Those who have read previous reports of my portable activities know that I usually put in quite a bit of effort to set up a DX worthy station in the field - when possible using my hexbeam and a bit of power.
On the other end of the scale I still have a mobile antenna laying around from when I re-started the hobby in 2010. The antenna is known as D-Original DX-UHV and had some glaring reviews at the time. I did work across the pond to W with up to 7500km in phone and to PY and LU on psk31 (11.000km).
Quite quickly however I moved on to using end fed half wave wires for my portable activities, trying to cover more distance.
Noticing that there are a number of castle (WCA) and nature reserve (WWFF) activators that use a mobile antenna, I was wondering how effective that antenna actually is. I have no doubt the end fed wire is superior to the mobile antenna, but how much better is it? Should I consider going back to using the mobile antenna?
So time to bring out the two WSPRLite beacons (two identical 200mW WSPR beacons that I can use simultaneously) again and head out to my test location north of Arnhem. My reference antenna is a half wave end fed set up vertically - or almost vertically in the case of the 40m version as the pole I use is 18m high.
I started out with the 20m configuration of both antennas. The mobile antenna is in this configuration 147cm long. I chose to bring the feed point of the end fed wire about 2m off the ground as I have used this set up as a reference in other tests as well - and it is a set up that would only require a 12m pole so probably more relevant to the average activator.
For the second test of the 40m configurations, I fully extend the 18m pole and then sloped the last couple of meters of the end fed wire so that the feed point was about a meter of the ground. This is how I usually set the 40m end fed up in the field. On the mobile antenna I changed the element for 20m to the 40m version (the antenna is then 195cm long). The DX-UHV antenna can hold two different elements at the same time but for this test I decided to use one at the time.
As expected there is a clear winner on both bands - not surprisingly this is the vertical wire. The question I had was how much the two would differ. Here is a breakdown of the data I managed to collect in the time I had (1 hour on 20m and 1 hour on 40m),
Results on 20m
On 20m in 1 hour:
- DX-UHV - 16 transmission - 56 spots - 11 spotters
- End fed half wave wire - 16 transmissions - 118 spots - 24 spotters
DX-UHV did reach NA | End fed wire copied by the same and more |
Results on 40m
- DX-UHV - 15 transmissions - 119 spots - 27 spotters
- End fed half wave wire - 12 transmissions - 317 spots - 56 spotters
DX-UHV | End fed wire |
Odx for the mobile antenna was 2200km to SV8 (1 spot -29dB). Odx for the end fed wire was 3100km to EA8 (7 spots). Looking at the reports of stations that copied both signals multiple times, there is an average 10dB difference in the signal strength reported.
Hallo Lars, fb activiteiten,
ReplyDeleteIk kwam er net achter dat ik permanente bewoner ben van PAFF-0070 op het landgoed Eerde bij Ommen.... Mocht je die willen activeren ben je wat mij betreft welkom op het erf. overigens staat op het landgoed ook kasteel Eerde en die staat (nog?) niet op de lijst van het World castle Award... Misschien nog een idee?
73 en veel plezier met de hobby van Anthonie NL8992-R26 in Ommen. Meer info op qrzcq.com
TU. Je uitnodiging staat nu in de referentielijst op de PAFF website. Ben benieuwd of het wat oplevert.... 73, Lars
Delete