Hi,
I’ve been evaluating options for a low noise receive antenna for 160 meters. The standard answer is of course the age old reliable Beverage antenna. Like many (most?), I do not have the space for hundreds of feet of straight wire lines up to 500 or more feet in length running outward in 4 directions.
After looking at and rejecting several compromise alternatives including magnetic loops (low gain, low bandwidth) and K9AY Loop (S/N and gain don't look great), I came up with another idea based on some work I've been doing with 2.5 Ghz BLE devices that have little antennas etched into the PCB.
On these small circuit boards, it’s now common to see these “meandering line” antennas being applied in the GHz range. To me, they look like a square wave:
This gave me an idea. What about folding up a Beverage antenna into a meandering line "Square Wave Beverage" antenna? This would reduce the linear distance required yet keep the electrical length intact.
For example, using a 4’ PVC spreader where the bottom and top PVC rails are four feet apart, then attach the meandering line wire element across the 4 foot section. First attach the wire element to one side with a tie wrap, then run it straight across to the opposite rail, which is 4 feet away. Let’s call this a vertical run assuming the rails are mounted top and bottom.
Next, the wire runs 4.8 inches (nominally) along the rail, where it is again tie wrapped. Then back across the 4’ gap to the other rail. This process is repeated to create a 4’ x 4’ panel. Looking at it from the side view, we see what appears to be a Square Wave created by the wire element.
Here's a rough sketch of the concept:
(click to enlarge)
This particular geometry provides a 10:1 reduction in overall antenna length due to horizontal progress of 4.8 inches vs 48 inches of vertical spacing. This reduces a 500 foot run down to less than 50’, which becomes much more manageable.
I could not find much in the way of research or published material on the meandering line antenna being applied to HF. What I did find is some references to successful military deployments and one PhD thesis suggesting it does actually work. Apparently it results in much higher radiation resistance due to cross currents around all the bends and it lowers the resonant frequency by around 33%, depending on the spacing.
Now I’m not proposing this be used as a transmit antenna (yet), but perhaps as a short Beverage antenna for those of us who are space constrained. The end would include a termination resistor just like a normal Beverage. An embellishment might be to use a twisted pair and some switching to make it bidirectional, similar to the DX Engineering Reversible Beverage Systems DXE-RBSA-1P switch and terminator.
Obviously the first step is to model this and see what Uncle NEC thinks about it. I believe the combination of vertical and horizontal runs will cause it to pick up EM radiation at a good range of angles. I believe the termination will cause it to be directional, just like the Beverage. It’s electrical length of one wavelength or more should be fine, but what about its ability to absorb the traveling waves like a Beverage?
Before investing the time to model or prototype this contraption, I’m curious if anyone has ever tried or seen this type of antenna design for HF or have insights as to what to expect.
Rick, W5FCX
I’ve been evaluating options for a low noise receive antenna for 160 meters. The standard answer is of course the age old reliable Beverage antenna. Like many (most?), I do not have the space for hundreds of feet of straight wire lines up to 500 or more feet in length running outward in 4 directions.
After looking at and rejecting several compromise alternatives including magnetic loops (low gain, low bandwidth) and K9AY Loop (S/N and gain don't look great), I came up with another idea based on some work I've been doing with 2.5 Ghz BLE devices that have little antennas etched into the PCB.
On these small circuit boards, it’s now common to see these “meandering line” antennas being applied in the GHz range. To me, they look like a square wave:
This gave me an idea. What about folding up a Beverage antenna into a meandering line "Square Wave Beverage" antenna? This would reduce the linear distance required yet keep the electrical length intact.
For example, using a 4’ PVC spreader where the bottom and top PVC rails are four feet apart, then attach the meandering line wire element across the 4 foot section. First attach the wire element to one side with a tie wrap, then run it straight across to the opposite rail, which is 4 feet away. Let’s call this a vertical run assuming the rails are mounted top and bottom.
Next, the wire runs 4.8 inches (nominally) along the rail, where it is again tie wrapped. Then back across the 4’ gap to the other rail. This process is repeated to create a 4’ x 4’ panel. Looking at it from the side view, we see what appears to be a Square Wave created by the wire element.
Here's a rough sketch of the concept:
(click to enlarge)
This particular geometry provides a 10:1 reduction in overall antenna length due to horizontal progress of 4.8 inches vs 48 inches of vertical spacing. This reduces a 500 foot run down to less than 50’, which becomes much more manageable.
I could not find much in the way of research or published material on the meandering line antenna being applied to HF. What I did find is some references to successful military deployments and one PhD thesis suggesting it does actually work. Apparently it results in much higher radiation resistance due to cross currents around all the bends and it lowers the resonant frequency by around 33%, depending on the spacing.
Now I’m not proposing this be used as a transmit antenna (yet), but perhaps as a short Beverage antenna for those of us who are space constrained. The end would include a termination resistor just like a normal Beverage. An embellishment might be to use a twisted pair and some switching to make it bidirectional, similar to the DX Engineering Reversible Beverage Systems DXE-RBSA-1P switch and terminator.
Obviously the first step is to model this and see what Uncle NEC thinks about it. I believe the combination of vertical and horizontal runs will cause it to pick up EM radiation at a good range of angles. I believe the termination will cause it to be directional, just like the Beverage. It’s electrical length of one wavelength or more should be fine, but what about its ability to absorb the traveling waves like a Beverage?
Before investing the time to model or prototype this contraption, I’m curious if anyone has ever tried or seen this type of antenna design for HF or have insights as to what to expect.
Rick, W5FCX
Posted 1 year ago
First, have you considered a small array of active vertical elements, such as the 3 and 4 element Hi-Z arrays? They take considerable less space and rival beverages in terms of RDF. K3LR and W3LPL replaces their beverages with vertical arrays long time ago. IMHO, the 3-element 6-direction Hi-Z offers the best bang for the buck.
Second, if you don’t want to invest in vertical arrays, consider installing a beverage on the ground. Same RDF as full size, but requires a high quality pre-amp. It is only 200’ long.
Third, you may want to look at loops-on-ground.
Fourth, have you modeled your idea in any of the antenna modeling programs? The model can give you a pretty good idea what to expect.
As a general observation, you will find lots of so-so antenna advice on this forum. You may want to read the excellent presentations on RX antennas published on the Contest University site in the Files area. Science and solid experience-based advice.
https://www.contestuniversity.com/files/
Personally, I switched to a 4 element Hi-Z array and have not looked back.
Also, you may want to consider buying and reading ON4UN’s book Low Band DXing.
Second, if you don’t want to invest in vertical arrays, consider installing a beverage on the ground. Same RDF as full size, but requires a high quality pre-amp. It is only 200’ long.
Third, you may want to look at loops-on-ground.
Fourth, have you modeled your idea in any of the antenna modeling programs? The model can give you a pretty good idea what to expect.
As a general observation, you will find lots of so-so antenna advice on this forum. You may want to read the excellent presentations on RX antennas published on the Contest University site in the Files area. Science and solid experience-based advice.
https://www.contestuniversity.com/files/
Personally, I switched to a 4 element Hi-Z array and have not looked back.
Also, you may want to consider buying and reading ON4UN’s book Low Band DXing.
(Edited)
Wow! That's an incredible site with some tremendous content. Thank you for that!!
I'm now very intrigued with the 4-ele Hi-Z array. It looks like a much better solution and one that should work from 160 meters to 10 if I understand correctly.
Yes, I have ON4UN's Low Band DX'ing book - like the War and Peace version of 160 meter DX'ing. It will be a while before I can recite that one - thanks for the shortcuts!
Rick, W5FCX
I'm now very intrigued with the 4-ele Hi-Z array. It looks like a much better solution and one that should work from 160 meters to 10 if I understand correctly.
Yes, I have ON4UN's Low Band DX'ing book - like the War and Peace version of 160 meter DX'ing. It will be a while before I can recite that one - thanks for the shortcuts!
Rick, W5FCX
Amen, Varistor...right on..
73, w5xz, dan
73, w5xz, dan
My understanding is that each segment of a beverage antenna contributes to its overall directivity, so some limited divergence from the general direction is acceptable. Mine are fed on one hill and follow the contour of the land to another hill, where they are terminated, and still work fine. But I have no idea how a dramatically shortened “beverage” with many lengths running perpendicular to the desired direction would work. It is probably way out of the realm of a beverage.
I currently have 2 590’ reversible beverages, so can switch among 4 directions. They have a high RDF, and I’ve been impressed with their performance on those bands. In other directions I’m length limited to 250 ft. or so, and have been looking at some alternatives. For me the beverage on ground (BOG) won’t work, since our land is heavily trafficked by herds of deer. I doubt it would last a week! I’m currently looking at shortened (200 – 300 ft.) “loaded” beverage alternatives.
If you can’t accommodate the length of a conventional or loaded beverage or a BOG, or even if you can, I’d consider an RX array like Varistor’s Hi-Z array (or the DXE arrays) if you have the space. More complex because of the phasing unit though. Also concur with his recommendation to review Contest University and Low Band DXing. Plus the Topband reflector and W8JI’s receive antenna sites. They are goldmines of information!
Another RX antenna that looks interesting for space-constrained users is the SAL, sold by Array Solutions.
Anyway, if you decide to build and test your RX antenna idea, I hope you post your results. I’d certainly like to see them.
Howard
For your shorter directions you may want to look at the YCCC 3 in-line vertical array (Sold by DXE but supported by the Yankee Clipper Contest Club) It only takes about 140feet total to install the 3 and they operate over multiple Bands (octaves) also. I would guess the 3 in line array of 20 to 24ft high verticals work much like a 580ft reversable Beverage since the inline can be switched for forward and reverse direction of the line they are placed in. The entire system (excluding antenna) is sold as a kit, including the antenna preamps but is a quality receive only system.
I am NOT a member of or otherwise affiliated with YCCC or DXE.
I am NOT a member of or otherwise affiliated with YCCC or DXE.
Great suggestions. Good to know there’s so many good options available. I’m liking the looks of the Hi-Z phased verticals, albeit a bit pricey at $800+.
Going to run the 4NEC2 model on the Square Wave Beverage and see where that goes, while continuing to evaluate the other alternatives.
Thank you all.
Going to run the 4NEC2 model on the Square Wave Beverage and see where that goes, while continuing to evaluate the other alternatives.
Thank you all.
Rick:
In keeping with the expectation of "so-so antenna advice" here goes:
I think the patch antenna you describe wouldn't work as a Beverage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_antenna
the Beverage is a travelling-wave antenna:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_antenna
This is an interesting variaion:
https://jkantennas.com/rx-antenna.html
as one can tap the feed point from anywhere on the length of the antenna and switch directions 180.
From U-tube videos of the Beverage in action, it's pretty amazing, even one on the ground.
Best,
Tim
In keeping with the expectation of "so-so antenna advice" here goes:
I think the patch antenna you describe wouldn't work as a Beverage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_antenna
the Beverage is a travelling-wave antenna:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_antenna
This is an interesting variaion:
https://jkantennas.com/rx-antenna.html
as one can tap the feed point from anywhere on the length of the antenna and switch directions 180.
From U-tube videos of the Beverage in action, it's pretty amazing, even one on the ground.
Best,
Tim
Yeah, just don’t have enough space to fit the real Bevs in.
Looks like my best option is the Hi-Z 3 element phased verticals. Proven performance for a price.
Looks like my best option is the Hi-Z 3 element phased verticals. Proven performance for a price.
You might be able to save some dough by building your own vertical elements, especially if you already have aluminum tubing handy. If you are considering rolling your own, here is some good design info. These 20’ elements are simple to make and are very similar to some from DXE and Hi-Z:
https://www.w8ji.com/small_vertical_arrays.htm
Another option might be a variable phaser like the DXE NCC-2:
https://www.dxengineering.com/parts/dxe-ncc-2
I have one of these to augment my beverages. Advantages include wide bandwidth, ability to fine tune directivity, a very small footprint (they're almost invisible), and being able to move the 2 short whips around quickly at any time. They can also be used with the beverages and other antennas. Disadvantages include having to adjust the phasing and balance controls when changing freqs instead of just flipping a switch, and the high cost.
Howard
(Edited)
Building your own vertical elements is indeed a no-brainer. You save a little bit of money while achieving superior mechanical performance.
That said, following the advice in that link is a terrible idea. The Hi-Z verticals do not use any loading wires or coils. Frankly Howard, I don’t understand why deviate from what’s spelled out in the Hi-Z manual.
For those who want to build their own elements- read the manual!!! There are 3 different types of small vertical RX arrays and they take different approaches to building the elements.
Here’s how I built my verticals:
1) Purchaded 6’ sections of pre-slit aluminum tubing from DXE. The smallest diameter I used is 1” OD. Personally I don’t like any guy wires and use large OD tubing for all verticals. They have lasted for 10 years in a harsh cold weather environment, including several ice storms and tons of snow every winter.
2) Telescope the tubing by overlapping about 4”. You will end up with elements that are about 23’ tall. Build all elements to be identical! I attach my elements to 4x4 lumber poles in the ground, reinforced in concrete
3) Use high quality, marine grade stainless steel clamps to clamp the overlapping sections. No drilling required. Again, make sure you buy the pre-slit tubing unless you want to waste your time cutting the tubing. The slits are critical to the even clamping of the outer tube around the inner tube.
4) Make sure you use Penetrox to coat the overlapping sections. This will make it much easier to disassemble the elements in the future if you want to move the array. Also, and this is important, the Penetrox will ensure electrically stable connection between the two sections, thereby preventing noise being generated by friction (we want quiet RX antennas, don’t we).
5) Hammer in 2x6’ ground rods.
This is it. Not much to it.
That said, following the advice in that link is a terrible idea. The Hi-Z verticals do not use any loading wires or coils. Frankly Howard, I don’t understand why deviate from what’s spelled out in the Hi-Z manual.
For those who want to build their own elements- read the manual!!! There are 3 different types of small vertical RX arrays and they take different approaches to building the elements.
Here’s how I built my verticals:
1) Purchaded 6’ sections of pre-slit aluminum tubing from DXE. The smallest diameter I used is 1” OD. Personally I don’t like any guy wires and use large OD tubing for all verticals. They have lasted for 10 years in a harsh cold weather environment, including several ice storms and tons of snow every winter.
2) Telescope the tubing by overlapping about 4”. You will end up with elements that are about 23’ tall. Build all elements to be identical! I attach my elements to 4x4 lumber poles in the ground, reinforced in concrete
3) Use high quality, marine grade stainless steel clamps to clamp the overlapping sections. No drilling required. Again, make sure you buy the pre-slit tubing unless you want to waste your time cutting the tubing. The slits are critical to the even clamping of the outer tube around the inner tube.
4) Make sure you use Penetrox to coat the overlapping sections. This will make it much easier to disassemble the elements in the future if you want to move the array. Also, and this is important, the Penetrox will ensure electrically stable connection between the two sections, thereby preventing noise being generated by friction (we want quiet RX antennas, don’t we).
5) Hammer in 2x6’ ground rods.
This is it. Not much to it.
(Edited)
W8JI optimized that design for a single band, and since he's designed and tested many types of RX antennas I think for that application it probably works very well. For a multi-band array, right, I’m sure you wouldn’t want any antenna loading.
His site was one of the first and best information sources I found when first considering building RX antennas. Here are some RX antenna basics and comparisons:
Howard
Another possibility is a RBOG (reversible beverage on ground) DX Engineering sells them. They are much shorter than a beverage due to the higher velocity factor of the wire being laid on the ground or slightly below the surface. A 150' RBOG shows nice directivity and works as good as a normal beverage except the signal strength is a lot less, but since signal to noise is what you really want that shouldn't be too much of an issue. Two RBOG antennas perpendicular to each other will allow you to have a beam in 4 directions. The pattern has about a 90 degree half power beam width.
Yeah. I don't have 150', but it's certainly a good option for those who do.
Well, early 4NEC2 modeling isn't particularly promising as a shortened Beverage alternative. While the square wave meandering wire shape does work to an extent, I haven't figured out how to terminate one end of it to simulate the Beverage's resistance (tried Series RLC with no success). I have tried both horizontal and vertical positioning (i.e., from 10 to 15 feet up and down), without success. I may be doing something wrong with the model...
To make it easier to create and modify the model, I created a C program that generates the NEC model. It's here:
jdoodle.com/a/bR8
I'm pasting a copy of the current state of the model below in case someone else who's better at antenna modeling can see something I can't at this stage.
CM 160M Beverage, generated by W5FCX
CE
GW 1 48 0.00 0.0 10.00 0.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 2 48 0.00 0.0 15.00 1.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 3 48 1.00 0.0 15.00 1.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 4 48 1.00 0.0 10.00 2.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 5 48 2.00 0.0 10.00 2.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 6 48 2.00 0.0 15.00 3.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 7 48 3.00 0.0 15.00 3.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 8 48 3.00 0.0 10.00 4.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 9 48 4.00 0.0 10.00 4.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 10 48 4.00 0.0 15.00 5.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 11 48 5.00 0.0 15.00 5.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 12 48 5.00 0.0 10.00 6.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 13 48 6.00 0.0 10.00 6.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 14 48 6.00 0.0 15.00 7.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 15 48 7.00 0.0 15.00 7.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 16 48 7.00 0.0 10.00 8.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 17 48 8.00 0.0 10.00 8.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 18 48 8.00 0.0 15.00 9.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 19 48 9.00 0.0 15.00 9.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 20 48 9.00 0.0 10.00 10.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 21 48 10.00 0.0 10.00 10.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 22 48 10.00 0.0 15.00 11.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 23 48 11.00 0.0 15.00 11.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 24 48 11.00 0.0 10.00 12.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 25 48 12.00 0.0 10.00 12.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 26 48 12.00 0.0 15.00 13.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 27 48 13.00 0.0 15.00 13.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 28 48 13.00 0.0 10.00 14.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 29 48 14.00 0.0 10.00 14.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 30 48 14.00 0.0 15.00 15.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 31 48 15.00 0.0 15.00 15.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 32 48 15.00 0.0 10.00 16.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 33 48 16.00 0.0 10.00 16.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 34 48 16.00 0.0 15.00 17.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 35 48 17.00 0.0 15.00 17.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 36 48 17.00 0.0 10.00 18.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 37 48 18.00 0.0 10.00 18.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 38 48 18.00 0.0 15.00 19.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 39 48 19.00 0.0 15.00 19.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 40 48 19.00 0.0 10.00 20.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 41 48 20.00 0.0 10.00 20.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 42 48 20.00 0.0 15.00 21.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 43 48 21.00 0.0 15.00 21.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 44 48 21.00 0.0 10.00 22.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 45 48 22.00 0.0 10.00 22.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 46 48 22.00 0.0 15.00 23.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 47 48 23.00 0.0 15.00 23.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 48 48 23.00 0.0 10.00 24.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 49 48 24.00 0.0 10.00 24.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GS 0 0 0.3048 ' All in ft.
GE 0
LD 0 1 1 1 500 0 0
EX 6 1 1 0 1 0
GN 2 0 0 0 20 0.0303
FR 0 1 0 0 1.83 0
EN
Any experienced NEC modeling help or consulting would be appreciated.
Rick, W5FCX
To make it easier to create and modify the model, I created a C program that generates the NEC model. It's here:
jdoodle.com/a/bR8
I'm pasting a copy of the current state of the model below in case someone else who's better at antenna modeling can see something I can't at this stage.
CM 160M Beverage, generated by W5FCX
CE
GW 1 48 0.00 0.0 10.00 0.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 2 48 0.00 0.0 15.00 1.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 3 48 1.00 0.0 15.00 1.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 4 48 1.00 0.0 10.00 2.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 5 48 2.00 0.0 10.00 2.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 6 48 2.00 0.0 15.00 3.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 7 48 3.00 0.0 15.00 3.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 8 48 3.00 0.0 10.00 4.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 9 48 4.00 0.0 10.00 4.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 10 48 4.00 0.0 15.00 5.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 11 48 5.00 0.0 15.00 5.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 12 48 5.00 0.0 10.00 6.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 13 48 6.00 0.0 10.00 6.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 14 48 6.00 0.0 15.00 7.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 15 48 7.00 0.0 15.00 7.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 16 48 7.00 0.0 10.00 8.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 17 48 8.00 0.0 10.00 8.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 18 48 8.00 0.0 15.00 9.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 19 48 9.00 0.0 15.00 9.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 20 48 9.00 0.0 10.00 10.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 21 48 10.00 0.0 10.00 10.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 22 48 10.00 0.0 15.00 11.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 23 48 11.00 0.0 15.00 11.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 24 48 11.00 0.0 10.00 12.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 25 48 12.00 0.0 10.00 12.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 26 48 12.00 0.0 15.00 13.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 27 48 13.00 0.0 15.00 13.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 28 48 13.00 0.0 10.00 14.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 29 48 14.00 0.0 10.00 14.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 30 48 14.00 0.0 15.00 15.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 31 48 15.00 0.0 15.00 15.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 32 48 15.00 0.0 10.00 16.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 33 48 16.00 0.0 10.00 16.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 34 48 16.00 0.0 15.00 17.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 35 48 17.00 0.0 15.00 17.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 36 48 17.00 0.0 10.00 18.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 37 48 18.00 0.0 10.00 18.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 38 48 18.00 0.0 15.00 19.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 39 48 19.00 0.0 15.00 19.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 40 48 19.00 0.0 10.00 20.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 41 48 20.00 0.0 10.00 20.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 42 48 20.00 0.0 15.00 21.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 43 48 21.00 0.0 15.00 21.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 44 48 21.00 0.0 10.00 22.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 45 48 22.00 0.0 10.00 22.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 46 48 22.00 0.0 15.00 23.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GW 47 48 23.00 0.0 15.00 23.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 48 48 23.00 0.0 10.00 24.00 0.0 10.00 3.367e-3
GW 49 48 24.00 0.0 10.00 24.00 0.0 15.00 3.367e-3
GS 0 0 0.3048 ' All in ft.
GE 0
LD 0 1 1 1 500 0 0
EX 6 1 1 0 1 0
GN 2 0 0 0 20 0.0303
FR 0 1 0 0 1.83 0
EN
Any experienced NEC modeling help or consulting would be appreciated.
Rick, W5FCX
Rick, you may want to consider taking this discussion to the Topband and Tower Talk reflectors where many of the antenna "gurus" and experienced modelers are.
Great idea. Thanks!
Rick,
I have the DX engineering 4 square array for sale. My e-mail is good in QRZ
Alex W5NE
I have the DX engineering 4 square array for sale. My e-mail is good in QRZ
Alex W5NE
Last night there was a very interesting set of observations on the 200' 8 element Hi-Z circle array:
http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/topband/2017-October/052808.html
Obviously this is not an antenna for hams with limited space, but is a good description of what to expect from arrays of small verticals. More elements simply means higher F/B and RDF numbers.
Note that unlike the 3 and 4 element arrays, the 8 element is always a mono band antenna. So bigger is not always better.
http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/topband/2017-October/052808.html
Obviously this is not an antenna for hams with limited space, but is a good description of what to expect from arrays of small verticals. More elements simply means higher F/B and RDF numbers.
Note that unlike the 3 and 4 element arrays, the 8 element is always a mono band antenna. So bigger is not always better.
Mike - VE3CKO, Elmer
pair of FCP for his 160m verticals.