Hustler Vertical Antenna...

[w3dub]

... Directions SUCK. God, I got so frustrated with the damn thing I almost threw it across the yard. Thank god for some more experienced hams my club. They kept me sane (somewhat) hi hi and helped me figure out what i was doing wrong.

That said, I am so far pleased. 40 was a little bit of a mess tonight.. but I was hearing way more. I couldn't get out for anything on 75/80 with my dipole or hear much.. and heard 90% of the 3905CC 75m early net tonight and worked a ton of people.

I guess the real test if there is any noticable difference is tomorrow on 20. Since I'll be able to switch antennas while DX stations call QRZ I'll be able to make some meaningful comparisons.

But please Hustler, your good antenna is really neturalized by bad directions. Not all of us are veterans at putting up verticals, ya know ;)

[k6jpd]

IF you find that you need to adjust the traps, get in contact with DX ENGINEERING. they have an excellent instruction sheet about the traps (and they threw in a neat ball cap too!!!) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[w3dub]

Yup, got the ball cap.. thats who i got from! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

When I emailed them back for some question (forget what I asked), they e-mailed me the instruction sheet update and trap adjustment info.

Their customer support is excellent. I'm definitely going back to them.

[WA7KKP]

If you think your instructions were bad, I'd like to show you the instructions for my Butternut HF-9V. Barely readable, and many of you know how "rube goldberg" some of the traps are, you can't just guess your way though it.

When Butternut was bought by Bencher, I got good instructions off their website.

This is one time when RTFM was worse than not.

Gary WA7KKP

[KC9GUZ]

Uhhhh, have any of you ever put together a GAP antenna?? Their instructions are absolutely HORRID! Very little pictorial instruction but lots of wording instructions that were as confusing at the crude pictorial!! The pictorials that were there looked like a 5 year old drew them up! I had to figure out how the antenna went together myself, but after a few trial and errors its working pretty nice now. I did not buy the antenna new, but used and i can see why the ham i got it from sold it to me so cheaply!!! But i did make a silk purse out of a sows ear. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n6yg]

As far as I'm concerned ground mounted verticals are a big waste of time an money. I have over a 1000 feet of 14 gauge copper in the ground acting as radials for my ground mounted Hustler 6BTV. That's 863 feet more wire then I used to build my home brew 80-10 G5RV and the G5RV is superior in every way. What's amazing is the G5RV is only at 35 feet. It's not even in an optimal configuration. It's hung right in the center of a tree with the feed line dropped down the middle of the tree following the trunk, when the feed line reaches about 5 feet above ground it is bent 90 degrees and tied to a fence. Then we have the elements, the last 10 feet of the elements on both sides are only 8 feet off the ground and also bent at 90 degrees and run along a fence. Well even in this screwed up configuration the G5RV constantly out performs the Hustler by a minimum of 2S units and most of the time 3S or 4 S units. If the G5RV was installed as a flattop at 50+ feet I think it would literally obliterate the Hustler.

About the only signals the Hustler 6BTV is good at receiving is noise, and lots of it! it pulls noise in like a tornado to a trailer park. I'll be listening to an S9 signal using the G5RV and switch over to the vertical and hear that S9 signal drop down to an S3 but even at an S3 it's hard to hear because there is so much noise. We are not just talking low angle, It does not mater if it's a domestic contact or DX my homebrew G5RV is just more efficient. Just the other day I was in a QSO with a Russian station on 20 when a station in Anaheim came on to tell me I was 10 over S9. The Anaheim station is only about 600 miles away. At first I thought I had a defective antenna so I replaced the 6BTV with a new one, same results. Then I thought something in the near field was affecting it so moved it all over the property, No change!

I thought Verticals where supposed to be easy to install in limited space. BULL !! there is nothing easy about cutting crimping and soldering a 1000+ feet of wire into 20 or 30 radials and then burying them an inch under the soil. Not to mention the XVL is not very happy that she has to check with me before digging a hole for a plant in a 70 foot diameter chunk of our yard. As bad as it is with the radials its nothing but a big dummy load without them.

Then there is the obtrusiveness of the antenna. Besides the G5RV I have several dedicated single band dipoles stung up between trees. Unless you know where they are you would have no idea there where antennas around my house. Well The 6BTV changed all that.

Lets just put it this way, when I moved and could not install my towers. I was stuck with my G5RV and coming from multiple towers and yagi's I was deeply disappointed in it's performance. That is until I tried a vertical. The difference between My G5RV and the Hustler is about the same as the difference between my 3 element tribander and my G5RV

[WB2WIK]

KF6PYF: There's something wrong with your 6BTV or the overall installation, despite all the radials. Everything you describe is contrary to my experience, which includes 42 years of using 6BTVs.

I have an 8 element HF multiband yagi at 55 feet, a 6BTV on a roof tower at 25 feet (with 24 tuned radials, four per band), a G5RV at 45 feet and other antennas for HF.

The 6BTV blows away the G5RV about 75% of the time. Now, there are occasions when the G5RV does better -- but not often. The 6BTV compares very favorably with the beam, often, and on 40 meters, where the 6BTV absolutely shines, I use it daily to work European DX at 5500-7000 miles. Daily. It receives no more noise than any other antenna I have, and because it's lower than the beam, the 6BTV frequently produces a lower noise level than the beam does.

After reading your writeup, I have to believe you've got a local problem, either with the 6BTV itself (very possible -- they go bad and some are defective right out of the box), or the way it's assembled, or its feedline, or its installation in some manner.

I've installed a lot of the "BTV" Hustlers over the years, as well as the Butternut HF2V/HF6V/HF9V (which are also very good), Hy-Gain AV-640, Cushcraft R7/R8, Hy-Gain 14AVQ and DX88 and all sorts of verticals at many locations over four decades and in general they work superbly, outperforming most wire antennas at those same locations.

If you read the "HF Vertical Comparisons" report by K7LXC and N0AX (it's been out for years and is a very well respected, well documented technical report), the 6BTV fares extremely well and is probably ranked "best bang for the buck" of all HF vertical antennas.

WB2WIK/6

[K3VR]

I agree Steven. I have a 5BTV, ground-mounted with 50 radials. Very easy directions. It only has about 8 parts and a bag of hardware. Took me about half an hour to assemble - a bit longer to cut and place radials.

It works extremely well 80-10m after about 500 miles, in keeping with the low angle of radiation, and it works very well on 10m as a local rag-chew vertical.

In Europe, it's consistently 10 dB better than my dedicated wires for 40 and 80m. At times, depending on propagation, it was better than a tri-bander at 60 feet - particularly into Kuwait and Antarctica.

K7CIE, AD5TH, and my installation are featured at the DX Engineering website. Best bang for the buck in the world of multi-band verticals.

Brian

ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS (http://www.dxengineering.com/pdf/hustler_4btv5btv_instl.pdf)

EHAM REVIEWS (http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/1902)

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (K3VR @ May 04 2007,15:03)]I agree Steven. I have a 5BTV, ground-mounted with 50 radials. Very easy directions. It only has about 8 parts and a bag of hardware. Took me about half an hour to assemble - a bit longer to cut and place radials.
I agree with that, too.

The only thing wrong with the Hustler instructions is they use letters A-B-C-D to describe the length of tubing exposed above and below traps and they way they depict it is a bit confusing to some. They should have been clearer about these dimensions.

However, having said that, the last 6BTV I installed at home in 2001 was completely assembled by my daughter who was 9 years old at the time. I gave her the parts from the carton and asked her to do her best to put it all together, and when I came back an hour later, it was all assembled, and correctly. I had to tighten all the hose clamps, as she wasn't strong enough to get them really tight.

Since mine is an elevated mount, I only used four radials per band, and they're all cut to 1/4-wavelength. The 40 through 10 meter radials all land on the roof, but the 80m radials extend over the edges of the roof in two directions -- oh well. They're extended by lightweight nylon cord and tied off to trees in the yard.

Works very, very well indeed. I often break pretty big pileups with it on 30m and 40m.

WB2WIK/6

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ May 04 2007,14:47)]KF6PYF: There's something wrong with your 6BTV or the overall installation, despite all the radials. Everything you describe is contrary to my experience, which includes 42 years of using 6BTVs.

I have an 8 element HF multiband yagi at 55 feet, a 6BTV on a roof tower at 25 feet (with 24 tuned radials, four per band), a G5RV at 45 feet and other antennas for HF.

The 6BTV blows away the G5RV about 75% of the time. Now, there are occasions when the G5RV does better -- but not often. The 6BTV compares very favorably with the beam, often, and on 40 meters, where the 6BTV absolutely shines, I use it daily to work European DX at 5500-7000 miles. Daily. It receives no more noise than any other antenna I have, and because it's lower than the beam, the 6BTV frequently produces a lower noise level than the beam does.

After reading your writeup, I have to believe you've got a local problem, either with the 6BTV itself (very possible -- they go bad and some are defective right out of the box), or the way it's assembled, or its feedline, or its installation in some manner.

I've installed a lot of the "BTV" Hustlers over the years, as well as the Butternut HF2V/HF6V/HF9V (which are also very good), Hy-Gain AV-640, Cushcraft R7/R8, Hy-Gain 14AVQ and DX88 and all sorts of verticals at many locations over four decades and in general they work superbly, outperforming most wire antennas at those same locations.

If you read the "HF Vertical Comparisons" report by K7LXC and N0AX (it's been out for years and is a very well respected, well documented technical report), the 6BTV fares extremely well and is probably ranked "best bang for the buck" of all HF vertical antennas.

WB2WIK/6
Actually I need to make a correction I have simplified the antenna and converted it back to a 5BTV. Now I am considering just converting it to a 4BTV as its 80 meter bandwidth is about useless. As far as local conditions I guess that could be a problem, But it does not seem to have afected my 3 wire antennas and I have changed the Hustlers location multiple times. I have taken it apart cleaned the mating surfaces. checked and rechecked it's assembly. I have replaced the feed line and swapped it between other antennas. My MFJ -259 says all is as it should be. I have put chokes in line and taken them out. Same results 90 percent of the time the G5RV is stronger by at least 2 S units on DX and as much as 3 or 4 S units on domestic. It seems as though it is better for DX but still not as strong as my G5RV of course my G5RV is built the way it's supposed to be built, no baluns and an open wire feeder.

I find it hard to believe that a 1/4 wave trapped vertical can out perform a 100+ feet of wire. If you are seeing better performance from your vertical then I just have to assume your G5RV is not up to par.

I have both a 40 meter dipole at about 50 feet and a 20 meter dipole at about 35 feet. My G5RV is constantly within 1 S unit of both these dipoles, this seems to confirm that the G5RV is performing well. So either I have to assume that I have 3 wire antennas that are defective. Or I have to believe that ground mounted 1/4 wave trapped verticals don't perform as well as dipoles and other wire antennas.

As far as constructions, no insult intended but I just don't understand people who say the DX engineering instruction's suck I think they did a fine job. It's a simple antenna, it's not that difficult to build or install. You have 4 sets of measurements for different mounting configurations with subsets of A,B,C,D. All you need is a tape measure a screwdriver and a Sledge hammer. Of course I have been building and custom designing model helicopters and airplanes for over 30 years so my ability to follow simple written instructions and my mechanical skills are probably above average.

Don't misunderstand me I would love this antenna to perform better as it would be a good value for the money, Heck the wire I have in the ground as radials are worth about as much as the antenna. Maybe I have a defective antenna so unless DX engineering is willing to replace it for free I don't want to invest anymore money in it. I doubt they will do that even though its only been installed a short time its been sitting in its box un-assembled for a few years.

[k6bbc]

I've owned about 5 of them over the past 40 years. They were all terrible.

bbc

[w3dub]

I honestly can't say about its performance yet... other than I was pleased with how well it got out on 75m. 20m today was pitiful.. actually just about every band this afternoon was here.

The directions are not good at all.

Alas there's always tommorow.

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] ]Same results 90 percent of the time the G5RV is stronger by at least 2 S units on DX and as much as 3 or 4 S units on domestic. It seems as though it is better for DX but still not as strong as my G5RV ....

I find it hard to believe that a 1/4 wave trapped vertical can out perform a 100+ feet of wire. If you are seeing better performance from your vertical then I just have to assume your G5RV is not up to par.

... So either I have to assume that I have 3 wire antennas that are defective. Or I have to believe that ground mounted 1/4 wave trapped verticals don't perform as well as dipoles and other wire antennas.

You are measuring "performance" by the S-meter reading in receive on your radio? OK. That explains a lot.

[k6jpd]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ May 04 2007,15:56)]I've owned about 5 of them over the past 40 years. #They were all terrible.

bbc
i'm not sure that i understand everything i know about that http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ May 05 2007,02:32)]Quote[/b] ]Same results 90 percent of the time the G5RV is stronger by at least 2 S units on DX and as much as 3 or 4 S units on domestic. It seems as though it is better for DX but still not as strong as my G5RV ....

I find it hard to believe that a 1/4 wave trapped vertical can out perform a 100+ feet of wire. If you are seeing better performance from your vertical then I just have to assume your G5RV is not up to par.

... So either I have to assume that I have 3 wire antennas that are defective. Or I have to believe that ground mounted 1/4 wave trapped verticals don't perform as well as dipoles and other wire antennas.

You are measuring "performance" by the S-meter reading in receive on your radio? OK. That explains a lot.
Nice assumption ! but totally incorrect.
Although the transmit performance of the 6BTV is constant with it's reception performance
The results I posted are a combination of both receive and transmit performance.
For example if I switch to the 6BTV from the G5RV and a receive signal drops 2 S units the station I am in a QSO with usually reports that my transmit signal has dropped an equivalent amount.
Keep in mind that if you can't hear them you can't work them... So it's kind of useless to have an antenna that transmits better then it receives

One thing I failed to mention is the performance of the 6BTV seems to improve drastically at night and early morning when the noise drops. If propagation holds out till after the sun sets the noise level of the 6BTV drops quite a bit and it's performance begins to equal my G5RV. But during day light hours the G5RV is constantly a much stronger performer. I'm sure it does much better roof mounted but on the ground it sucks. I have not given up on the 6BTV. I just picked up a 5,000 foot spool of 18 gauge magnet wire at a garage sale for the whopping price of $25. I plan on using some of this to add at least another 1000 feet of radials. The radials that are in the ground right now are cut for 80 meters. I know with ground mounted radials, radial tuning is not supposed to mater. Regardless I think I'm going to add more radials and cut them for the rest of the bands and see what happens.

[w3dub]

Just a note, the updated directions from DX engineering recommend you don't bother cutting radials for a specific frequency, because the ground will detune them anyway. Just make sure they're at least the length of the antenna, which for the 6BTV I think is 30ft?

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (KB3JGU @ May 05 2007,21:38)]Just a note, the updated directions from DX engineering recommend you don't bother cutting radials for a specific frequency, because the ground will detune them anyway. Just make sure they're at least the length of the antenna, which for the 6BTV I think is 30ft?
My original 1000 feet of ground radials where cut to 31.5 feet. I just added 10 more cut to 16.5 just to see if it affected 20 meters. Just as I assumed it made no difference. I still can't get 20 meters tuned. The lowest I can get is 1.5:1 on 13.900 which jumps to 2:1 at 14.150 and 3:1 at 14.250. Now 10,15,40,and 80 all tune in just fine. but 20 just refuses to cooperated I just can't get the SWR sweet spot to move up.

[N5FOG]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 05 2007,03:01)]Quote[/b] (KB3JGU @ May 05 2007,21:38)]Just a note, the updated directions from DX engineering recommend you don't bother cutting radials for a specific frequency, because the ground will detune them anyway. Just make sure they're at least the length of the antenna, which for the 6BTV I think is 30ft?
My original 1000 feet of ground radials where cut to 31.5 feet. I just added 10 more cut to 16.5 just to see if it affected 20 meters. Just as I assumed it made no difference. I still can't get 20 meters tuned. The lowest I can get is 1.5:1 on 13.900 which jumps to 2:1 at 14.150 and 3:1 at 14.250. Now 10,15,40,and 80 all tune in just fine. but 20 just refuses to cooperated I just can't get the SWR sweet spot to move up.
I about went crazy having the same problem with my 5-BTV until I adjusted the traps.

After tweaking 2 of the traps about a 1/2 to 3/4 inch I was able to get the SWR to less then 1.5 on all bands.

When adjusting the traps a little movement does allot to shifting the resonate frequency.


FOG

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 06 2007,04:01)]My original 1000 feet of ground radials where cut to 31.5 feet. I just added 10 more cut to 16.5 just to see if it affected 20 meters. Just as I assumed it made no difference. I still can't get 20 meters tuned. The lowest I can get is 1.5:1 on 13.900 which jumps to 2:1 at 14.150 and 3:1 at 14.250. Now 10,15,40,and 80 all tune in just fine. but 20 just refuses to cooperated I just can't get the SWR sweet spot to move up.
FOG is correct. You need to adjust the 20 meter trap.

Also, 1000 feet of 31.5 foot long radials is roughly 32 radials. That should be enough but 40 is even better. Length is not particularly important if they are on or in the ground as long as they're at least 1/5 or 1/4 wavelength on the longest wavelength band you're running, or at least as long as the antenna is high, whichever is less.

By the way, earlier in the thread you said that your radials were cut for 80 meters. Actually, 31.5 feet is quarter-wave for 40 meters, not 80..

As for your one or two S-unit differences between the 6BTV and your wire antenna, you have to realize that what several people have said so far is true: that it depends on the distance to the station you're working. Or more precisely the take-off angle that is germane to that distance. Generally closer in stations will benefit from the horizontal wire, while farther stations will benefit from the vertical. #Many hams have both and when they have a marginal signal, switch from one to the other to see which one is working best. You might find it interesting to download the EZNEC demo program and play around comparing radiation patterns of verticals versus dipoles at various heights.

Also I would not be too concerned about S-meter readings on receive. They don't mean a whole lot. You can change the S-meter reading yourself by changing the RF gain or changing the IF filter. #What you want is high signal to noise ratio. Spend some time learning how to optimize your receiver and you'll find that signals that don't even move your S-meter can be popped out of the background noise and be perfectly readable.

My own experience has been that I prefer my vertical most of the time rather than my dipoles. I had a 6BTV ground-mounted with 15 radials for several years. Last year I replaced it with an HF2V also ground-mount with 32 radials. I supplement it with an 80 meter low dipole for those occassions when I want to work closer-in stations.

During the ARRL CW DX contest I did a comparison between my vertical and a dipole on 15 meters (the HF2V is nominally an 80 & 40 meter antenna, but it tunes up and works just fine on 15m). #Actually recieved signals (using my RF gain and IF filters appropriately) I couldn't really tell much difference between the two antennas, except that those off to the side of the dipole I could not hear of course. On transmit, the vertical was hands-down the better performer. Stations that could not even hear me on the dipole would come right back when I switched to the vertical.

So in other words, if you tune your 20 meter trap, and then gain experience with the antenna and its characteristics, I think you'll eventually realize that what several of us have been saying about verticals is at least plausible.

Of course, if we had a rotatable #beams on towers, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ May 06 2007,05:58)]Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 06 2007,04:01)]My original 1000 feet of ground radials where cut to 31.5 feet. I just added 10 more cut to 16.5 just to see if it affected 20 meters. Just as I assumed it made no difference. I still can't get 20 meters tuned. The lowest I can get is 1.5:1 on 13.900 which jumps to 2:1 at 14.150 and 3:1 at 14.250. Now 10,15,40,and 80 all tune in just fine. but 20 just refuses to cooperated I just can't get the SWR sweet spot to move up.
FOG is correct. You need to adjust the 20 meter trap.

Also, 1000 feet of 31.5 foot long radials is roughly 32 radials. That should be enough but 40 is even better. Length is not particularly important if they are on or in the ground as long as they're at least 1/5 or 1/4 wavelength on the longest wavelength band you're running, or at least as long as the antenna is high, whichever is less.

By the way, earlier in the thread you said that your radials were cut for 80 meters. Actually, 31.5 feet is quarter-wave for 40 meters, not 80..

As for your one or two S-unit differences between the 6BTV and your wire antenna, you have to realize that what several people have said so far is true: that it depends on the distance to the station you're working. Or more precisely the take-off angle that is germane to that distance. Generally closer in stations will benefit from the horizontal wire, while farther stations will benefit from the vertical. Many hams have both and when they have a marginal signal, switch from one to the other to see which one is working best. You might find it interesting to download the EZNEC demo program and play around comparing radiation patterns of verticals versus dipoles at various heights.

Also I would not be too concerned about S-meter readings on receive. They don't mean a whole lot. You can change the S-meter reading yourself by changing the RF gain or changing the IF filter. What you want is high signal to noise ratio. Spend some time learning how to optimize your receiver and you'll find that signals that don't even move your S-meter can be popped out of the background noise and be perfectly readable.

My own experience has been that I prefer my vertical most of the time rather than my dipoles. I had a 6BTV ground-mounted with 15 radials for several years. Last year I replaced it with an HF2V also ground-mount with 32 radials. I supplement it with an 80 meter low dipole for those occassions when I want to work closer-in stations.

During the ARRL CW DX contest I did a comparison between my vertical and a dipole on 15 meters (the HF2V is nominally an 80 & 40 meter antenna, but it tunes up and works just fine on 15m). Actually recieved signals (using my RF gain and IF filters appropriately) I couldn't really tell much difference between the two antennas, except that those off to the side of the dipole I could not hear of course. On transmit, the vertical was hands-down the better performer. Stations that could not even hear me on the dipole would come right back when I switched to the vertical.

So in other words, if you tune your 20 meter trap, and then gain experience with the antenna and its characteristics, I think you'll eventually realize that what several of us have been saying about verticals is at least plausible.

Of course, if we had a rotatable beams on towers, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I am aware of low angle and high angle radiation patterns. That was the original reason I wanted a vertical as they have lower radiation angles better suited for DX. I am also aware that S meter readings are not a standard. But they are useful for casual A/B testing on the same rig using different antennas. I only used them here as a way of expressing my observed results in a simplified manner. I also know how to adjust my rig too pull signals out of the mud. And when the rigs controls are at their limits, I fire up the DSP-784B which does a great job. The only draw back to being able to pull signals that far out of the mud is the station you worked so hard to pull in probably won't be able to hear you. I mean when you are trying to copy a station running full legal limit into a 4 element monobander at 120 feet and the best you can do is bring him just above your S2 noise level. You know when the other station is complaining of S7 noise levels that your 600 watts into a vertical is not even going to be heard at his station But you try anyways http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I will say that last night was interesting. I added 4 more radials cut for 14 meters. Now I know it's not supposed to matter with ground mounted systems but I did it anyways. Well it did not improve the SWR but it might have affected the antennas performance. Last night was the first time I had seen the 6BTV work better then the G5RV, and on 20 meters! I Just upgraded my ticket and was itching to use my new band privileges. I kind of wanted to make my first call as a /AE count.. Well I had been listening all day and heard a few state side QSO but nothing worth messing with. Well I was just about to give up when at 0458/UTC I heard an SN2 station around 14.180 calling CQ contest and and calling North American stations only. Well there you have it my first contact as KF6PYF/AE and Poland at that! The interesting thing is the 6BTV was pulling this station in better then the G5RV.

Now when you say adjust the traps, I'm assuming you mean loosen the clamps the instructions warn will void your warranty if loosen. Of course I have no problem with this as I can scribe a line in the original position and put it back to the factory setting. With the resonant point being so low down about 13.900 should I move the tube in or out of the trap?

[N5FOG]

I just emailed you a copy of the BTV series trap adjustment instructions from New-Tronics/Hustler in PDF format.

The problem I had when I adjusted the traps on mine is they put allot of silicone under the black cap on top of the trap causing the trap not to slide. So I had to pull the body of the trap down to make the cap pop off and had to remove the silicone so I could get the black cap to slide down.

After you've got the traps properly adjusted, just slide the black cap up a little and put some silicone under it and on top to keep the water out.

But to answer you question, when you loosen the clamp on the bottom of the trap, you slide the trap DOWN to RAISE the resonate frequency. Hustler says each 1/4" will change the resonate freq. 500 khz.

FOG

[k6jpd]

"Now when you say adjust the traps, I'm assuming you mean loosen the clamps the instructions warn will void your warranty if loosen. Of course I have no problem with this as I can scribe a line in the original position and put it back to the factory setting. With the resonant point being so low down about 13.900 should I move the tube in or out of the trap?"

mine was resonant @ 13.525, i moved the trap (shortened it) by 3/4 inch, now resonant @ 14.150. highest vswr 0n 20 is 1.2 at 14.350. (btw, i think i mentioned trap adjustment in the early part of this thread) try 3/8 -5/16 that should get you in the ball park http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif good luck

[WB2WIK]

If you have a trap that's not adjusted for resonance, that throws antenna performance off quite a lot on that band and the other bands that are lower in frequency.

"100 feet of wire" can easily be outperformed by a 1/4-wave vertical -- in fact, on most bands, the resonant 1/4-wave vertical should, in theory, be far better because the 100' of wire (102' actually with a G5RV design) generally provides gain in all the wrong places to contribute to real-world performance.

If you model a G5RV using EZNEC, for example, you'll see it has a 4-lobe cloverleaf pattern on 20m, and 6 lobes on 15, and 8 lobes on 10, etc. Those lobes each have "gain," but the gain pattern is very narrow and there are huge nulls in between those lobes where the G5RV has very substantial "negative gain" (loss)...as much as 30-40 dB loss in some of those nulls, if the antenna is high enough above earth. Also, like with all horizontal antennas, the takeoff angle at which maximum gain develops varies with frequency but is usually too high to do much good on 30-40-80 meters, and can actually be too low to do much good on the higher bands. (A very low radiation angle is not useful in many cases, especially if there are any local obstacles within a few miles that can block signals launched at those lower angles.)

A 1/4-wave vertical over a good radial system, on the other hand, has unity gain in all directions at generally useful angles in the 20-30 degree area. It has no major "nulls" at all, except overhead where a big null is desirable, since you can't use the ionosphere directly overhead anyway, especially above about 5 MHz. ("NVIS" is interesting, but doesn't work on the higher bands at all, no matter what kind of antenna you use.)

The other major "null" from a vertical is directly beneath the antenna, which is a very good thing since you can't work stations below ground. A horizontal wire antenna like a G5RV has lots of radiation straight down (below it), which is useless and does nothing except waste power.

If the BTV vertical is 2 "S" units down from the G5RV, for certain there's something wrong with the BTV vertical. It may be something as simple as a bad or maladjusted trap, and your discussion points to that as a strong possibility. A maladjusted 20m trap degrades the antenna performance on 20m, 30m, 40m and 80m, although it shouldn't affect anything on 10m or 15m.

WB2WIK/6

[W0JBC]

WIK:

I agree that the verticles WORK ....

Just a basic thing though .... Over the 42 years ,of your experience , you must have erected the first antenna when you were 14 years old .. You were born in 1951 .

A prodigy ...

Good info ......


JB

[w3dub]

I still don't understand how the radials actually work since they are attached to the back of the mount rather than the actual antenna itself. If somebody would be so kind as to explain that to me I'd appreciate it.

Wish I could try it out on 20. But bands sucked when it finally was up and working, and now we had the contest this weekend when 20 came back. Hopefully Monday will be the day.

[k6jpd]

Quote[/b] (KB3JGU @ May 06 2007,20:59)]I still don't understand how the radials actually work since they are attached to the back of the mount rather than the actual antenna itself. If somebody would be so kind as to explain that to me I'd appreciate it.

Wish I could try it out on 20. But bands sucked when it finally was up and working, and now we had the contest this weekend when 20 came back. Hopefully Monday will be the day.
quick version, the vertical is really only "half" an antenna (marconi antenna? still early here). it's like a di pole with the ground side cut off and then stood up vertically. the radials are the other side # go here: http://www.electronics-tutorials.com/antennas/antenna-basics.htm

[w3dub]

Yes i understand that.. but i'm asking how it works when its on the back of the mount rather than somewhere closer to the antenna. I just don't understand that part.

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (W0JBC @ May 06 2007,20:29)]WIK:

I agree that the verticles WORK ....

Just a basic thing though .... Over the 42 years ,of your experience , you must have erected the first antenna when you were 14 years old .. You were born in 1951 .

A prodigy ...

Good info ......


JB
JBC, I've been licensed since the age of 13 (in 8th grade) and was a General working on my eighth ARRL logbook by the time I was 14.

My first antennas were all wires/dipoles and then I tried a vertical. Wow! Once I figured out how to actually make the vertical work (by adding a lot of radials to it), it was outstanding and I've believed in verticals ever since. I have a tower and beams for HF also -- and pretty much always have since I was in my teens -- but verticals are still my "go-to" antennas, when the beam's aimed the wrong way or I want to join a round-table with stations in different directions, etc. A good vertical is not far below a beam in performance, and occasionally my verticals will beat the beams.

Regarding radial connections: Radials are directly connected to the antenna! What are you talking about with the "bracket" discussions?? Your transmission line has two conductors: Inner and outer (for coax). They both carry exactly the same RF current. There is no "hot" side and "cold" side: They're both equally "hot."

The fact that with a ground-mounted vertical, one side of that cable can be earth grounded doesn't matter. The cable still carries the RF current from the rig right to the antenna. As such, where the coaxial cable outer conductor (shield) connects to the antenna is the place to connect the radial system. You are connecting it directly to the transmission line by doing so: The detail that this point can also be at earth ground potential doesn't mean anything. It's still "hot" and not "cold," because there's as much RF current there as there is pumping into the vertical radiator element.

If there isn't, then you have an antenna that will not work well -- such as a vertical with a bad radial system that cannot conduct as much current with as low resistance as the main radiator itself.

Forget the detail that this point is "earthed," because it doesn't matter if it is, or it isn't.

WB2WIK/6

[w3dub]

Wow. I just got two dx stations in under 5 tries in a pileup. At 1730z. Before I couldn't even smell DX before 2000z with the dipole. Hats off to Hustler.. i am impressed!

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ May 06 2007,15:21)]If you have a trap that's not adjusted for resonance, that throws antenna performance off quite a lot on that band and the other bands that are lower in frequency.

"100 feet of wire" can easily be outperformed by a 1/4-wave vertical -- in fact, on most bands, the resonant 1/4-wave vertical should, in theory, be far better because the 100' of wire (102' actually with a G5RV design) generally provides gain in all the wrong places to contribute to real-world performance.

If you model a G5RV using EZNEC, for example, you'll see it has a 4-lobe cloverleaf pattern on 20m, and 6 lobes on 15, and 8 lobes on 10, etc. Those lobes each have "gain," but the gain pattern is very narrow and there are huge nulls in between those lobes where the G5RV has very substantial "negative gain" (loss)...as much as 30-40 dB loss in some of those nulls, if the antenna is high enough above earth. Also, like with all horizontal antennas, the takeoff angle at which maximum gain develops varies with frequency but is usually too high to do much good on 30-40-80 meters, and can actually be too low to do much good on the higher bands. (A very low radiation angle is not useful in many cases, especially if there are any local obstacles within a few miles that can block signals launched at those lower angles.)

A 1/4-wave vertical over a good radial system, on the other hand, has unity gain in all directions at generally useful angles in the 20-30 degree area. It has no major "nulls" at all, except overhead where a big null is desirable, since you can't use the ionosphere directly overhead anyway, especially above about 5 MHz. ("NVIS" is interesting, but doesn't work on the higher bands at all, no matter what kind of antenna you use.)

The other major "null" from a vertical is directly beneath the antenna, which is a very good thing since you can't work stations below ground. A horizontal wire antenna like a G5RV has lots of radiation straight down (below it), which is useless and does nothing except waste power.

If the BTV vertical is 2 "S" units down from the G5RV, for certain there's something wrong with the BTV vertical. It may be something as simple as a bad or maladjusted trap, and your discussion points to that as a strong possibility. A maladjusted 20m trap degrades the antenna performance on 20m, 30m, 40m and 80m, although it shouldn't affect anything on 10m or 15m.

WB2WIK/6
Ohhh Boy here we go with the theoretical horse hockey! you can theorize all you like but real world performance is what counts.

Antenna modeling programs are pretty much useless for ground mounted antennas, Until a modeling program can include the effects of two 40 foot oak trees, about 250 feet of fence, two single story 4 bedroom homes including contents 3 vehicles a large utility box and a metal shed all within 1 or 2 wavelengths not to mention the two story apartment complex and overhead power lines and street lights about 4 wavelengths away! and the grade under the antenna, then they are pretty much useless. What good is knowing how an antenna performs in free space when antennas never operate in free space. Now get that antenna up on the roof or on top of a tower and the results of the modeling program and actual performance might bear a distant resemblance. But on the ground unless you have 10 or 12 wavelengths of clear space 360 degrees around your vertical what the modeling program shows and what you get will be two completely different animals. People need to stop relying so heavily on computers. I know Marine architects and engineers have already learned their lesson with regard to relying on computer modeling. Do you have any idea how many 100 of millions of dollars have been wasted on hull designs because young, dumb engineers decided to rely on computer modeling programs rather then listen to wiser, older engineers who warned of the errors in their reasoning. Computer modeling is one reason the US lost the Americas cup.

As far as my antenna, there is nothing wrong with my vertical it's just that my homebrew G5RV is better. In fact I just took apart my 6BTV opened all the coils inspected them reassembled them. then reassembled the antenna. Now it tunes up fine on 20 but over all not much of an improvement. I tested it in a QSO with a station in Chicago. The signals where 59 both ways on the G5RV and 100 watts as soon as I switched to the 6BTV my signal dropped to 44 and his dropped to a 22. His signal went from loud strong and clear to almost nonexistent. I had two more stateside QSO's with the same results. Ok so you say the vertical is better with DX. Lets try some 20 meter DX, lets start with Poland SN7 59 both ways on the G5RV once switched to the vertical my report dropped to a 54 and his dropped to a 44, Ukraine, Russia, and Israel all with similar results. The fact is I could not even hear Israel with the vertical but managed a 55 with the G5RV. I guess those nulls and lobes must be in the right spots.

You can talk about theoretical lobes and nulls and losses all you like but real world performance is what counts and my G5RV constantly out performs the 6BTV, If the performance problem with the 6BTV is environmental then the antenna is just way to dam sensitive to objects in the near and far field.

Like I said a properly built G5RV is a great 20 meter antenna. Unfortunately the worst thing to happen to the G5RV is the abortion Van Gordon among others call a G5RV.

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (Kc5fog @ May 06 2007,01:48)]Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 05 2007,03:01)]Quote[/b] (KB3JGU @ May 05 2007,21:38)]Just a note, the updated directions from DX engineering recommend you don't bother cutting radials for a specific frequency, because the ground will detune them anyway. Just make sure they're at least the length of the antenna, which for the 6BTV I think is 30ft?
My original 1000 feet of ground radials where cut to 31.5 feet. I just added 10 more cut to 16.5 just to see if it affected 20 meters. Just as I assumed it made no difference. I still can't get 20 meters tuned. The lowest I can get is 1.5:1 on 13.900 which jumps to 2:1 at 14.150 and 3:1 at 14.250. Now 10,15,40,and 80 all tune in just fine. but 20 just refuses to cooperated I just can't get the SWR sweet spot to move up.
I about went crazy having the same problem with my 5-BTV until I adjusted the traps.

After tweaking 2 of the traps about a 1/2 to 3/4 inch I was able to get the SWR to less then 1.5 on all bands.

When adjusting the traps a little movement does allot to shifting the resonate frequency.


FOG
Hey Fog thanks for the Info on adjusting the traps.

It allowed me to open all the traps and confirm the right ones where placed in the right position. I also got a chance to better understand this antenna. I have to admit it's a good value for the money. However I did discover a design flaw with the new style coil covers. I'm sure my 20 meter coil was properly tuned at the factory but the cover slipped ether while being assembled or during use. It seems as though the reliefs at the bottom of the coil cover are insufficient to allow the coil cover to grip the mast. I was able to move the coil cover before ever loosening the clamp. In fact I could not tighten the clamp enough to secure the coil cover.

I ended up removing all the covers and carefully using my metal cutting band saw open up a few of the reliefs. Now the clamps can lock the cover in place. This explains why new antennas are being shipped with the coil covers locked in place with silicone. In fact all the coil covers had the same problem and I had to fix them all. This could cause a problem during assembly or installation. Should someone grab a coil cover while inserting a tube or lifting the antenna they could easily detune the coil.

Best regards
Kf6PYF

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 07 2007,10:47)]Ohhh Boy here we go with the theoretical horse hockey! you can theorize all you like but real world performance is what counts.

Antenna modeling programs are pretty much useless for ground mounted antennas, Until a modeling program can include the effects of two 40 foot oak trees, about 250 feet of fence, two single story 4 bedroom homes including contents 3 vehicles a large utility box and a metal shed all within 1 or 2 wavelengths not to mention the two story apartment complex and overhead power lines and street lights about 4 wavelengths away! and the grade under the antenna, then they are pretty much useless. What good is knowing how an antenna performs in free space when antennas never operate in free space. Now get that antenna up on the roof or on top of a tower and the results of the modeling program and actual performance might bear a distant resemblance. But on the ground unless you have 10 or 12 wavelengths of clear space 360 degrees around your vertical what the modeling program shows and what you get will be two completely different animals. People need to stop relying so heavily on computers. I know Marine architects and engineers have already learned their lesson with regard to relying on computer modeling. Do you have any idea how many 100 of millions of dollars have been wasted on hull designs because young, dumb engineers decided to rely on computer modeling programs rather then listen to wiser, older engineers who warned of the errors in their reasoning. Computer modeling is one reason the US lost the Americas cup.

As far as my antenna, there is nothing wrong with my vertical it's just that my homebrew G5RV is better. In fact I just took apart my 6BTV opened all the coils inspected them reassembled them. then reassembled the antenna. Now it tunes up fine on 20 but over all not much of an improvement. I tested it in a QSO with a station in Chicago. The signals where 59 both ways on the G5RV and 100 watts as soon as I switched to the 6BTV my signal dropped to 44 and his dropped to a 22. His signal went from loud strong and clear to almost nonexistent. I had two more stateside QSO's with the same results. Ok so you say the vertical is better with DX. Lets try some 20 meter DX, lets start with Poland SN7 59 both ways on the G5RV once switched to the vertical my report dropped to a 54 and his dropped to a 44, Ukraine, Russia, and Israel all with similar results. The fact is I could not even hear Israel with the vertical but managed a 55 with the G5RV. I guess those nulls and lobes must be in the right spots.

You can talk about theoretical lobes and nulls and losses all you like but real world performance is what counts and my G5RV constantly out performs the 6BTV, If the performance problem with the 6BTV is environmental then the antenna is just way to dam sensitive to objects in the near and far field.

Like I said a properly built G5RV is a great 20 meter antenna. Unfortunately the worst thing to happen to the G5RV is the abortion Van Gordon among others call a G5RV.
>Ohhh Boy here we go with the theoretical horse hockey! you can theorize all you like but real world performance is what counts.<

::The modeling is what the FCC uses to test and approve broadcast station antenna systems, meeting co-channel interference requirements and so forth. It's also what the rest of the world uses to design antennas.

Antenna modeling programs are pretty much useless for ground mounted antennas, Until a modeling program can include the effects of two 40 foot oak trees, about 250 feet of fence, two single story 4 bedroom homes including contents 3 vehicles a large utility box and a metal shed all within 1 or 2 wavelengths not to mention the two story apartment complex and overhead power lines and street lights about 4 wavelengths away! and the grade under the antenna, then they are pretty much useless. What good is knowing how an antenna performs in free space when antennas never operate in free space.<

::You model in real space, not free space. If you wish to add all those conductors with their locations to the model, that's not a problem.

>Now get that antenna up on the roof or on top of a tower and the results of the modeling program and actual performance might bear a distant resemblance. But on the ground unless you have 10 or 12 wavelengths of clear space 360 degrees around your vertical what the modeling program shows and what you get will be two completely different animals.<

::That's actually untrue; however, if anything, a clear-field model (which is not a free space model, since a ground mounted antenna is not in free space) would indicate far better results than an obstructed field model -- meaning the model would look better than reality, not worse.

>People need to stop relying so heavily on computers. I know Marine architects and engineers have already learned their lesson with regard to relying on computer modeling. Do you have any idea how many 100 of millions of dollars have been wasted on hull designs because young, dumb engineers decided to rely on computer modeling programs rather then listen to wiser, older engineers who warned of the errors in their reasoning. Computer modeling is one reason the US lost the Americas cup.<

::That's very interesting, but doesn't have anything to do with electromagnetics.

>As far as my antenna, there is nothing wrong with my vertical it's just that my homebrew G5RV is better. In fact I just took apart my 6BTV opened all the coils inspected them reassembled them. then reassembled the antenna. Now it tunes up fine on 20 but over all not much of an improvement. I tested it in a QSO with a station in Chicago. The signals where 59 both ways on the G5RV and 100 watts as soon as I switched to the 6BTV my signal dropped to 44 and his dropped to a 22. His signal went from loud strong and clear to almost nonexistent. I had two more stateside QSO's with the same results. Ok so you say the vertical is better with DX. Lets try some 20 meter DX, lets start with Poland SN7 59 both ways on the G5RV once switched to the vertical my report dropped to a 54 and his dropped to a 44, Ukraine, Russia, and Israel all with similar results. The fact is I could not even hear Israel with the vertical but managed a 55 with the G5RV. I guess those nulls and lobes must be in the right spots.

You can talk about theoretical lobes and nulls and losses all you like but real world performance is what counts and my G5RV constantly out performs the 6BTV, If the performance problem with the 6BTV is environmental then the antenna is just way to dam sensitive to objects in the near and far field.

Like I said a properly built G5RV is a great 20 meter antenna.<

::Well, there's no better way to demonstrate that than by direct comparison, and here's one for you: Let's get on 20 meters together this evening, you using the G5RV and I'll use something else, and let's both work the same half dozen DX stations in the same QSO, using the same propagation. Let's see who does better. I'm game for this evening, any time after about 0030 UTC. Want to do it?

-WB2WIK/6

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ May 07 2007,12:14)]Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 07 2007,10:47)]Ohhh Boy here we go with the theoretical horse hockey! you can theorize all you like but real world performance is what counts.

Antenna modeling programs are pretty much useless for ground mounted antennas, Until a modeling program can include the effects of two 40 foot oak trees, about 250 feet of fence, two single story 4 bedroom homes including contents 3 vehicles a large utility box and a metal shed all within 1 or 2 wavelengths not to mention the two story apartment complex and overhead power lines and street lights about 4 wavelengths away! and the grade under the antenna, then they are pretty much useless. What good is knowing how an antenna performs in free space when antennas never operate in free space. Now get that antenna up on the roof or on top of a tower and the results of the modeling program and actual performance might bear a distant resemblance. But on the ground unless you have 10 or 12 wavelengths of clear space 360 degrees around your vertical what the modeling program shows and what you get will be two completely different animals. People need to stop relying so heavily on computers. I know Marine architects and engineers have already learned their lesson with regard to relying on computer modeling. Do you have any idea how many 100 of millions of dollars have been wasted on hull designs because young, dumb engineers decided to rely on computer modeling programs rather then listen to wiser, older engineers who warned of the errors in their reasoning. Computer modeling is one reason the US lost the Americas cup.

As far as my antenna, there is nothing wrong with my vertical it's just that my homebrew G5RV is better. In fact I just took apart my 6BTV opened all the coils inspected them reassembled them. then reassembled the antenna. Now it tunes up fine on 20 but over all not much of an improvement. I tested it in a QSO with a station in Chicago. The signals where 59 both ways on the G5RV and 100 watts as soon as I switched to the 6BTV my signal dropped to 44 and his dropped to a 22. His signal went from loud strong and clear to almost nonexistent. I had two more stateside QSO's with the same results. Ok so you say the vertical is better with DX. Lets try some 20 meter DX, lets start with Poland SN7 59 both ways on the G5RV once switched to the vertical my report dropped to a 54 and his dropped to a 44, Ukraine, Russia, and Israel all with similar results. The fact is I could not even hear Israel with the vertical but managed a 55 with the G5RV. I guess those nulls and lobes must be in the right spots.

You can talk about theoretical lobes and nulls and losses all you like but real world performance is what counts and my G5RV constantly out performs the 6BTV, If the performance problem with the 6BTV is environmental then the antenna is just way to dam sensitive to objects in the near and far field.

Like I said a properly built G5RV is a great 20 meter antenna. Unfortunately the worst thing to happen to the G5RV is the abortion Van Gordon among others call a G5RV.
>Ohhh Boy here we go with the theoretical horse hockey! you can theorize all you like but real world performance is what counts.<

::The modeling is what the FCC uses to test and approve broadcast station antenna systems, meeting co-channel interference requirements and so forth. It's also what the rest of the world uses to design antennas.

Antenna modeling programs are pretty much useless for ground mounted antennas, Until a modeling program can include the effects of two 40 foot oak trees, about 250 feet of fence, two single story 4 bedroom homes including contents 3 vehicles a large utility box and a metal shed all within 1 or 2 wavelengths not to mention the two story apartment complex and overhead power lines and street lights about 4 wavelengths away! and the grade under the antenna, then they are pretty much useless. What good is knowing how an antenna performs in free space when antennas never operate in free space.<

::You model in real space, not free space. If you wish to add all those conductors with their locations to the model, that's not a problem.

>Now get that antenna up on the roof or on top of a tower and the results of the modeling program and actual performance might bear a distant resemblance. But on the ground unless you have 10 or 12 wavelengths of clear space 360 degrees around your vertical what the modeling program shows and what you get will be two completely different animals.<

::That's actually untrue; however, if anything, a clear-field model (which is not a free space model, since a ground mounted antenna is not in free space) would indicate far better results than an obstructed field model -- meaning the model would look better than reality, not worse.

>People need to stop relying so heavily on computers. I know Marine architects and engineers have already learned their lesson with regard to relying on computer modeling. Do you have any idea how many 100 of millions of dollars have been wasted on hull designs because young, dumb engineers decided to rely on computer modeling programs rather then listen to wiser, older engineers who warned of the errors in their reasoning. Computer modeling is one reason the US lost the Americas cup.<

::That's very interesting, but doesn't have anything to do with electromagnetics.

>As far as my antenna, there is nothing wrong with my vertical it's just that my homebrew G5RV is better. In fact I just took apart my 6BTV opened all the coils inspected them reassembled them. then reassembled the antenna. Now it tunes up fine on 20 but over all not much of an improvement. I tested it in a QSO with a station in Chicago. The signals where 59 both ways on the G5RV and 100 watts as soon as I switched to the 6BTV my signal dropped to 44 and his dropped to a 22. His signal went from loud strong and clear to almost nonexistent. I had two more stateside QSO's with the same results. Ok so you say the vertical is better with DX. Lets try some 20 meter DX, lets start with Poland SN7 59 both ways on the G5RV once switched to the vertical my report dropped to a 54 and his dropped to a 44, Ukraine, Russia, and Israel all with similar results. The fact is I could not even hear Israel with the vertical but managed a 55 with the G5RV. I guess those nulls and lobes must be in the right spots.

You can talk about theoretical lobes and nulls and losses all you like but real world performance is what counts and my G5RV constantly out performs the 6BTV, If the performance problem with the 6BTV is environmental then the antenna is just way to dam sensitive to objects in the near and far field.

Like I said a properly built G5RV is a great 20 meter antenna.<

::Well, there's no better way to demonstrate that than by direct comparison, and here's one for you: Let's get on 20 meters together this evening, you using the G5RV and I'll use something else, and let's both work the same half dozen DX stations in the same QSO, using the same propagation. Let's see who does better. I'm game for this evening, any time after about 0030 UTC. Want to do it?

-WB2WIK/6
Sometimes to much of an education is a bad thing. Intellects tend to start believing their own hyperbole.

Let me tell you a little story of how trusting computers and technology can get you in trouble maybe even killed.

As you may or may not know I am a retired US Coast Guard licensed ships master. I hold an Unlimited Master Mariners Certificate. For a few years during my career I was master of a large cruise ship . One season I was breaking in a new navigation officer. Well one night my first officer woke me up and informed me our DR plot was showing us 3 km off course, normally he would have dealt with it but he knew the waters we where headed for had quite a few hazards and thought it best to inform me. Well to make a long story short the GPS showed us on course. Well I run a tight ship and too the dismay of my bridge crew still required a dead reckoning plot kept. The DR plot showed us 3 km off course. I checked the radar and the location on the charts where the GPS said we where. I concluded the GPS was in error. Well my new navigation officer went ballistic he literally had a fit. He felt since he was retired Navy he knew far better then I did. He went on and tried convincing the entire bridge crew that by not trusting modern technology I was going to get them all killed. Did I mention it was a relatively rough night, plenty of wind and fairly high seas. plenty of passengers where praying to god on the great white porcelain telephone, anyhow I digress.

His actions almost lead to charges of attempting to incite mutiny. Anyhow I order a course correction that would bring us back to our original course. I then broke out my trusty sextant. The sextant confirmed what I had suspected, the GPS was wrong in fact all of our GPS instrumentation was wrong. 20 min later we received a bulletin that the GPS system was experiencing difficulty and to utilizing alternative navigation tools. I preceded to have the Navigation Officer taken into custody, Because of his military service the company decided not to press charges, But I guarantee he will never work in the Merchant Marine again. Think about it, If I would have trusted the GPS navigation systems 1500 lives could have been lost. That 3 km error had us headed right for shoals..

Moral of the story: Computers and software cannot be used as a substitute for experience and good judgment.

As far as your little challenge, you know just as well as I do that what you suggest does very little to evaluate antenna performance. You have added many more metrics that will effect the outcome. Antenna performance would only contribute a small fraction of the total outcome. Metrics such as propagation differences, operator experience, logging methods even station microphones could have major effect on outcome. Now we could schedule a contact and you could hear the difference for yourself or I could just send you an audio file of some contacts I have recorded.

Now back to the 6BTV. Since so many people are convinced that this vertical should easily out perform my carefully constructed and tuned home brew G5RV. I've decided to keep looking for a possibly explanation to the poor performance I am experiencing. It this point I am getting tired of messing with it. Since I have already buried over a 1000 feet of radials I don't think I want to move it again. By the way anyone who says Verticals are great for small lots is fooling themselves. Once you get down that 2 or 3 thousand feet of radial wire you will have rendered a gigantic section of your yard useless as any form of gardening is out of the question. You will need the radials and lots of them, trying to use one without radials is just a waste of time.

Anyhow in order to eliminate any near field interactions I think this weekend I will take my FT897 the 6BTV and a G5RV to my father in laws property "500 flat farm acres in Sonoma county" I have a Cushcraft radial kit for elevated radials. I will mount the 6BTV 4 feet off the ground and run elevated radials. I just wish I had a second 6BTV to setup with no radials to use as a baseline.
Anyhow I am willing to bet that the deference between elevated tuned radials and buried radials is dramatic.

[kd7msc]

Who Cares?!!

I have a 6BTV , Dipole (trap) and a long wire. They all work great. When one is not working for a signal I switch them. Sometimes I will recieve on the long wire and transmit on the vertical. Whatever works at your station is what you should use. Any antenna is better than no antenna.

BTW my vertical is only mounted at 10'. That is all I can do with it for now. I have it hooked into my radial system for my long wire.

Comparing a vertical and a G5RV is like comparing apples and oranges. They both have there own jobs and done right they will both work but I cant wait till I can have a big tower (or 3) with a StepIR and other beams. Have fun and good luck. 73, Sean:)

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 07 2007,14:10)]
>You have added many more metrics that will effect the outcome. Antenna performance would only contribute a small fraction of the total outcome. Metrics such as propagation differences, operator experience, logging methods even station microphones could have major effect on outcome.<

::No, they can't. What can influence the outcome is propagation, which could be somewhat different between Sacramento and Los Angeles, since we're 350 or 400 miles apart. But out at 6000-10000 kM, it doesn't make much difference. Probably, propagation should favor you slightly sometimes, and then favor me sometimes, but all in all it's pretty similar -- compared to the path length, we are an insignificant distance apart.

>Anyhow in order to eliminate any near field interactions I think this weekend I will take my FT897 the 6BTV and a G5RV to my father in laws property "500 flat farm acres in Sonoma county" I have a Cushcraft radial kit for elevated radials. I will mount the 6BTV 4 feet off the ground and run elevated radials. I just wish I had a second 6BTV to setup with no radials to use as a baseline.
Anyhow I am willing to bet that the deference between elevated tuned radials and buried radials is dramatic.<

::It can be; however your discussion above truly indicates a lack of understanding about how verticals work. "4 feet off the ground" is not an "elevated vertical" for 14 MHz. Elevated, for the purposes of ground independence and radial systems, is defined very clearly as a minimum of 0.15 wavelengths, which on 20m is 10 feet. Reducing earth influence is better at 0.25 WL, which is 16-1/2 feet at 14 MHz. Installing the 6BTV at 4' above ground and adding radials to it will generally screw it up pretty badly, because it's nowhere near ground-independent yet, and it's up too high to make the earth ground system work. My 6BTV is at 25' above ground, up on my roof, with 24 radials (4 per band, all 1/4 WL long for the 6 bands it covers). That's almost high enough to be ground independent on 40 meters.

WB2WIK/6

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 07 2007,14:10)]Sometimes to much of an education is a bad thing.
Too little of an education is worse.

Quote[/b] ]Moral of the story: Computers and software cannot be used as a substitute for experience and good judgment.

Computers and software are not intended to substitute for experience and judgment. #They are tools designed to augment it. #And, like any tool, it performs to the limits of the person using it.

I saw this in engineering school in the early 1970s when the first affordable scientific calculators started proliferating (remember the Texas Instruments SR-10?). #Some people would blindly accept any number the calculator's display gave them without regard to whether or not the numbers were realistic. #As a result, they never developed a "feel" for real-world situations.

Quote[/b] ]Since so many people are convinced that this vertical should easily out perform my carefully constructed and tuned home brew G5RV. I've decided to keep looking for a possibly explanation to the poor performance I am experiencing.

Nobody said that it "should easily out perform [sic]" your G5RV in all situations. #Quarter-wave verticals and horizontal doublets/dipoles operate on different principles and performance is dependant on many factors, not the least of which are take-off angle and the type of propagation you're trying to take advantage of.

AS KD7MSC said, unless all factors are considered it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ May 07 2007,15:07)]Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 07 2007,14:10)]Sometimes to much of an education is a bad thing.
Too little of an education is worse.

Quote[/b] ]Moral of the story: Computers and software cannot be used as a substitute for experience and good judgment.

Computers and software are not intended to substitute for experience and judgment. They are tools designed to augment it. And, like any tool, it performs to the limits of the person using it.

I saw this in engineering school in the early 1970s when the first affordable scientific calculators started proliferating (remember the Texas Instruments SR-10?). Some people would blindly accept any number the calculator's display gave them without regard to whether or not the numbers were realistic. As a result, they never developed a "feel" for real-world situations.

Quote[/b] ]Since so many people are convinced that this vertical should easily out perform my carefully constructed and tuned home brew G5RV. I've decided to keep looking for a possibly explanation to the poor performance I am experiencing.

Nobody said that it "should easily out perform [sic]" your G5RV in all situations. Quarter-wave verticals and horizontal doublets/dipoles operate on different principles and performance is dependant on many factors, not the least of which are take-off angle and the type of propagation you're trying to take advantage of.

AS KD7MSC said, unless all factors are considered it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
I guess you can argue this all day long, I have known all to many collage graduates who could nit pic your punctuation, spelling and grammar to death. Yet couldn't balance their own checkbook, check the oil or put gas in their own car, were scared to drive at night or leave town because they could not read a map or figure out how to set the clock on a VCR. Yet I know a man who dropped out of high school and was a multi millionaire before he turned 28. Fact is many of the worlds richest people never graduated High school. The rest where Collage drop outs. Of the top 100 richest people in the world how many of them ((who got there on their own)) where actually collage educated ?

Most of the time I don't think a collage diploma is worth the paper it's printed on. Look at GWB, a man who is a Harvard graduate with an MBA, Yet he is the only oil man in the history of the Texas oil rush not to find a single drop of oil. In fact if I remember correctly didn't he run a few of his businesses into the ground. No wonder nether Yale or Harvard want to take any credit for his education. Every time the press brings up his Harvard education, Harvard makes it a point to establish that he only transferred there shortly before graduation and that he received most of his education at Yale.

Quote[/b] ]Nobody said that it "should easily out perform [sic]" your G5RV in all situations. Quarter-wave verticals and horizontal doublets/dipoles operate on different principles and performance is dependant on many factors, not the least of which are take-off angle and the type of propagation you're trying to take advantage of.

AS KD7MSC said, unless all factors are considered it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Ok now we are back to square one. I stated that 90% of the time my home brew G5RV out performs my ground mounted 6BTV. Many posts where made stating that there must be something wrong with my Hustlers installation because most of the time it should out perform a G5RV. All I have ever used is wire and tower mounted yagi antennas so I had no idea what to expect from the Hustler. When I moved I could not install my tower's so I was stuck with my G5RV and a few dipoles. I just installed the Hustler 6BTV and was disappointed in its performance. It compares to my G5RV like my G5RV compared to my tower mounted Yagi at my old QTH.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 07 2007,16:09)]I guess you can argue this all day long, I have known all to many collage graduates who could #nit pic your punctuation, spelling and grammar to death. #Yet couldn't balance their own checkbook, check the oil or put gas in their own car, were scared to drive at night or leave town because they could not read a map or figure out how to set the clock on a VCR. Yet I know a man who dropped out of high school and was a multi millionaire before he turned 28. Fact is many of the worlds richest people never graduated High school. The rest where Collage drop outs. #Of the top 100 richest people in the world how many of them #((who got there on their own)) #where actually collage educated ?
This is the typical anti-education screed most often promulgated by people who never set foot in college.

BTW - "collage" is "a technique of composing a work of art by pasting on a single surface various materials not normally associated with one another." #Source: dictionary.com

Please re-read my previous post. #I said, "too little of an education is worse." #I didn't say it had to be a college education only. #It is impossible to be overeducated in the true sense of the word.

"The only true university is a room full of books." - Thomas Carlyle

I know a few self-made millionaires, too, and only a couple graduated from college. #So what? #If you look closely at most self-made millionaires who "started with nothing," you'll likely find that pure, dumb LUCK was the major factor in their success. #This doesn't mean that they didn't have talent and ability, but without that luck factor all that talent and ability is useless. #That, and knowing the right people in a given set of circumstances.

It's like the old joke about the man who walks up to the Indian chief and says, "Chance!" #The chief, puzzled, says, "Don't you mean, 'how'?" #The man says, "No, sir; I already know how. #What I want is a chance!"

Quote[/b] ]Most of the time I don't think a collage [sic]diploma is worth the paper it's printed on.

Again, it depends on the situation. #It also depends on the subject in which the degree was awarded and the institution that awarded it. #You live in California, the diploma-mill capital of the world, so I can understand how you might conclude as you have.

California also has some of the world's finest institutions of higher learning (Stanford, UCLA, Cal Poly, et al). #The point is that not all diplomas and degrees are equal or equivalent.

But back to antennas:

Quote[/b] ]I just installed the Hustler 6BTV and was disappointed in its performance. It compares to my G5RV like my G5RV compared to my tower mounted Yagi #at my old QTH.

Like Steve, WB2WIK, said, it could be any number of things. #Also remember that the vertical is omnidirectional and at higher frequencies the G5RV's pattern breaks into multiple lobes. #It is quite possible that in certain circumstances one of those lobes just happens to be directly in line with the station you're trying to work. #It's hard to tell.

Actually, you have a fairly good setup with both vertical and horizontal antennas. #Each one has it's advantages and disadvantages in different circumstances.

For the record, I use a Hustler 5BTV and it's an adequate perfomer as a trap vertical. #No way is it going to beat a full-size monoband vertical or even a two-element beam, but that's to be expected.

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 07 2007,16:09)]Most of the time I don't think a collage diploma is worth the paper it's printed on.
I didn't even know one could achieve a degree in collages!

If you mean college diploma: I've been in the position to hire job applicants for several companies over about thirty years, and applicants lacking a college degree are not given much consideration. Even if the job is in a field unrelated to the applicant's degree, the very achievement represented by the applicants' having been bestowed a degree helps demonstrate his or her ability to focus on a task and complete it. I've hired engineers with degrees in History. The degree has value in the hiring process, for certain.

Those non-degreed individuals who are major success stories mostly worked hard and had entrepreneurial spirits, which most people lack. Few became so successful working for someone else -- likely because they wouldn't be hired into important, promotable positions in the first place.

"Success" may be measured in many ways, but one might be accumulated wealth. If we use that as a yardstick, look at the Wealthiest 100 People in the U.S. as published by Forbes and you'll find that 88 of them have college degrees; 36 have advanced degrees.

WB2WIK/6

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ May 08 2007,08:55)]Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 07 2007,16:09)]Most of the time I don't think a collage diploma is worth the paper it's printed on.
I didn't even know one could achieve a degree in collages!

If you mean college diploma: I've been in the position to hire job applicants for several companies over about thirty years, and applicants lacking a college degree are not given much consideration. Even if the job is in a field unrelated to the applicant's degree, the very achievement represented by the applicants' having been bestowed a degree helps demonstrate his or her ability to focus on a task and complete it. I've hired engineers with degrees in History. The degree has value in the hiring process, for certain.

Those non-degreed individuals who are major success stories mostly worked hard and had entrepreneurial spirits, which most people lack. Few became so successful working for someone else -- likely because they wouldn't be hired into important, promotable positions in the first place.

"Success" may be measured in many ways, but one might be accumulated wealth. If we use that as a yardstick, look at the Wealthiest 100 People in the U.S. as published by Forbes and you'll find that 88 of them have college degrees; 36 have advanced degrees.

WB2WIK/6
Another one of those dam nit picker I was talking about. So flipping what! I missed a word, BIG DEAL!
It's not like I don't have a dozen pot's on the fire. Let's see I had four loafs of REAL homemade sourdough bread in the oven's and 4 dozen homemade sourdough hamburger buns proofing, (my real sourdough bread takes about 24 hours to make)

I had about 30 pounds of pork shoulder and 35 pounds of spares in the offset BBQ (Making southern style pulled pork and ribs. All slow cooked over a real hickory and oak fire. That's what the buns and bread are for) The pork's going to need to cook for 15 to 20 hours the ribs about 8 to 12, so I need to tend the fire which requires firing up the chainsaw and then splitting wood. I have a 10 quart stock pot of home made Southern style BBQ sauce that needed to be watched not to mention the coleslaw. Then I had a 13 year old who is home schooled and needs constant guidance in his studies.... Not to mention trying to bury a few more radials plus answer the phone for an ad I placed looking for a new technician. Between all this I manage to sit down a few min every so often tune the VFO on the rig and maybe try and finish typing a response I started 2 hours ago...

And that was my day off! Then you come in here making a deal out of a few misspelled words. Your lucky your not standing here as you might have gotten a frying pan thrown at you http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif But seriously I barely have time to read what I've written and when I do I'm usually interrupted a few times. Besides Typing!! That's what secretary's are for. Since It's not appropriate to use my secretary for personal matters I'm on my own.

Well I have been up for over 24 hours and am expecting around 30 employees to show up at noon. It's my own fault! this is what I get for allowing my wife to talk me into displaying all my BBQ trophy's at the office. I was perfectly happy with them in the garage. So this year I get to host a picnic at our home for all my employees, and I'm doing all the cooking. I just hope I buried all those radials. I sure would hate someone to trip.

I guess I shouldn't' really complain. It's my own fault, I was the one who was board with retirement. Somehow I thought starting another new business would be fun.

Some how I think I would have rather gone to work for Princess Cruise Lines and dealt with all the cheap budget type passengers. You know the ones that steal anything thats not bolted down! Did I mention I am a retired ships master.

Did I mention I managed to get the rest of the radials buried. I think that brings me up to about 2000 feet. I did not notice any difference in receive performance but my TX performance did increase

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] ]I've been in the position to hire job applicants for several companies over about thirty years, and applicants lacking a college degree are not given much consideration.



To bad.. personally I would not hire anyone to manage human resources if they indicated they would not consider non college applicants. Some of my best employees only have GED's and I own a technology based company. In fact one of my best network penetration testers just graduated HS! Now granted he can barely spell his own name and his algebra sucks but he can crack a MS server based network faster then I can! I guess that's why I pay him close to $90 an hour.

Anyhow I have not had to sit through a job interview since I was in my teens, I've ether been self employed or company's have actively solicited my services . But I have never had to go out an actively look for a Job. I guess that's the result of holding Capt. papers in two countries. In the U.S. I hold an Unlimited Masters. That's the top ticket.. They are so rare, I don't believe a new one has been issued in the last 10 or 15 years. You want to talk about accomplishments let's start with this small one. When I was in my early 20's I circumnavigated the globe aboard a small sailboat, most of the time single handed. So as you can see even though I hold a document that's says I am licensed to command ANY TYPE of SEA GOING VESSEL whether it be an oil tanker, passenger ship or aircraft carrier I can legally take command. Even though I display that document proudly, I really don't need a piece of paper to make me feel good about myself.

[W0BKR]

6BTV anyone?

[N2RJ]

I don't think 'YPF knows what he's up against.

'WIK's ham radio kung fu is 100 times stronger than his!

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (W0BKR @ May 08 2007,11:34)]6BTV anyone?
Already have one, thanks.

It works splendidly.

Used it to work BS7H on 20 CW a week ago... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

WB2WIK/6

[n6yg]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ May 08 2007,11:46)]Quote[/b] (W0BKR @ May 08 2007,11:34)]6BTV anyone?
Already have one, thanks.

It works splendidly.

Used it to work BS7H on 20 CW a week ago... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

WB2WIK/6
Well my ground mounted 6btv does not hear nearly as well as my G5RV. Even after laying 2000 feet of radials !! The radials helped it's TX performance but I can disconnect the radials and it does not make a bean of difference on receive. The problem I have, is if I can't hear them I sure the heck can't work them. Last Night I mounted an ATAS 120 to a 20 foot trailer in my driveway I ran some coax to the shack and was able to use my FT857 to tune it up. Now this gets interesting the ATAS 120 mounted to a 20 foot trailer receives just as well as the 6BTV. Of course the 6BTV has much better TX performance. What is up with the crappy reception performance of the 6BTV. It can't be the location a week ago the 6BTV was 5 feet from where the ATAS 120 is now. The only difference would be that the base of the ATAS-120 is about 10 feet off the ground and the 6BTV is about 4 inches.

[kr2c]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 08 2007,12:00)]Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ May 08 2007,11:46)]Quote[/b] (W0BKR @ May 08 2007,11:34)]6BTV anyone?
Already have one, thanks.

It works splendidly.

Used it to work BS7H on 20 CW a week ago... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

WB2WIK/6
Well my ground mounted 6btv does not hear nearly as well as my G5RV. Even after laying 2000 feet of radials !! The radials helped it's TX performance but I can disconnect the radials and it does not make a bean of difference on receive. The problem I have, is if I can't hear them I sure the heck can't work them. Last Night I mounted an ATAS 120 to a 20 foot trailer in my driveway I ran some coax to the shack and was able to use my FT857 to tune it up. Now this gets interesting the ATAS 120 mounted to a 20 foot trailer receives just as well as the 6BTV. Of course the 6BTV has much better TX performance. What is up with the crappy reception performance of the 6BTV. It can't be the location a week ago the 6BTV was 5 feet from where the ATAS 120 is now. The only difference would be that the base of the ATAS-120 is about 10 feet off the ground and the 6BTV is about 4 inches.
It seems like anytime somebody comes up with a topic that mentions the Hustler BTV line of antennas you have something to say bout it. You did so in a my thread in the questions section. If you feel you got a bum deal on an antenna I can see throwing a forum thread out there warning people. I however can't see going into all the BTV threads you can find and start bad mouthing an antenna that most users have a favorable experience with. What's the point? So the antenna doesn't work in your environment. Get another antenna. Move on. Let the other hams have fun with theirs.

[w3dub]

My god this thread as gone astray.

I will say this. I get on average a 1-2 S-level boost on the 5BTV vs. My G5RV. The signal seems to be much less fluttery most times on the Vertical as well. I guess it all depends on your setup.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ May 08 2007,14:46)]Quote[/b] (W0BKR @ May 08 2007,11:34)]6BTV anyone?
Already have one, thanks.

It works splendidly.

Used it to work BS7H on 20 CW a week ago... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

WB2WIK/6
Of course it did, being on the Left Coast you were a lot closer! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But seriously... I've been using Butternut verticals (primarily an HF6V & an HF2V) for over 20 years now, and overall, they've worked quite well. But like ANY vertical antenna, following the manual to assemble it is only half the battle.

Software and manuals will only take you so far. There are all sorts of environmental factors (proximity to trees, houses, hills, etc.) that can make a difference.

My experience has been that the more radials, the better the counterpoise, the better the antenna will perform, all else being equal. [Busting the AH3D on 80 CW w/100 watts alone tells me THAT!] But all else is not always equal!

At our old QTH, we had a small hill dug out and a retaining wall put in place. The HF6V had been on that hill; the wall was landscape timbers supported by I-beams. So I mounted the HF6V on the I-beam, using it as part of the radial system, and put all of my other radials back in place. In a word, it stunk. After two weeks I took the vertical off the beam, moved it back from the wall about 3 feet, moved the radials, and it was back to working like a champ. I've since been told that the I-beam should have worked as a radial or counterpoise, because the software said so. But, it didn't.

Right now the HF6 is mounted on a chain-link fence, with the actual feed point about 6 inches above the top of the fence. The fence acts as the counterpoise. Does it work? Well, I never heard BS7H stronger than S2, let alone worked him -- but I've worked a ton of DX in the last few months regardless. Again, the local "expert" insists that the software says it won't work... but it does. (Remember that unlike a vertical I-beam, the fence spreads out in the plane 90 degrees from the antenna itself, and that seems to make a big difference!)

...of course, the "expert" still can't figure out why an end fed 1/2 wave vertical doesn't work too well. I told him that the high impedance is related to f(x)=infinity as x approaches 0, just like any good "collage" (or college) physics text book will tell you... but I only did that to him once, and once was enough...

73

PS -- Steve, sorry I missed working you on 17 meters one Saturday evening of a FD weekend a couple of years ago. Heard you 59+, but couldn't transmit from the rental we had at the time due to ID Ten Tee problems...

[kd7msc]

Thought I would come by and drop a bomb on this thread.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u145/theneedfofried/bomb.jpg[/IMG]


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n6yg]

Well it looks like I get to eat some crow http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I finally solved the problem with the 6BTV!!

The only reason I continued to look for a problem was because of all the good reports people where giving Hustler verticals and partly because I knew it should be performing better then it was. The real push to find the problem was when the ATAS-120 was installed and performed as well as the 6BTV

The 6BTV was so far below my G5RV on all bands and all path's that deep down I knew something must be wrong. I had performed various tests and had done extensive trouble shooting. I had taken the antenna apart numerous times changed locations swapped coax, made a new pigtail. I thought I had covered all the bases.

Earlier this week I ordered a new spool of coax. Since I was up all night tending the BBQ I decided to assemble two new runs of coax. Late this after noon I ran the new coax but instead of attaching them to the bulkhead I opened a window and ran them right to the coax switch. BINGO the 6BTV came alive.

My bulkhead is a section of 6 inch wide by about 48 inch long 3/4 inch plexiglass with a 3x9 inch opening. The plexiglass bulkhead slides into the window frame. Covering the 3x9 opening is a 4x10x1/2 inch copper plate that is drilled and tapped to accept multiple SO239 bulkhead connectors. The copper plate is then connected to a ground rod about 2 feet away.

In my first trouble shooting run I replaced all the SO239 bulkhead connectors and replaced the coax with two new runs of pre-made coax from cable experts . It must be bad luck but 3 of 5 of the SO239 connector's where bad. Somehow the 6BTV always managed to get connected to a bad S0239. At one point I even connected the coax directly to the coax switch but it turns out that one of the pre-made coax assembly was defective. So once again the BTV always managed to get connected to a either a bad run of coax or a bad connector.

This whole problem turned out to be a result of brand new but defective cabling and connectors. I decided to test all my brand new S0239 connectors. I must have received a bad batch because 13 of 20 where bad. Whats really funny about the whole mess is this is the first time I have ever used pre-assembled coax and it's the first time I have ever ordered supposedly high quality connectors over the Internet. Previously I had always built my own coax assembly's and used what every connectors I could find locally (usually surplus).

I guess I would have eventually found the problem as I had already planed on building two new runs of coax and running them directly to a brand new coax switch.

Anyhow I am extremely happy to report the 6BTV is working great. Most of the time it is between 1 and 2 S units above the G5RV. In fact tonight I worked JJ1BKB on 20 using the 6BTV, yet could barely copy him on the G5RV. I have to say I am now very pleased with the 6BTV.
What I am not happy with is the quality of supposedly professionally built coax and expensive connectors.

[k6jpd]

glad it worked out for you. sometimes it IS difficult to find the real problem http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif .... hey! the price is right.i wonder if it is worth adding another BTV @ 90 degrees out of phase?

[w3dub]

Great to hear its working. I'm thinking of making my Vert a 7-BTV... adding 17 and 30m from the kits available on DX engineering.

Anybody have the 17 meter kit?

Note: Yes I know no 7BTV exists .. but it would be a "7 Band Trap Vertical" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (KF6PYF @ May 09 2007,00:32)]What I am not happy with is the quality of supposedly professionally built coax and expensive connectors.
I never was too impressed with Cable XPerts assembles. Their cables themselves are fine, and I'm using quite a lot of it at home (RG-213/U Direct Burial for example -- good stuff, not expensive) but every time I've seen one of their "factory assembled" cables including connectors, I didn't like it.

I assemble my own, using Amphenol connectors...

WB2WIK/6

[k6jpd]

Quote[/b] (KB3JGU @ May 09 2007,07:00)]Great to hear its working. I'm thinking of making my Vert a 7-BTV... adding 17 and 30m from the kits available on DX engineering.

Anybody have the 17 meter kit?

Note: Yes I know no 7BTV exists .. but it would be a "7 Band Trap Vertical" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
why not something like this? http://72.14.205.104/search?....2&gl=us (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:MxTASog0IXwJ:www.hamuniverse.com/kl7jr4btv1217mod.html+%225btv%22+17+meters&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif