40m wire antennas compared

Before going on holiday I managed to get some life into my old C-Pole using a new home made choke. I re-tuned the antenna (with some challenges) but did not get a chance to use it. 

In the past I did use it quite a bit and was pleased with the results but as always - this does not tell you a lot. HF conditions vary too quickly and dramatically to base any evaluation on single antenna experiences. You really need simultaneous A/B testing.

A gap in my schedule allowed me to go out and do some testing of different wire antennas for 40m. I ended up testing a C-Pole versus an end fed halve wave more or less vertical and the same C-Pole versus an inverted V dipole.

Test setup

I used two identical WSPRLite beacons that transmit with 200mW on the WSPR frequency. 

• The C-Pole was set up so that the feedpoint was at approx 2m above ground (that would be your typical setup with a 12m pole, like the Spiderbeam I have - with the top of the antenna at 11m). 
• The EFHW was attached to my 18m pole and therefore almost vertical. The last 3-4m I set up sloping so that the feedpoint was at approx 1.5m above ground.
• The Inverted V was set up so that the feedpoint/apex was about 13m high. 

The test period was the end of the afternoon. Not the best time for 40m and certainly not the best time to test DX performance. However it was the time I had available. 

C-Pole meets EFHW vertical

The first run was the C Pole vs the EFHW vertical. I let the beacons run for about an hour. After that time I had:

Antenna	Transmissions	Spotters	Spots
C-Pole	15	60	328
EFHW	15	60	392

On first glance the EFHW vertical seems to fare better. It has been heard more often. However both antennas reached the same amount of spotters. So nothing too dramatic here. There is not a lot of difference in the stations that received the signals - so most of the spotters returned data for both antennas.

Now looking at the SNR reported by the spotters there is more to say about the difference. I averaged the reports per spotter to decrease the amount of data points. The graph below shows the signal strength reported (SNR in dB on the Y axis) at the spotters' distance. It looks like the EFHW (in orange) performs better.

I then calculated the average difference in signal strength per spotter of the EFHW over the C-Pole - so only for spotters that returned reports for both antennas. The graph shows the difference the EFHW scored in dB - above the line means the EFHW beat the C-Pole. 

This clearly shows the EFHW beats the C-Pole on almost all distances and sometimes by a fair margin. The outlier is S51RS at 950km. That is the only spotter favoring the C-Pole significantly.

So if you have enough height available the EFHW is the one to choose out of the two at least for the ranges tested today. This is what I expected from the theoretical analysis I did some time ago.

An interesting followup would be to see how the EFHW would perform with the same top height (sloping from the 12m pole or tree branch). With a slingshot one can easily get a vertical wire up 20m, so I would normally aim for that height with this antenna.

C Pole meets inverted V dipole

Now how about the inverted V? This one adds another element to the game as it is horizontally polarised (as opposed to the vertical EFHW and the C-Pole).

I chose a height around 13m (not fully extending the 18m pole). In retrospect I might as well have gone 2 meters lower to compare the antenna if set up on the same 12m pole as I used for the C Pole antenna. Here we have a slight advantage for the inverted V.

Running the beacons for just under an hour I had:

Antenna	Transmissions	Spotters	Spots
C-Pole	10	45	202
Inverted V	11	46	219

The inverted V got one extra shot so it is hard to tell from this first glance which one performed better. 

Looking at the average report per spotter shows that the Inverted V (in green) seems to beat the C-Pole on most occasions. 

Moving one step further the indication is confirmed. The Inverted V wins (above the line) almost everywhere. The biggest outlier again is S51RS.

Conclusions

I did not test the inverted V against the EFHW vertical directly. However looking at the differences per test, using the C-Pole as "a reference antenna", there does not seem to be a lot of performance difference within EU. I would have expected the inverted V to do slightly better than the vertical on the shorter distances (with its higher radiation angle) but that might be only noticeable on even shorter distances.

So, this time I learned that within EU the C-Pole loses against an inverted V at more or less the some top height and loses against a vertical EFHW with the feedpoint at more or less the same height. 

One question remains - as the antenna's have different radiation patterns - would any of these clearly beat the others on multi hop DX? The simulations I did previously would suggest that the C-Pole would have an advantage over the inverted V because of more low angle radiation.

If it turns out the C-Pole does not "deliver on promise" there, then I cannot see a lot of situations where I would choose it over one of the other designs. Only if the footprint needs to be minimal and height is restricted (*).

This last question requires a new test around gray line time - when I can't use my favourite test ground as it is only accessible in daylight. Something to put on the "to do list".

*) Another one: would the C-Pole beat a shortened 40m EFHW of equal height - so approx. 12m? I have such a wire with spool that I used in the past for my 10-20-40m EFHW.

C-pole tuning part 3

This weekend I went out to test my C-pole with a new 1:1 balun. As I blogged before I ran into trouble with this antenna and the common mode choke I constructed in W2DU style.

To rule out any balun influences I had decided to tune the C-pole last week using my VNA without any balun present. My idea at the time was that this would give me the most clean picture of the antenna and would rule out any failure of the balun ruining the tuning process. Smart move? No. (but I learned something).

While working on the "naked" antenna I was amazed how much off it was. To me at the time it seemed strange (I tuned it before didn't I?) but it did explain why it failed in operation. So I continued re-tuning the antenna - moving the feedpoint a considerable bit along the one leg of the folded dipole (basically the C-pole is a dipole with the ends folded in a square shape towards each other).

After 1,5-2h of pushing the antenna up and down again I had a perfect match in the 40m band. One happy camper.

At home I tested and optimised my 40m balun. Ready for the final assembly and testing.

This weekend I had some time to go out to bring it all together and enjoy the fruits of my labour. However when I set up the antenna with balun I found.... it was way off. Go figure.

Tuning the C-pole yet another time

Discussing this with my YNOMY team members we came to the conclusion that the common mode current - considerable in this design - influences the measurements of the VNA. So tuning the "naked" antenna was a stupid idea and the time spent tuning was actually time spent detuning it.

A frustrated ham is never going to be the best person to work on any project but I did decide there and then to re-tune the antenna one more time. I was almost finished when I too hastily bumped the VNA against the pole. The center conductor of the SMA plug attached to the VNA broke off and is now securely in place in my VNA port - making it neither a female nor male connector (gender neutral - a modern concept). That concluded the tuning process for the time being.  

Gender neutral SMA connector

So now I have to replace the SMA connector on the VNA. That connector - I found - is soldered into place with lead free solder that I cannot remove with my soldering iron as it just does not heat up enough.
Luckily Marcel PG8M told me he both has the connectors and a proper soldering iron. So now I have to find the time to go over to his place and have him repair the damages (keeping a safe distance all the time of course).

Cooking on a choke

Out portable with my (relatively) new C-pole antenna last week I ran into trouble. After about 30 minutes signal levels dropped dramatically indicating something was wrong. I saw the SWR skyrocket.
Walking over to my c-pole I felt the common mode choke was boiling hot. So I changed antennas and continued my operation.

Back home I began my investigation in what went wrong. Immediately there were two suspects: the antenna (high swr for some reason) and the choke (too low choking impedance).

The antenna was fine when I used it the first time and I did not change anything in the mean time. So the choke seemed a more logical candidate. The purpose of the choke is to minimise the amount of common mode current that you will generate with an unbalanced antenna like the C-pole. If the choking impedance is too low however there will still be a considerable common mode current left that will generate heat in the choke.

W2DU style choke with ferroxcubes beads

On this latest homemade version of the c-pole I use a W2DU style choke that I constructed myself using a number of ferrite beads. The type and amount I used I based on the factsheet. On paper the choking impedance was OK but I can't remember if I really tested it. Checking it now I measured a whooping 400 Ohm of impedance - far too low to stop the CM current flow (I wonder if the heat impacted the ferrite?).

Removing turns of RG58 from two stacked FT240 toroids

On my first C-pole I used a different current choke, designed on the basis of the excellent information by the late G3TXQ. I used two FT240-43 ferrite toroids stacked with a couple of turns of RG58. It is bulkier and heaver though than a W2DU choke, that is why I changed it.
That toroid based choke also became very hot on my first c-pole but I later discovered the antenna itself had an issue - causing high swr - causing high voltages over the choke.

So I returned to this old choke - abandoned but not scrapped. I measured it and it had an interesting profile. It was particularly useful in the 80m band range (5k Ohm) but certainly not bad in the 40m range (2.5k Ohm).

Measurement #1 of the choking impedance and transmission loss on my balun

I decided to take it apart and remove one of the RG58 turns. As expected the choking maximum moved up. The profile now suited a 60m antenna perfectly while impedance was higher in the 40m band. After removing two more turns I got a maximum in the 40m band. The choking impedance is now more than 5k Ohm there. That should do the trick.

Measurement #2 after removing 3 turns of the coax

When I have the time I will go out /P with my C-pole to check it without a choke - just to be sure it still is resonant in the 40m band - and then add my old toroid based choke. 

Recent PAFF activities

Covid-19 has motivated me to go out portable again after months of little to no activity. Apart from some field tests I went out for two PAFF activations. One to PAFF-0016 (Sallandse Heuvelrug) that I visited once before in 2012 and one to PAFF-0055 (Deelerwoud) that I had visited four times already as it is near to my QTH.

The PAFF-0016 activity was on the Saturday afternoon during WPX SSB. There was no choice in the matter as I was out with my family and there was only that particular afternoon available. I was doubtful about my chances to work a nice number of stations (my target is a minimum of 100), but it was even worse than I feared. In 2,5 hours I only logged 26 QSOs from 13 DXCC. That is by far the lowest number I have logged during a WWFF activity.

It started out alright with K2VV (Missouri) as the first chaser coming back on 20m but then the contest QRM became stronger and stronger. The higher bands were closed (4 QSOs on 17m in 30 minutes), so I tried some (fake) CW on 20m. That gave me a few new chasers but that was slow with 10 chasers in 30 minutes. In the end I went down to 60m to add another 7 QSOs before calling it a day.

QSOs from PAFF-0016 - nicely spread out but only a handful

My visit to PAFF-0055 was the next Saturday and was completely the opposite. There was a contest that weekend but it would only start at 16h UTC. That gave me some time to use 20m and 40m before QRM started. 
The 6th chaser to return my call was Norm N9MM from Texas. That was good propagation news as TX is not regularly in my /P logs. Two more DX surprises were a new JA chaser and Paul VK5PAS who I had not heard for 3 years. 
Europe was well awake and the skip zones of 20m and 40m overlapped nicely. It was busy throughout. I logged 156 QSOs from 32 DXCC in just under 2 hours even though I had to change antennas for 40m as I seemed to have burnt the common mode choke of my C-pole...

QSOs from PAFF-0055 - activity level that makes an activator smile

That last activity was motivating which is good because I have a busy month of May ahead. I will be active with a special call - PH75FREE - commemorating 75 years of freedom (after the end of WW2). I hope to do most of the activity /P.

C-pole antenna for 40m - a dx profile at low heights

Yesterday I went out to test my newly built c-pole antenna. I have used one in the past but found out it had some construction errors - the effect of which was somehow hidden by the balun I added ( a couple of coax turns on an FT240 core). The balun did get extremely hot even with 100w - a sign something was wrong - and once I replaced it, the SWR went through the roof. 

I used an online calculator (http://svrc.org/cpole/) that turns out to give the wrong dimensions - at least for 40m. I did not notice it before but when using it again for my new version I found that adding all the various dimensions resulted in significantly less wire than the calculator specified as "total wire needed for antenna". So considerable tweaking in the field was necessary to get the antenna resonant (think of adding more than 1 meter of wire to one end).

New c-pole antenna in action

Construction
This time I used two short cheap and light fiberglass fishing poles for the horizontal spreaders. I cut them to the right length and ran the antenna wire through them. I used the caps on both ends to position the wire - making a hole in each cap and a knot in the antenna wire at each cap. Apart from their low weight and high stiffness an extra advantage over the PVC pipe I used before is the fact that the fishing pole can be (partly) retracted - decreasing the size of the collapsed antenna.

To complete the antenna I constructed a W2DU style balun. It is light and simple and still provides more than 20dB common mode suppression at 7Mhz (if you use the right beads). 

The first time I brought it out I used all my time to get the dimensions right. In the end I got the antenna to dip around 7.1 Mhz with an impedance of something like 49 Ohm - perfect.

The next opportunity to go out was yesterday. I tried the antenna from a nature reserve, to see if I could get a decent amount of contacts on 40m. It was too early to get any serious DX but I did log 150 contacts up to 2500km. So it did seem to tx and rx.

Comparing C-pole to EFHW, Inverted V and Delta Loop
The c-pole is an addition to a range of antennas I have for /P operation on 40m. I mostly use either an (almost) vertical end fed half wave or an inverted V - depending on how much space I have to set up the antenna and what kind of radiation pattern I am looking for (more NVIS or more dx). The final option I have is a delta loop (more or less corner fed - so vertically polarised). The loop is more complex to set up than the others though.

All these antennas can be used when I have my 18m Spiderbeam pole with me. They are all omni-directional but have a different radiation pattern in the vertical plane - with the vertical, c-pole and delta loop in one category and the inverted V dipole in another. 
Using my 18m Spiderbeam pole the antenna patterns (over local ground conditions) look like this:

• Pink is the inverted V. It has nice NVIS qualities with a lot of gain on high angles of radiation (5.4 dBi straight up) but at a takeoff angle of 15 degrees only -5dBi.
• Blue is the delta loop. It is almost the opposite of the inverted V dipole. It has most gain at a takeoff angle of 20 degrees (3.3 dBi, 3.1 at 15 degrees)
• Green is the (almost) vertical end fed half wave. A bit less pronounced than the delta loop. It has a max gain of 1.6 dBI at 15 degrees.
• Red is the new C-pole. It has a max gain of 2.1 dBi at 15 degrees. 

Looking at the three antennas with a "dx profile", the delta loop is the clear winner. It has more gain on low angles but also significantly more gain than the other two at higher angles. It is a bit more work to set up though and needs space.

The reason I started looking at my c-pole again is that there are situations in which my 18m pole is not available (I could not take it, or - in a team expedition - it is in use with another antenna). The next option I have then is my 12m Spiderbeam pole.
Now things are a bit different. For one, the delta loop is not an option anymore. The half wave vertical is also out of the question. That one becomes a sloping end fed half wave with quite a different behaviour.

Using my 12m Spiderbeam pole the antenna patterns (over local ground conditions) look like this:

• Blue is the inverted V. It is still radiating most of its energy up at high angles but the max gain is now down to 1.8 dBi. Gain at 15 degrees is down to -9dB.
• Green is the end fed half wave sloping. It is now also radiating more at high angles with a max gain of 3.8 dBi straight up. Gain at 15 degrees is -1.4dBi
• Red is the c-pole. Max gain is now 1.7 dBi at 20 degrees and 1.4 dBi at 15 degrees. 

The C-pole does not seem to suffer that much from the change in height. It actually performs a bit better on the higher angles without losing much on the lower angles. 

Comparing the C-pole at 2 meters off the ground and 7 meters off the ground shows that this antenna is better off on my 12m Spiderbeam pole:

Red is the C-Pole with the top at about 11.5m and Blue is the same antenna with the top at about 16.5m. At low angles almost no difference but at 45 degrees the lower C-pole has 7 dB more gain (at 60 degrees the difference adds up to 13 dB).

Looking at the radiation shape of the higher C-pole (in blue) you can see a central lobe that you can expect to grow when you put the antenna even higher - and it will. However height is not a variable I can influence that much. It will be somewhere between these two extremes.

Conclusion
The practical test showed that the antenna works - I logged a lot of contacts with good reports and the SWR is now perfect - and the model shows it is a decent addition to my set of antennas, especially when I am constrained in height.

Note: I have done some more in depth testing: https://www.ph0no.net/2020/08/40m-wire-antennas-compared.html