanti Sigma 5/8 was a better antenna so I bought one and tried it against the Penetrator.

I saw a tenth of a needle width difference between them on receive and everyone else saw the same next-to-nothing difference on my transmitted signal.

It was a tough decision but I ended up keeping the Penetrator because I thought the Sigma's 'wire'-ended radials seemed cheaper than the Penetrator's full-tubular radial design, and I preferred the Penetrator's radial mounting over the easily cracked aluminum radial hub of the Sigma 5/8.

Isn't Jay's Interceptor match simply an unfolded Sigma 5/8 or Maco V-5/8 'T' (ring) match?

73

 

[WolfRadio.com]

Eddie with Wolf radio, will the switchable antenna you speak about require an electrical switch or will there be two feed lines feeding the antenna?

Also, Marconi asks a good question, Eddie, I expect you're using a relay to shunt the coil and will require either a control lead against the coax ground, or have a DC blocking network at each end, using just the coax...?? (that would be cool)

I was thinking about using a relay, mounted inside the tubing, as close to the insulator as possible, if not inside the insulator. Then using a combination of chokes to decouple the control wire from the rf, and at the bottom where it exits the sleeve. I think the hardest part will be getting it to handle a decent amount of power without arcing itself to death.
Eddie raises a good point about the dual feed lines. Around that same time a close friend of mine did just that. When I told him what I was doing he made the split feed version for himself. He was using a tuned circuit inside the shack to vary the phase in one element. His approach gave him the ability to adjust his angle of radiation, “dial it in” on the desired signal. So both ways are possible. I suppose his approach is better but it would cost more to produce.

The Max loss is only 2% from the best matching network to the worst.

I would tend to agree with the above statement. As far as I am concerned if there is any difference, its marginal.

Isn't Jay's Interceptor match simply an unfolded Sigma 5/8 or Maco V-5/8 'T' (ring) match?

Not a Sigma 5/8. But yes a V5/8. I was just thinking the same thing earlier. The primary difference is that J’s gives the ability to independently adjust the length of the coil on either side of the tap. Where the Maco just has a moveable tap. But it’s the same schematic. I think this matching system thing is exaggerated.

Wolf

 

[JAFO]

Hi Eddie, (Wolf)

Hey could you fill me in on the difference of the function of the smaller matching ring on the Maco vs the larger ring on the Avanti Sigma 5/8, and what Avanti is doing differently utilizing the inner coil?

What would be required for lengthening the Maco from the stock 20' up to the true 5/8 length of 22'-23' to increase the performance? (as I diid see ~about an S-unit improvement over the Maco after I cleaned and remounted the Penetrator, and would expect that level of improvement)

When is a good time to call?

Thanks & 73

 

[Marconi]

Well Eddie I guess I'll just have to ask. Will this phase switcher antenna be looking sort of like the old Sigma IV or the Larry antenna of the past? That was really a sweet matching system there. I think I heard Freecell once described it as, "an almost perfect progression in the transition of RF from the end of the coax right out to the tip of the shorting bar near the end of the gamma." or some words to that affect. Meaning very effective I believe. Sorry if I botched that one up FC, but that is what I remember.

I have an old 3 radial Sigma and it is a very strong antenna locally. I recall it seemed to make pretty good skip also, but I'm not sure about that. The only problem I have with it is I find it impossible to keep the little eye connector thing soldered to the tip of the SO-239 at the feed point and I got tired of taking it up and down to fix, plus it is very long.

Eddie, just an idea of what will it look like if you can?

 

[JAFO]

Eddie :?:

 

[Master Chief]

.....I was told the Avanti Sigma 5/8 was a better antenna so I bought one and tried it against the Penetrator.

(snip)

It was a tough decision but I ended up keeping the Penetrator because I thought the Sigma's 'wire'-ended radials seemed cheaper than the Penetrator's full-tubular radial design, and I preferred the Penetrator's radial mounting over the easily cracked aluminum radial hub of the Sigma 5/8.

Isn't Jay's Interceptor match simply an unfolded Sigma 5/8 or Maco V-5/8 'T' (ring) match?

The Avanti Sigma 5/8 IS a better antenna than the Penetrator. As pointed out, the differences are slight, but they do exist.

The stainless steel wires were added to the ends of the radials for one reason; it was less expensive and easy to do. Electrically, the end of the radials see high voltage and the use of the stainless steel stinger does not affect what the vertical signal sees. In other words, it was less expensive and worked just as good.

I never had any problems with cracked hubs. I know people do, but I haven't seen it. There were two versions of the Penetrator; one used two bolts to hold the radials and the other used one bolt. The two bolt version is prefered.

The loop on the Avanti is nothing like the loop on the Maco. On the avanti, it makes up for the missing 1/8 wave required to take the antenna to the next "1/4 wave increment" to allow the antenna to be fed with a 50 ohm feedline. It is horizontal in order to keep it from skewing the vertical radiation of the antenna. Later version of the Sigma 5/8 (after the Antenna Specialist buy-out) used a small coil inside the tube in order to make the antenna DC grounded. Earlier version of the Sigma were NOT DC grounded. This coil required Antenna Specialist to slightly lengthen the antenna to compensate for the electrical changes to the original design.

The Avanti uses an ELEVATED feed system. The Penetrator (and the MACO) do not. During early discussions with Jay, as the Mastadon 5000 was being developed (the I-10K was not even on the drawing board yet), I pointed out that the Avanti used an elevated feed and that the loop was placed in the horizontal plane for the reason I gave above. The Mastadon was a direct copy of the Penetrator except for an upgraded feedpoint (still with the vertical hairpin). As the tests and the years progressed, Jay came to the conclusion that the "Penetrator" design still had flaws. The I-10K was born and it uses a reconfigured loop (in the horizontal plane) and an elevated feed. The new matching network IS adjustable on both sides of the "tap" as Eddie pointed out.

Jay took the best of the best (Sigma and Penetrator) and came up with the I-10K (undisputed world champion antenna).

I could go into detail about the flaws of the Maco antenna. Yet, it is still a good antenna and I recommend it for those on a buget. My exact words are, "If you can't afford an I-10K, at least get a Maco V58!" Stay away from the iMax and the A99! From a leter post, you speak about PHYSICALLY lengthing the Maco in order to achive a true 5/8. You can't look at it that way! You have to look at an antenna ELECTRICALLY. I rebuilt/upgraded a couple of Maco V58 where the owners stated that it was IMPOSSIBLE to get a flat match on them. I was able to and they were floored! The difference was, I tuned both the ring tap AN the physical length pf the antenna to get the desired results. I used a Bird 4030 in a Bird 43 to show the "before" and "after". Using the same mounting (tower), feedline, and antenna, they saw an increase (slight) in transmit and receive signal strength. Still, the mounting of the vertical element to the base section of the Maco is still a design flaw and contributes to it's inability to handle big power.

I have yet to see a Wolf Radio antenna. I'm thinking of buying a .64 just so I can speak intelligently about it. I certainly can see the merits of the concept!

I still have the original e-mails from the discussions Jay and I had back in the late 90's. I shipped him a Sigma 5/8 from Colorado so he could do tests agains the Mastadon. I also have the e-mails from one of Avanti's engineers where he educated me on their use of the stainless steel stingers and the fact that the Sigma IV is a variation of the standard J-Pole (It was nice to see Eddie point that out with no coaxing from anyone! I bet some of you shivered when he said that! )

Over the years, I have collected and rebuilt MANY Avanti antennas! I especially like the Sigma 5/8 an have copies of both the old and newer versions. I also have a number of original Sigma IVs in the garage (no, they are not for sale).

I hope I was able to answer a few of your questions. If you have more questions, let me know.

Eddie, If you want an unbiased test bed for the dual angle prototype, let me know. I love the idea! It's so simple, why haven't people done it in the past? Maybe its he $$$! Ham radio dudes used stacked arrays (horizontal yagis) and are able to switch which antenna is being used (at different heights) in order to change their takeoff angles. A local ham gave me (as a young teenager) a tour of his station and taught me that by changing the height of his single yagi (motorized crank-up tower), he could hear the East Coast or Europe. It was a live demo and like a picture, said a thousand words! I have a 40' tower trailer and make runs out to the high desert to test antennas.

 

[CDX-007]

Nice post Master Chief!

Not to argue but I was told the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance have to cancel or balance and the coil presents the correct inductive reactance to balance the capacitance of the ring to effect the correct phasing for the lower 5/8 t/o angle.

I also understood the radiation angle would be higher than that of a 5/8, more like a simple 3/4 wave without the coil.

I wonder what the difference is between the t/o angle of the Penetrator versus the Sigma5/8?

I have heard the Sigma5/8 is a little better for DX so maybe it's a little higher t/o angle which might make the Penetrator the slightly better local antenna(?).

I remember thinking the stainless rods at the end of the radials on the Sigma5/8 were probably better for less wind loading but worse for strength, 6 >< 1/2 doz. -to each his own.

 

[WolfRadio.com]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!

Test results from the comparison of a Maco V5/8 to Wolf P64.
Residential installation.

During the afternoon on 1/28/06 a fellow radio enthusiast, located 8 miles away from the shop - changed antennas. The test was conducted on 27.365mHz with a un-modulated carrier of 12 watts. Four basic readings were taken: V5/8 hi, V5/8 low, P-64 low, P-64 hi. The high point is 40 ft to the base, and low 18ft. Residential installation.

I was receiving with a vintage Golden Eagle MKIII (tube type) receiver, hooked to an A-99 about 20 feet high. I also had a switch-able attenuator inline. We talked by phone only -- no transmit operations occurred at my end for the duration of the test. Noise level was low and no other traffic on channel, or adjacent, etc.

Close monitoring of the signal a few hours leading up to the test showed a consistent reading of 8 S-units on the MKIII. I confirmed the final reading - exactly 8 S-units just before the change. The change was made in a short time (about 10-15 min.) and the signal was read immediately in the low position without any adjustment to match. The signal showed a clear increase of 1/2 S-unit over the V5/8 in the low position! The match was close to perfect without any adjustments so the antenna was raised into final position (40ft to base). The final signal at height was 8.5 S-units and remained consistent! I then rigorously tested the calibration of the S meter with my signal generator and found it equal to 4 dB per S-unit in that exact part of the scale.

IN THIS TEST- in both the high and low positions - the P 64 clearly showed a 2 dB increase in signal in my receiver 8 miles away.

*(With right hand raised)* “I hereby certify that the results of this test are true and accurate to the best of my technical ability and without bias.” Wolf

Having said that, I think further testing should be done. Hopefully by some others out in the field before we will know for sure, but the results are interesting.

Now where’s Jay…….… and that I-10K………….Wolf…….>>>>>>

 

[CDX-007]

Next, P64 vs Dual-Polarity omni...!!

Nice test.

Question, is the elevation of either station considerably higher than the other?

- And you mentioned you tried the high, low, low, high positions, so was the S-8 reading on the Maco when it was at 40', and if so, what was it at 18' before it was removed?

It sure seems bizarre that the additional 22' didn't elevate the reading.Seems like an S-8.5 at 18' should increase to at least an S-9 or more when raised to 40' unless there's already a serious height advantage at one or both locations. Weird.

Nice test though.

73,
Scott (JAFO)

 

[WolfRadio.com]

Nice test.
Question, is the elevation of either station considerably higher than the other?
And you mentioned you tried the high, low, low, high positions, so was the S-8 reading on the Maco when it was at 40', and if so, what was it at 18' before it was removed?

For brevity I did not mention the signal at the low position. The difference from low to high position was ½ s-unit (2dB’s). The 8 s-unit (Maco) signal was at the high position. As already mentioned the receiving antenna was 20 feet above ground. The 2 dB increase in gain was noted at both the high and low positions.
I admit the 2dB increase from low 18ft, to high position 40ft, seems a bit small, but it is what it is. I think if we were going from 10ft to 40ft it probably would have been a bit higher. This guy has a high peaked roof and the install was close to the peak, that's why the low point is higher than normal.

Wolf

 

[CDX-007]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!

Test results from the comparison of a Maco V5/8 to Wolf P64.
Residential installation.

During the afternoon on 1/28/06 a fellow radio enthusiast, located 8 miles away from the shop - changed antennas. The test was conducted on 27.365mHz with a un-modulated carrier of 12 watts. Four basic readings were taken: V5/8 hi, V5/8 low, P-64 low, P-64 hi. The high point is 40 ft to the base, and low 18ft. Residential installation.

I was receiving with a vintage Golden Eagle MKIII (tube type) receiver, hooked to an A-99 about 20 feet high. I also had a switch-able attenuator inline. We talked by phone only -- no transmit operations occurred at my end for the duration of the test. Noise level was low and no other traffic on channel, or adjacent, etc.

Close monitoring of the signal a few hours leading up to the test showed a consistent reading of 8 S-units on the MKIII. I confirmed the final reading - exactly 8 S-units just before the change. The change was made in a short time (about 10-15 min.) and the signal was read immediately in the low position without any adjustment to match. The signal showed a clear increase of 1/2 S-unit over the V5/8 in the low position! The match was close to perfect without any adjustments so the antenna was raised into final position (40ft to base). The final signal at height was 8.5 S-units and remained consistent! I then rigorously tested the calibration of the S meter with my signal generator and found it equal to 4 dB per S-unit in that exact part of the scale.

IN THIS TEST- in both the high and low positions - the P 64 clearly showed a 2 dB increase in signal in my receiver 8 miles away.

*(With right hand raised)* “I hereby certify that the results of this test are true and accurate to the best of my technical ability and without bias.” Wolf

Having said that, I think further testing should be done. Hopefully by some others out in the field before we will know for sure, but the results are interesting.

Now where’s Jay…….… and that I-10K………….Wolf…….>>>>>>

For brevity I did not mention the signal at the low position. The difference from low to high position was ½ s-unit (2dB’s). The 8 s-unit (Maco) signal was at the high position. As already mentioned the receiving antenna was 20 feet above ground. The 2 dB increase in gain was noted at both the high and low positions.
I admit the 2dB increase from low 18ft, to high position 40ft, seems a bit small, but it is what it is. I think if we were going from 10ft to 40ft it probably would have been a bit higher. This guy has a high peaked roof and the install was close to the peak, that's why the low point is higher than normal.

Wolf

Ok, I'm a little confused, but NOT doubting the sincerity of your test / post.
(I just know how easily these posts can be read with the wrong idea of how it was intended, so I wanted to clarify that so there's no misunderstanding!)

Now I know I'm only referring to a 2dB difference, (which is relatively minimal but always nice to gain) but it sounds like the conditions changed slightly as the P-64 didn't show a 2dB change from low to high as the Maco did.

Could there possibly have been something else occurring once the P-64 was all the way up at 40' which would've subtracted 2dB from what I expect should've been a full S-9 with the P-64?

I would tend to expect it should be closer to a full S-unit increase on your P-64 over the Maco...?

Are you following me, or am I just confused? (As it's never happened before. ...no, really! )

73,
Scott

 

[Dr_DX]

Wolf,

Did your friend do a RX test when he changed out the V5/8 to the .64? I would be curious to know what differences, if any, there were.

Also, does your vertical feed on the .64 skew the radiation pattern from it? And if so, in which direction is the null?

 

[WolfRadio.com]

Scott, you have misunderstood something somewhere. I am not sure what you are asking?? Suffice it to say that the 2 dB increase was shown in both positions. I simply did not mention what the signal was in the low position I just said it went up 2 dB.

Dr. DX,
No such radiation anomaly exists. The effect you are talking about is related to half wave elements on beam antennas. Some people are giving the gamma match on an omni a bad rap but will soon change their minds. Also, the transmit and receive gain are reciprocal effects.... they are equal. But to better answer your question.... Other locals in the area were able to notice the increase.


Wolf

 

[CDX-007]

Eddie, I see where I was misreading your meaning.

Here I thought you were claiming the P-64 was no different from low to high, but instead just 2 dB better (period!) than the Maco when compared to the Maco in it's high position, (and 4dB when compared to the Maco at it's low position) -

...IN THIS TEST- in both the high and low positions - the P 64 clearly showed a 2 dB increase in signal...

My mistake, WOW, first time ever! ...