wolf radio antennas

[CDX-007]

Also, let me add this;

When I tested the Maco5/8 with and without radials I saw no difference in received signal strength, nor did anyone else on my transmit signal strength.
There was a minimal difference in SWR and more RF in the shack into my computer speakers and Home Theatre system, without radials, but it seemed to perform more like a 1/2 wave not necessarily needing radials.

I (casually) tested with 4 locals, one at 2 miles and at my elevation of ~150' (Yaesu MkV), one at 20 miles / 1600' (Yaesu FT-1000D), one at 50 miles / 800' (iCOM IC-761), one at 55 miles / 3300' (Kenwood TS-2000).
None saw a difference with / without radials on the Maco, but all saw "about an S-unit" increase when I swapped out the Maco for the freshly cleaned Penetrator, as did I on receive (iCOM IC-751A). <--{edit}

I'm wondering if the Maco has a smaller 'donut' and maybe at 8 miles it is favoring the T/O angle of the Maco and therefore showed the least difference between it and the P-64 in your test Ed...???

I'd like to see a test done at 20, 50, and 75 miles, and both antennas 60'-70' high at the base - I bet we would see the P-64 really come alive.

73

 

[Marconi]

Hey 007 do you think that difference between the Maco and the that Penetrator was in the fact that the Maco's feeder is in the horizontal plane, with the ground plane sitting down below the feeder as compared to the Penetrator with its hairpin style matcher sitting in the vertical and the ground plane in its raised position relative to the feed point?

 

[CDX-007]

Well, I'm not a subscriber to the theory that one match is 'noticeably better' than another, except when it's a somewhat lossy design as the A-99 seems to be.

I think it is significant, however, that the Maco 5/8 is only 20' total where the Penetrator is nearly 23', closer to a true 5/8 wave @ 27.3mHz.

I still prefer the look of the Avanti Sigma 5/8. It sure made for a clean install with the coax routed inside the mast, albeit a hassle to feed with 9913!!

73

 

[Marconi]

Well 007, I agree with you that the feeder losses among the different antennas here that we are discussing is probably a mute point. I'm not sure, however, that I would exclude the A99 and the Imax from this group however. Those two antennas appear to me to be pretty effective except maybe for the lack of good receiving qualities.

I guess I just did not ask a very good question when asking if you though maybe the differences in the antennas might have to do with the feeders being horizontal vs vertical, and it the location of the GP, one above and one below, made any difference.

I know that for years there has been an agrument that the V5/8 is not a .625, because it is not long enough. How long does an antenna have to be that is a non resonant .625 antenna?

Is the V5/8 a mistaken and a little too long 1/2 wave antenna?

How say you?

 

[CDX-007]

Yeah, the jury's still out on that V5/8 IMO. I'm sure it could be loaded to a 5/8 but it sure didn't seem to care whether or not it had radials... makes me wonder.

BTW, I've given away all my A-99s, (had several given to me in a trade) but I still think the Imax2K is the best of the radial-less omnis.

- Now, if you add radials...

 

[Marconi]

Well 007 what you have when you remove the GPK from the V5/8 is a Wolfradio P50_11M or the old Ringo, except with the Wolf, his antenna is probably a true 1/2 wave at about 18' feet long. Of course I contend that all of those longer non-resonant antennas are all about the same, and the only reason for the difference in any of their particular lengths is due to the specific feed design used to bring that non-resonant stinger into resonance. And it is not based on the math necessary to multiply .625 times some other number.

In principal they all take advantage of raised current distribution and the resulting improvement to take of angle. It appears to me that none of these longer than 1/2 wave end fed antennas, within reason for length, require a physical GPK in order to work, as they are all capable of using the feed line and/or the supporting mast as a suitable raised counterpoise. For me it is just a matter of, at what cost to theoretical performance and efficiency is removing the GPK done.

Now I further contend that when the GPK is not used the Bandwidth is increased, but maybe at some expense to take off angle and maybe even to some real gain, but not that it really matters to any remarkable degree.

I guess for the moment we will just have to forget about whether the fact of the matcher being in the horizontal field or the vertical makes a difference and if raising the GPK well above the feeder or putting it down below makes a difference. Cause I can't see to get you to bit on an opionion for that.

 

[CDX-007]

...I guess for the moment we will just have to forget about whether the fact of the matcher being in the horizontal field or the vertical makes a difference and if raising the GPK well above the feeder or putting it down below makes a difference. Cause I can't see(m) to get you to bit(e) on an opionon for that.

Ok, I see what you're asking.
I've never given it a thought but you're right, the Penetrator has half the 'hairpin' match and a foot of the driven element under the radials.

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't radiate from below the radials but worked against them to begin to load the vertical element above the radials.
The stinger length dis-including that 11" or so of the bottom of the stinger works out to be 20' 7" + 10" of top hat, = 21' 5" total (w/o the bottom part of the stinger, under the radials) now, let's see... 234 x 2.5 = 585 / 27.125 (ch 14) = 21.56" - Hmmm

I'd like to hear Wolf's take on that hairpin match.

Marconi, What's your take on the 'polarity' of the match?


73

 

[W5LZ]

Don't forget that the diameter of the conductor makes a difference in how long an antenna is. Larger conductors mean a slightly shorter antenna but still 'resonant'...
- 'Doc

 

[Marconi]

007 ask;

Marconi, What's your take on the 'polarity' of the match?

Well I suspect that the hairpin tuner on the Penetrator is probably a bit better towards the vertical polarity. So would the Wolf .640, using a gamma in the vertical plane. Is it possible that this effect might be to make some difference in the radiated pattern, higher and lower, or maybe these vertical tuners have a better affect on the TO angle.

 

[WolfRadio.com]

I'm wondering if the Maco has a smaller 'donut' and maybe at 8 miles it is favoring the T/O angle of the Maco and therefore showed the least difference between it and the P-64 in your test Ed...???

I'd like to see a test done at 20, 50, and 75 miles, and both antennas 60'-70' high at the base - I bet we would see the P-64 really come alive.

I think anytime you are testing for gain, the greater the distance you use – the larger the difference will seem to be. I think most people would agree on that. But this presents a problem??? What distance should we use as a standard to compare antennas? What is the best distance….1…5….10 or more miles? When I say that my antenna has x amount of gain over another….., do I automatically include the distance used to make that measurement?

Hey 007 do you think that difference between the Maco and the that Penetrator was in the fact that the Maco's feeder is in the horizontal plane, with the ground plane sitting down below the feeder as compared to the Penetrator with its hairpin style matcher sitting in the vertical and the ground plane in its raised position relative to the feed point?

I don’t think the position of the feed system wiring has much to do with the gain in those antennas. In my view the length of the conductors are to short, and they are to close to reinforce or degrade the pattern from a radiation standpoint. It does however affect the way the matching works and current distribution. (See below)

This is almost hitting on something I have been meaning to bring up.

…maybe the differences in the antennas might have to do with the feeders being horizontal vs vertical, and it the location of the GP, one above and one below, made any difference.

I've never given it a thought but you're right, the Penetrator has half the 'hairpin' match and a foot of the driven element under the radials.

Well I suspect that the hairpin tuner on the Penetrator is probably a bit better towards the vertical polarity. So would the Wolf .640, using a gamma in the vertical plane. Is it possible that this effect might be to make some difference in the radiated pattern, higher and lower, or maybe these vertical tuners have a better affect on the TO angle.

As I said I don’t think that matters, accept where it affects (feed point location)?? Here’s what I’m getting at….the Maco V5/8, Sigma 5/8, Penetrator 5/8, Taylor .64, Radio Shak 5/8, and even Jay’s I10K, are all base loaded antennas! This is a fact that is not often raised. Everyone knows that base loading is the least efficient method of all. The 50-ohm connection point of all those antennas is on a coil of some kind down at the very bottom, close to the radials. But now look at the P64. My 50-ohm connection point is 43 ½ inches above the radials! And because it’s Not a base loaded antenna - the loading coils have to be located above that! This is what sets my design apart from all the rest, and is why I believe it’s more efficient.

The following quote comes from the Maco V5/8 vs Wolf .64 (Thread)

Gammas do not balance currents in practice. As a matter of fact, they are known for skewing the signal on an element and not desired by those who want a balanced feed system (T-Match or Beta Match).
This is probably the biggest difference between the two antennas. A gamma is not as efficient as the loop. A loaded antenna is usually a compromise over a full length antenna. But there is something to say about top loading and moving the current further up the radiator.
Wolf does use stainless steel and probably de-burs the aluminum. They both have their plus' and minus'.
The proof would be in testing the Wolf Point 64 against the Maco.

Where Master Chief says the gamma is not as efficient as the base load will eventually be proven to be backwards in the case of the end feed omni. The balancing that is talked about refers to halfwave elements of beam antennas, where current many not be the same on both sides of center. Hello….. this is not a center fed antenna, its end fed. There is no other side, unless you want to consider the radials the other side? He mentions loading, both antennas are loaded, theirs base, and mine top. He does hit on the top loading and raising the current - but fails to see how the gamma is part of that action. Need I remind you of the highest gain omni that was ever made for 11m. The Sigma IV by Avanti R&D….. Its fed by a gamma match! He also mentions testing a V5/8 with P64, which has now been done at least once. Oh, one more thing, I do de-bur all the aluminum.

Wolf

 

[CDX-007]

Ed, Good to hear from you as it's been a while.

With regard to what distance to use as a reference, I would be impressed with a manufacturer if they stated something to the effect of:
'Proven by XYZ Independant Testing Co. to be 1.8 S-units stronger at 35 miles, and 2.4 S-units stronger at 60 miles than the Maco V-5/8 over flat terrain, and 3.6 / 4.4 S-units over the A-99 respectively'
- This would provide a real world comparison which everyone could relate to.

I would LOVE to test my Penetrator against the Sigma IV, - to at least stay with it if not out talk it at 50 miles or so- level terrain.

- It may even lose, but I'll have fun trying!

... and wouldn't it be a real kick-in-the-ass time if a big group got together, each with his / her own favorite omni just for the fun of testing and laying to rest old superstition about all the different designs that have scraped the sky over the last 40 years...
Eddie, you'ld bring a few entries, and there would have to be a 5-section 46' push-up telescoping mast set up with 7-8'' high scaffolding and the mast coming right up thru the center so the omnis could quickly and easily be switched from one to the other.

R/S 1/4 wave
Mighty Magnum III
Big Stick
Wilson Alpha V-5/8
Penetrator
Sigma 5/8
Thunder 8 XB
Army Stick
Magnum 44
IMAX 2000
Larry's LW-150
Ringo Ranger
Super Maxim
R/S .64
Maco V-5/8
Astroplane
Starduster
Antron 99
Sigma IV
Joe Gunn
Wolf P-64
Taylor GLR4
Hy-Gain CLR2
A/S Jam Ram
Interceptor
Mr. Coily
Super Scanner (omni)

What have I forgotten?

Do I smell a West Coast field day in the San Juaquin Valley? - how 'bout Fernley, Nv? ...Bring it on!!

Ed, when the Sigma IV was tested, do you know what were the parameters, and outcome of the test in dB gain / ?-reference?

73,
Scott

 

[W5LZ]

Ed,
Where you talk about the base loading, is that in fact a loading coil, or just an impedance matching coil?
As for the 'type' of impedance matching system used, gamma, beta, whatever, of course there's some difference in 'efficiency'. But for all practical purposes, does it really make that much differnece? I honestly doubt it...
- 'Doc

 

[bob85]

007 if you lived over here i would be there, we have done antenna shootouts in my old mans field back in the 80's on 2 well spaced 36ft poles then swap positions and test again, not scientific but it always put a big smile on my face :twisted: i would bring my 7/8 avanti hybrid? and a ham international bigmac, they both beat my sigma4 and every other vertical monopole i ever tested over longer distance

 

[Marconi]

Well guys, this all sounds great, but I suspect that if it happended and we did get a report for publishing, there would still be many arguments. Reason being is that old mother Earth is different from place to place and in some cases it really makes a big difference. And any test covers only this one place on the earth. So how would you deal with this factor?

 

[CDX-007]

Well Ed, I hear you.

I would say a 10 / 25 / 50 mile test would be enough to give 98% accuracy as to the actual perceived and tested effectiveness of each omni above ground 40', with regard to local ground wave contacts.
2 out of 100 might argue, but they would probably be the ones who never agree on anything!

If someone's a serious DXer then a beam is a 'must-have', and the best omni is a compromise in comparison;

so when I think omni,

- I think 'LOCAL CONTACTS',

...as there's no better antenna for covering all local directions simultaneously.

I could see 3 identical rigs, (say E.F. Johnson Messenger 223 AM rigs as they've got a meter like a piece of Gov't test gear and I've got 5 of them we could use,) and the shootout being on say ch 20. Then each receiving team would radio back their test results on SSB without knowing which antenna was being tested in order to help prevent any bias motivated false reports.

The Desert of Nevada, or the San Juaquin Valley of Ca. would be terrific locations as it is smooth and level terrain.

And Bob85, BRING IT ON!!! - I think it would be a blast to also have a time for testing home-brew designs... (like mine!...?)

If we were to find a location which had decently priced motels, or an area which we could use for an extended weekend for Motorhome / camping use, we could have our own little 'Quartzite' weekend.

The first(?) unofficial CDX gathering, and all would be welcome!

- It only takes money...