[Top] [All Lists]

[Towertalk] Re. HF2V

To: <>
Subject: [Towertalk] Re. HF2V
From: (
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 08:53:53 -0600
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 07:24:37 -0400 "Tom Rauch" <>
> > N4KG:  For the most part, this is true, until you reach 250-280
> > and have to work over the poles to finish off the rest, THEN
> I've rarely is even worked over the poles on any band below 40 
> meters. For example, the normal path from here to Mongolia is SE in 
> the evening and SW in the morning. Same for deep Russia and India on 
> 160 and 80 meters.  (W8JI)
> > transmitting performance makes the difference between getting
> > there and NOT.  When I added my 130 ft high dipoles, Central
> > and SE Asians became MUCH easier to put in the log.  N4KG

N4KG:  I meant countries *located* over the pole.  I recognize
that the signals actually diverge around the poles or come LP.  
My point being that my high NE / SW and JA / SA were a BIG 
improvement over my 100 ft high inverted vee and top loaded 80M GP.
I doubt that anyone on a city lot with an HF2V could even come close.

> Everything is all relative to what we compare it to.  (W8JI)
> There is a problem tossing around anecdotal evidence to determine 
> performance, and we should all be aware of the problem.
> Factually, once .025 to .05 wl spacing is reached adding more wires 
> does no good at all. So 50-60 radials would have worked just as well 
> on 40 meters, and on 80 she might as well have had 15-30 radials as 
> 120.   (W8JI)
N4KG:   Agree.

> It would not sound impressive if we said "she had 15 1/8th wl 
> radials", yet the system would be about the same as 120 radials the 
> same length.
> The person listening to the story hears "120 radials" and hears 
> "empty lot", and doesn't think about the fact the system was 
> actually 
> a modest or poor radial system and there could have been any number 
> of problems with the rest of the installation, such as site clutter.
> > The REAL convincing observation was that she moved from being
> > one of the LAST to get through the pileups with her HF2V to being
> > competitive in the pileups after her 90 ft tower was installed 
> with the inverted vee and vertically polarized Delta Loop.  These 
> antennas were obviously MUCH more competitive in the pileups.  (N4KG)
> That isn't necessarily a problem with the HF2V, and we should all 
> know better than to leap to that conclusion based on the data.
N4KG:  OK, are you suggesting that a guy on a CITY LOT
        would be well advised to use a BASE LOADED HF2V
        over a limited (<35') radial field and expect to be competitive?
> Had she A-B'ed a full size vertical in an open location at the same 
> site under the same band conditions and seen a change, it would 
> indicate an efficiency problem with the vertical system, location,  
> or ground system. Changing to a dipole (especially when comparing 
> anecdotal data to anecdotal data taken at a different time) proves 
> nothing, because it could be any number of things at work.
> One thing often overlooked is the distance required to minimize 
> pattern distortion. On 160 meters, a tower 500 feet away from my 
> omni 
> vertical changes the pattern about 10dB in four directions! On 80 
> meters, think of all the vertical or near vertical metallic 
> objects...let alone all the other variables at work.
> Now I know the Gap vertical is no good, because I tried one with a 
> FS  meter and had a good ground system under the reference antenna. i 
> also A-Bed them.

N4KG:  AGREE.  GAP verticals SUCK on the lowest band of operation.
> Factually, an MFJ 80/40 top loaded vertical and a Butternut were 
> about even...and the Gap was 10-15 dB behind. How many countries I 
> worked on each or how they worked in pileups is immaterial, because 
> of all the inconsistencies in other factors important to results. 

N4KG:  I assume your comparison is over a LARGE radial field
        (30 or more radials 70 ft long).  How do the HF2V and
        MFJ 1792 compare over a 1/8 WL (35 ft) radial field
        that can be realized on a conventional city lot?

> > > Factually, there is almost no difference between base and top 
> > > loading  if the ground system is good. Top loading does provide
> > > about four 
> > > times the radiation resistance of base loading, but top loading
> > > generally has (for a given radiator size) less bandwidth. 
> > 
> > N4KG:  HUH?  Since when does higher radiation resistance result 
> > in "LESS BANDWIDTH" (assuming the same height of radiator) ?
> In heavily loaded systems with fixed external losses, bandwidth is 
> mainly set by reactance limits. The antenna can be viewed as a 
> series-> resonant L/C system. Anything that decreases the amount 
>of reactance   increases bandwidth, because it decreases system Q.
> For example, my narrowest mobile antennas are the antennas with the 
> SMALLEST amount of capacitance above the loading coils, regardless 
> of  efficiency or radiation resistance.
> As a matter of fact the widest bandwidth antenna I have has the 
> highest efficiency. You have to look at the entire system, and NOT 
> just relate bandwidth to one factor.
> The MFJ vertical is VERY narrow in bandwidth because it has a small 
> top-hat, and large inductor. The same antenna has nearly eight times 
> the bandwidth when base loaded, and if the ground system is near-
> perfect efficiency can actually INCREASE.
> The top loading makes the system more forgiving of poor ground 
> systems and allows you to use the antenna on 40 meters, but it also 
> makes the system have LESS bandwidth.

N4KG: SO, you AGREE that a TOP LOADED Vertical is superior
        to a BASE LOADED vertical over a limited radial field
        typical for most city lot limited users?

        In other words, a short tower / tribander, shunt fed
        (or even set up as an Elevated GP) would be a 
        MUCH better antenna than a Base Loaded (HF2V)
        vertical on a small city lot.   (N4KG)
> > > If the ground system is poor, top loading can reduce loss by up 
> to a > > factor of three or four. If the ground system is good, 
> efficiency changes are often not measurable.    
> > 
> > N4KG:  What value of ground resistance is "good"?
> >             What does it take to reach this level?
> Ground loss would have to have a normalized value (at the feedpoint) 
> of about 10% or less of the other resistances in the 
> system...including radiation this example. So 40 1/4 
> wl radials would work in most cases. 

N4KG:  OK.  So your recommendation to all the city dwellers
        on TowerTalk is to install 40 radials 70 ft in length, right?
        And to keep any other large vertical conductors (towers)
        WELL away from their verticals (>500 ft).

N4KG:   What do you recommend to the guy who lives on a 60 by 120 ft lot?
> Brown Lewis and Epstein did all this in the RCA report "Ground 
> Systems as a Factor in Efficiency". Their conclusion, and one that I 
> have verified, is that with a good ground system you might just as 
> well base load the antenna.
> > > Most of the DXCC totals do with hours operated, location, and 
> > > operating skill. I'd say transmitting antenna performance is way
> > > down  the ladder, unless someone really has a poor antenna
> > installation.
> > 
> > N4KG:  Again, basically true UNTIL you start talking about polar 
> path contacts.
> Polar path contacts virtually never occur on 80 or 160 meters, and 
> rarely occur on 40.

N4KG:  As I said before, I'm refering to countries LOCATED over 
        the poles.  I wonder how many 80M Asian countries have
        been worked by HF2V users in the USA. I'll bet very few
        beyond CQ Zones 19, 20, and 25.
> 73, Tom W8JI

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>