• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

N4REE - Minimalist Ham

Code rehab forever - Make CW a 2nd language

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact

antennas

AX1 “dummy load” rides a Trike

May 16, 2025 by Bob Easton 3 Comments

We are blessed to live in a central Florida community that has miles and miles of “multiple mode” paved paths which we enjoy daily for trike riding. Our recumbent TerraTrikes are nearly 20 years old and one of the best purchases we ever made. Maybe I can go play radio on mine.

Let’s make the trike radio-active

First the antenna… The Elecraft AX1 has a reputation ranging from “outstanding” to “dummy load.” My experience has shown it very capable when set up well. It’s not for worldwide DX, but for pure fun, and indeed offers fun for POTA activities. Let’s deploy the AX1 on my TerraTrike.

There is a tripod mount widget for the AX1 which fits the standard camera 10-24 screw. I drilled and tapped a 10-24 hole in the deck of the trike’s panier carrier, and used a hardware store bit of 10-24 threaded rod to hold the antenna. My first attempt was with a short stub a few inches long. I learned later that the antenna was happier being elevated, so the remainder of that rod, 36″ minus the short stub, leaves a 32″ rod. Add a couple of nuts and we’re have a 32″ tower. Mount the tripod widget atop the threaded rod and the AX1 to the BNC connector there. Add 5.5′ of RG-316 coax, 13′ counterpoise wire (simply thrown on the ground under the trike), and some “secret sauce” to make an operational 20M antenna.

Some complain that the AX1 doesn’t work, is just a dummy load. My opinion is that these are the people who don’t understand antenna characteristics beyond reading the advertising hype. They break open the package with “plug-n-play” expectations, or with “my tuner will take care of it” expectations. Some don’t know how to test or adjust their antennas and end up disappointed.

Base loaded vertical antennas are sensitive to radiator length and ground conditions. Those with short whips have especially narrow bandwidth, often covering only a portion of the band they are designed for. Getting them to work at the frequency you want means you need to be very finicky about radiator length.

My secret sauce enables using this antenna with NO tuner. It works because I’ve measured the antenna’s behavior and know the AX1 naturally resonates at the SSB, not CW, end of 20M, or actually beyond in many deployment scenarios. To get resonance down to the CW portion of the band I add a 8″ extension via an alligator clip. Careful adjustment of the whip length then brings it to a beautiful not too steep SWR null.

Along this line, Linus Ly2H advocates using a capacitance hat to moderate the antenna’s reactance component. I’ve tried his suggestion and agree that it helps broaden bandwidth, flattens the curve somewhat. Yet, I find that it also raises the null point up to the 1.5 neighborhood.

I’ll stick with my clip-on extension and this result.

Next, operating layout… I’m not carrying a collapsible table or folding chair on the trike. I prefer sitting in the trike’s seat. But, where to put the gear? My DIY arrangement is made from a simple plastic kitchen cutting board, with a few washers epoxied to it, with a hook and loop patch for holding the Talentcel 3000 mAh battery and QMX radio, and with a non-slip pad to keep my phone in place. The QMX has an absolute voltage ceiling of 12v. So, the blob in the power cable is an inline voltage regulator. I use the wonderful Ham2K PoLo logger on the phone. Some CWMorse keys have magnets built in. The one I’m using did not, but I added them and it now sits nicely on those washers.

Transporting… is easy. The trike has two panier bags, into which I can stow the board, the threaded rod and a couple of Maxpedition pouches which hold the AX1 and the QMX, and other things I might want while riding. …and for places beyond a reasonable trike ride from home, I have a pickup truck that carries both of our trikes.

Note well: NONE of these product links are affiliate links. I don’t need to be making money off of my fellow hams’ interests.

End result… so far… My first tests were from the driveway at my home. Mid morning (14:00z) on 20M isn’t the hottest time of day for the band, but I set up and casually completed 3 hunter QSOs, while fiddling with the antenna in between. Twenty minutes, 559 and 599 RSTs from KY, PA and NY.

That’s a great start for an experiment with a dummy load.

P.S. Lest anyone think that I have doubts about the AX1, check the map below. 82 of the 84 contacts are from INSIDE the screened-in back porch, “lanai” in Florida talk. That’s a 12′ by 30′ area bounded by several rebar reinforced concrete columns and an aluminum structure that supports fiberglass screens. I often deploy the AX1 atop a simple photography tripod about 3 feet high, with a 13′ counterpoise loosely lying on the concrete floor. Knowing how to tune the AX1 makes it a real antenna and not just a dummy load.

Filed Under: antennas, CW, POTA, QMX

Testing the KJ6ER PERformer Vertical Antenna

November 21, 2024 by Bob Easton 1 Comment

The Casa Easton Antenna Test Range has been busy the past few days. About 2 weeks ago, I discovered KJ6ER, Greg Mihran’s, PERformer (Portable, Elevated, Resonant) antenna. Greg describes the antenna in spectacular detail in a frequently updated document. He has extensively modeled the antenna for 40M through 6M. I built mine for 20M through 10M, especially for use with my QMX transceiver.

Bottom line: This one’s a KEEPER! Advice: Greg has a DONATE button as part of his fine article. I suggest using it to recognize his good work.

My problem with elevated vertical antennas

Several hams, WB3GCK, Craig La Barge, and WK4DS, David Saylors, in particular, talk about using elevated antennas atop poles mounted on the back of their trucks. They use them with tuned raised radials and they have great results at QRP power levels.

I’ve tried elevated antennas and raised radials on my own antenna test range and haven’t yet matched their results. However, I’ve not had good measurements for the various components. Guesswork resulted in functioning antennas, but not in the kind of results Craig and David report.

Until…

The KJ6ER description brought it all home for me. KJ6ER, Greg, describes his modelling, includes several tables showing measurements, and offers construction ideas. All are great starting points.

I modified a stand I had previously used for elevated antenna testing, making it the height Greg suggested, 52 inches. A quick trial with a 17′ whip adjusted to a 15m length and 2 raised radials at Greg’s suggested lengths enabled the very first QSO, an easy 5w QSO, from Central Florida to KR7Q, Clifford, in the mountains of western Montana. BAM! I was hooked.

Next, improve the components. My old 17′ whip was rickety, showing dancing SWR indications as the wind blows and sometimes having a section or two spontaneously collapse. Replacing it with a new Chameleon SS17 fixed that problem. Then, I constructed a pair of linked radials for 10m, 12m, 15m, 17m, and 20m similar to those Greg describes. (I used his exact lengths.) Lastly, I rebuilt the simple little Common Mode Choke that you see dangling between the whip and the feedline. It keeps stray RF off the feedline and offers consistent SWR that doesn’t involve the feedline acting as a random radial.

My antenna test range is my backyard. I setup the antenna as you see it with a couple of plastic electric fence sticks as end points for the radials. A short segment, made of paracord, can be moved from segment to segment in the linked radials to select bands. Through testing, I found vertical element lengths that were optimum for each band in this configuration. I discovered that the best way to adjust it is to set the vertical element a bit longer than the lengths in the table, and then reach up and fiddle with the 2nd section of the whip, which is just within my reach. So far, I’ve used the radials 90 degrees to each other, which Greg’s models show a modest bit of directionality. For these tests, and that Montana QSO, they were pointed WNW.

Results

I measured with a NanoVNA, and then with WSPR. Antenna lengths were tuned for lowest SWR in the CW portions of the bands, usually the QRP hailing frequency. I frequently use WSPR to discover an antenna’s potential, and treat WSPR results as a “possibility,” never a guarantee. Each of these WSPR runs were mid to late afternoon in the US Eastern timezone, with each run for 6 minutes. Solar Ham showed this as a typical propagation day, no solar storms.

These are the lowest SWR results I’ve seen in any of my testing.

BandRadial lthRadiator lthSWRImpedance
10m80″114″1.031:150.7Ω
12m96″124.5″1.045:151.1Ω
15m120″143.5″1.027:148.7Ω
17m149″163″1.049:149.7Ω
20m198″207.25″1.041:148.1Ω

Compared to other Casa Easton Test Range antennas

Long ago, I crawled around burying 18 radials in the grass. I use that field with either a Wolf River Coils antenna or with Hamsticks, all sitting atop a low tripod. They’ve produced ~almost~ continental coverage, and always enough capability to reach hundreds upon hundreds of mid-continental POTA activators. SWR with those configurations run between 1.3:1 and 1:7:1, never lower.

My vertical dipole, A DX Engineering Transworld 2010 (TW2010) has also offered reliable mid-continental results, and maybe longer reach than the verticals atop the radial field. It’s advantage is quick setup, even tough it does need more than the usual amount of coax for impedance balance … and SWR in the 1.2:1 to 1.4:1 range. The difference is so slight (in actual listening) as to not be noticeable. Knowing what I know of it now, I shouldn’t have spent that much on it.

DIY-built EFHW and EFRW inverted Vees have almost always performed better than the verticals over the radial field. I’m continually playing with variations and am usually pleased with how well they work, especially the ease of changing bands.

Which brings me to the PERformer. KJ6ER, Greg, shows his models demonstrating efficiency factors about 30% better than most of my other antennas, and some directional front-to-back gain. So far, I’ve had delightfully solid results and at least one contact well beyond the normal range of my other antennas, possibly confirming the directional gain. A too-short session yesterday brought a quick string of POTA QSOs at higher than usual signal reports. I’m not quite gushing yet, but I have thanked Greg and remind you to push his DONATE button when you see the same results I have.

Time will tell. (Hey Alaska, are you hearin’ me?)

Bonus material

KB9VBR, Michael Martens excellently describes details of his build and his results below. Pay particular attention to the last / summary section.

Filed Under: antennas

Antenna shootout: Hamsticks vs TW2010

June 8, 2024 by Bob Easton 2 Comments

After taming the Hamsticks, I turned my attention to effectiveness. How do these antennas compare to another in my collection?

Contestant 1: Hamstick verticals

I have used various forms of 1/4 wave ground mounted verticals, including the Hamsticks, for quite a while. They have the attributes of being relatively low cost, easy to setup almost anywhere, and will perform. Yes, everyone calls them “compromised,” but that’s a term that can be applied to most any antenna. I use my verticals as “backyard portable” from my home QTH in the midst of an HOA community. I have no objections from wonderful neighbors, and no complaints from passers-by who probably can’t even spot the antennas.

There’s a radial field under the antenna, 16 radials of 18 feet each.

For some Hamstick variations, I use loosely deployed radials above ground. See the taming article for more details.

For almost all verticals, dragonflies are attracted to the tops. Dunno why.

Contestant 2: DX Engineering TransWorld 2010

I also use a DX Engineering TW2010 from time to time for the 20M through 10M bands. The TW2010 is a 5 band vertical dipole. Each side of the dipole is a “T” shaped section. A box between those sections contains a group of loading coils. It is about 5 feet wide and stands 8 and 1/4 feet tall. DX Engineering originally acquired the design from someone else and then set about its own manufacturing. I can confirm that it is well built, of fine quality materials, and engineered for easy set-up.

The only complaint about the physical form is that the 4 legged base occasionally spontaneously self-disassembles. (Thanks Elon for that description.)

DX Engineering describes the antenna as “portable” because they offer a carry bag about the size of the typical golf bag. Now, add to the antenna parts the 65 feet of coax that’s used for impedance matching, and the “portable” antenna becomes, in my mind, not man portable, but truck portable. … about 30 pounds.

P.S. KA3DRR, Scott Morrison, drags his TW2010 around in a wagon he calls Land Rover One. He’s not one of those strong healthy young males who grumble about the difference between a 9 ounce radio and a 14 ounce radio. 🙂

The competition

Some of the YouTube ham personalities review antennas by describing them in manufacturers’ terms, showing how they are assembled, and usually taking them outside somewhere, hooking up 100w SSB transceiver and making a few calls. “See, it works!”

Of course it does, almost everything does. If K0KLB, Kevin Behn, can loads up his grain auger or hay wagon at QRP power and make contacts, almost any other antenna “works.”

I’m more of a data person. Fifty years in the IT business, and the delight of working many of those years in a research laboratory, does that to a person. I like data to support conclusions. So, I use a ZachTek WSPR Transmitter to check out antennas. WSPR is Weak Signal Propagation Reporter, a network of radio stations that listen for specifically coded signals and file them in a searchable database.

For these tests, I set up 12 minute runs for each antenna in midday on May 27. Midday is not optimal for any particular band, so results don’t indicate the best that can be achieved during peak propagation periods. But, the results do show relative performance of each antenna compared to another. Yes, there are those who say propagation conditions vary constantly, and I agree. Running 6 tests as close together as possible is the best that I can do to mitigate constant change. I collected results using the wspr.rocks site, one of several that collect WSPR data.

There are three rounds of tests, each individual test running for 12 minutes:

  • TW2010 set for 20M vs a 20M Hamstick with a radial field in the grass
  • TW2010 set for 15M vs a 15M Hamstick with 3 loose radials on the ground
  • TW2010 set for 10M vs a 10M Hamstick with 3 loose radials on the ground
SpotsAvg SNR (dB)Max KMSpots @ Max
TW 20M190-1738081
HS 20M121-1838081
TW 15M103-1764664
HS 15M88-1864666
TW 10M72-1842513
HS 10M50-2042134

Counting spots, the TW2010 performed better than each comparable Hamstick. That’s not really a surprise since well tuned dipoles usually outperform 1/4 wavelength verticals. The margins for numbers of spots are 35% better on 20M, 15% better on 15M and 31% better on 10M.

As for reach, the Maximum Kilometer distances are almost identical, with outliers for both antenna versions. At max distance, the Hamsticks have more hits which seems a disparity from the overall spot counts. The SNR averages are only 1 to 2 dB difference, with the Hamsticks showing a stronger average. So, why is it they have a lower number of spots? Tis a puzzlement…

For the graphic record, here are 6 maps corresponding with the 6 runs.

TW2010 20M
TW2010 15M
TW2010 10M
HS 20M
HS 15M
HS 10M

Turning from data to reality, I’ve made 6 QSOs from my Florida QTH to Oregon: 1 with the 20M Hamstick, 2 with the 20M TW2010, 2 with the 20M Wolf River Coils 17’whip, 1 with the 15M Wolf River Coils 17′ whip , most on different days, different times, different RSTs. so, yes all of these antennas “work.” 🙂

In the end, a subjective question remains: Is it worth paying about 6 times more for the TW2010 than for my collection of Hamsticks?

UPDATE 10/20/24: Two recent events happened recently with the TW2010.

  • A QSO with Paul Butzi, W7PFB out in the woods in Washington state. I’ve been chasing POTA for a long time, and WA is a LONG way from FL. Paul and I made a faint QSO, via the TW2010 and my QMX on my end and 10W into a a Chelegance MC-750 on his end.
  • The next day, frequency agility worked very well on the TW2010 as I made QSOs on all of its bands, 10m, 12m, 15m, 17m, 20m. Yes, I have Hamsticks for each of those bands, but band switching was easier with the TW2010’s “U” plugs, even faster than the Hamstick quick disconnects. Good propagation days and beautiful fall weather brings out POTA activators on all bands.

Filed Under: antennas

Taming my Shark HamSticks

May 27, 2024 by Bob Easton Leave a Comment

Neighbors near me in this HOA location are very tolerant of my “backyard portable” vertical antennas. The antennas are not obtrusive in appearance, use little space and work reasonably well considering they are not multi element yagis on a 60′ tower.

For some time, I worked with Wolf River Coils verticals on 40M, 30M, 20M. I use them on a tripod sitting over a radial field of 18 radials, each about 16′ long. While reasonably effective, changing bands is really fussy. Get out the NanoVNA, adjust the coil, adjust the whip length, repeat until good enough for the transmitter to be happy. Wash, rinse, repeat…

Some will suggest a multiband vertical instead. Even though I had a good experience with a fellow ham’s 6BTV, I’m not willing to live with its equally fussy tuning and losses, esp when it’s hidden inside a flagpole and every adjustment is a sequence of: lower the pole, uncover the antenna, adjust, re-cover the antenna and re-raise the pole, quite an ordeal.

So, I had the idea that I could acquire a collection of Hamsticks (40M, 30M, 15M, 10M) tune ’em once, install quick-change adapters on them and have band changes within seconds. BZZZZZZZZZT! A couple of them worked OK above my radial field. The others wouldn’t. We read frequently that more radials are always better, and Callum tells us that up to a certain point that’s true.

More radials: It Ain’t Necessarily So

Gershwin tried to tell us… I spent a lot of time yesterday trying each of these HamSticks in different configurations. My goal was to discover the configuration of each with the lowest SWR, as indicated by a NanoVNA.

My first variable included trying them directly atop the WRC tripod and then atop 1 or 2 aluminum extensions, 24″ long, that are part of the Wolf River Coils family. Only one of the HamSticks liked to be atop the extensions. The 40M stick worked out best atop two 24″ extensions. All the rest sit directly on the tripod.

My second variable included different radial configurations: (1) the in-the-grass radial field, (2) a set of 3 radials each 33 feet long, and later (3) some shorter ones. The 40M and 20M sticks were OK with the 18x 16′ in-the-grass radial field. The others wanted shorter radials. The 15M stick liked 3×33′ radials better (1.572 vs 2.100). Next, I folded those in half and got even better results. After that revelation, I reduced the 3 radials to 1/4 wavelength for 15M, 11 feet each, and found yet better results. Same thing for 10M. Three really short radials outperform a bigger radial field. Who would’ve guessed?

Photo of one hamstick mounted on the WRC tripod and the other three leaning against a wall

Of course, these measures of goodness are simply SWR numbers from a test device. On air performance is the real test. I’ve already made on-air contacts with all of them. My next round of measured testing will be WSPR runs.

Till then, this chart sums up my test results. I’ll be using he bold entries to make band changes fast, easy and tuner-free.

BandNo radials3 x 11 ft3 x 33 ft18 x 16′ field
40M3.65n/a1.7181.387
20M3.52n/a1.0821.085
15M1.7181.1391.5722.132
10M1.5951.4831.5831.656

Filed Under: antennas

Noise in the attic?

February 17, 2024 by Bob Easton Leave a Comment

If you have been following along with my antenna experiments, you know that I always work with temporary outdoor / field antennas and have been searching for a solution I can make more permanent. It needs to be always available, and frequency resilient.

The idea that I’ve harbored for a long time is a multi-band antenna in the attic. Never mind that certain people don’t want me climbing around in an attic which is likely more complex than the simple one we had “up north.”

The very successful EFHW became the ideal candidate. It performs well, even if its signal strength is about 1/2 an S-unit lower than my best verticals. I remade the original with heavier, more durable, wire and field tested it several days. Like the original, it performed well, with no need of a tuner, on 40M, 20M, 15m, and 10m. All I needed was someone to hang it in the attic.

After a good bit of searching, a good guy known as “The Village Tinker” suggested a certain “low voltage” installation firm (cable TV, ethernet, etc. ) They agreed to do it for the simple price of a one hour service call. A couple of guys came out and I described what I wanted, emphasizing that as high as possible was my desire. I handed them the antenna, complete with the 49:1 transformer in a box, and a simple center hanger that I had been using outdoors. They had the job done in about an hour and we exchanged a check for a receipt.

Results: the 4 band antenna that needed no tuner is now a 4 band antenna that needs a tuner for 3 of those bands, doesn’t hear very well, and has an S-5 noise floor! Sigh!!! I have made a few QSOs with it. The signal reports are lower than with other antennas, and the noise, apparently from other things running through the attic, makes it uncomfortable for listening and decoding CW. It certainly will not be an everyday antenna, maybe an alternative on rainy days.

40M every day use, needs a tuner.
15M needs a tuner
10M needs a tuner
20M every day use – NO tuner needed

What happened? I asked one of the installers to show me, on a overhead picture of the house, where the antenna ended up. It wasn’t as high as I expected, nor did it run quite as I expected. By that time, we were out of service call time, and I didn’t ask that he go change anything. What had really happened? He put the center hanger, a simple little plastic triangle with a few holes, as high as he could (not very)… when he came to it … If were installing it, I would have scooted the hanger along until I could get it up to the peak of the roof line. Because he didn’t use some of the distance going up, he had more wire left at the far end, and simply routed it around a corner. The antenna is not the inverted vee I wanted, but a bent horizontal that’s not very high. That speaks to the “doesn’t hear well” aspect. The difference in resonance points and in ambient noise floor is most likely due to the nearness of all the other kinds of wires and ducts in the attic space.

Should I ask for another service call to relocate it up to the top of the roof line? With the unpleasantly high noise floor, I think not.

Filed Under: antennas

Yet Another EFHW Experiment

February 13, 2024 by Bob Easton Leave a Comment

Bottom line: It is a reasonable 3.5 band antenna. It resonates OK on 40M, very well on 20M, OK on 15M, and can be coerced for 18M, and NO-GO on all other bands.

The design is found in an article that I have since lost (nobody specific to blame) and is based on making an End Fed Half Wave that is like many of the 40/20/15/10 designs but is made shorter by using an R/C network part way along the length. I don’t know the precise length and am too lazy to unwind and measure it. I’ll do that someday when I want to recycle the wire. 🙂 My adjustment to the design was in winding the 36:1 transformer on a core different from the usual larger core. Colin, MM0OPX purports this core to work better for frequencies above 20 Mhz. In reality, it didn’t work out that way for me. I also put some effort into packaging the transformer and BNC connector into a small streamlined form.

I launched it in the backyard in the usual inverted vee fashion of some of my other wires. Measurements with a NanoVNA produced these SWR values:

Band

40M

20M

15M

10M

Best Freq

7.26

13.9

21.13

28.45

Best SWR

1.35

1.05

1.57

2.65

QRP Freq

7.06

14.06

21.06

28.06

SWR

1.69

1.35

1.62

3.3

It becomes yet another addition to my antenna graveyard / spare parts bin.

Filed Under: antennas

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Solar-Terrestrial Data

Solar Ham

find the latest solar weather conditions

What’s happening NOW?

Recent Posts

  • AX1 “dummy load” rides a Trike
  • QMX+ First run
  • Yet another CW tool from Mike and Becky
  • New QSO Finder tool for CW operators
  • CW Learning Forever

Copyright © 2025 · Bob Easton · N4REE