ad: elecraft

Miracle Whip with Icom 703....any good?

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio Equipment Reviews' started by KC8TBY, Nov 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. KC8TBY

    KC8TBY Ham Member QRZ Page

    OK....here's my problem.
    I want to operate QRP from my home location but I will have NO access to an outdoor antenna for (at least) the winter months! :(
    I was thinking about using the "Miracle Whip" antenna hooked up to the Icom 703 rig. I need some advice, however, from some of you more experienced hams.
    First off: Has anyone tried this set up? If so...what are your thoughts on how well or how poorly it worked?
    I have heard varied opinions and read varied reviews of the Miracle Whip over the years. People either love it or hate it. Seems as though there is no in-between! :rolleyes:
    Second: If you think the Miracle Whip is a poor choice for an indoor set up such as I described, well, what would you recommend?
    NOTE*** I would be operating CW (mostly) 5 to 10 watts max!
    I look forward to your thoughts and advice!
    '73!
    KC8TBY
     
  2. WA4TM

    WA4TM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Miracle Whip with Icom 703....any good?



    I wanted to say I prefer mayo, but that would just be mean!! :D

    So I will just bump it up to the top in hopes you will get an intelligent answer....
     
  3. G3TXQ

    G3TXQ Ham Member QRZ Page

  4. M3KXZ

    M3KXZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    You MAY NOT find objective data on the HFPack shootout. Their test only measured RF at a very low radiation angle. The longer antennas did much better than the shorter antenna because they had a lower angle of radiation - BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL PLACED OVER THE SAME LENGTH AND SAME ANGLED COUNTERPOISE. This placed the longer antennas at an advantage - not because of higher gain, but because the elevation angle where gain was measured was only just over 3 degrees (height difference approx 3.75m, distance 80m between antenna under test and receiver antenna), where the shortest antennas were unable to place any significant RF at all. The whole test, while being interesting, seemed to act more as a a big stick to beat up the MW. If one were to actually look at the max gain, then there would likely not have been much difference between any of the antennas that were 1/4 or less long in terms of radiating element, it's just that the max gain is at different elevations. The MW would have shown more RF than the reference vertical at elevation angles of more than about 40 degrees when placed over the same counterpoise.

    The problem with the very short antennas like the MW is that the counterpoise ends up doing most of the radiating and you end up with most of the RF going skyward, with the short antenna and matching device working as not much more than an aid to tune the counterpoise which ends up as the main radiating element. If you can elevate the antenna base and drop the counterpoise down then you will end up with something with a much lower angle of radiation - it could be considered a vertical dipole with shortened top leg.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2008
  5. G3TXQ

    G3TXQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    "Objective" = "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions". Do you have any grounds for saying the Shootout was influenced by personal opinion?

    Nice theory, but not completely reflected in the results. For example MP1(Long) @ 9.75ft beat the Dudleypole @ 20ft; MP1(Medium) @ 7ft beat the Minuteman 20 @ 10.9ft; the Perth Plus @ 5.7ft beat the Wonder Whip @ 7.5ft. Which suggests there are factors at play other than length.


    Steve
     
  6. M3KXZ

    M3KXZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Steve "Nice theory, but not completely reflected in the results. For example MP1(Long) @ 9.75ft beat the Dudleypole @ 20ft; MP1(Medium) @ 7ft beat the Minuteman 20 @ 10.9ft; the Perth Plus @ 5.7ft beat the Wonder Whip @ 7.5ft. Which suggests there are factors at play other than length."

    Steve, this is not correct. These are the results compared against the reference vertical: MP1 long -1.11dB vs Minuteman 20 -1.24dB...there's a measured difference of 0.13dB which is completely insignificant given the accuracy of the measurements stated as being +/-0.75dB! PerthPlus -2.84dB vs WonderWhip long -2.86dB.... again no significant difference. In fact, the reported difference between most of the medium and long antennas is statistically insignificant given the potential error on the measurements (+/-0.75dB reported) and the closeness between the measurements.

    It's only when you look at the difference between antennas of a decent length (i.e. 1/8 wave and higher) and antennas that are very short (1/16th wave in case of MW and the short WW) that there is any significant difference. The rest is all just over-confident reporting of insignificant differences.

    I believe that the merit that these results have been given by those involved is what has been influenced by personal feelings and opinions - they want the results to show something even if, statistically and in the real world, they probably don't (with 95% confidence).

    Of course, there will be differences in matching efficiency, but not a single thing about that can be concluded from the experiment that was done or from the results that it gave. The results were then used extensively by someone over a period of months or years to slate one of the antennas with no foundation. This, for me, made even more of a mockery of what had been done. Had it just been accepted that the results were all essentially the same and that it was all just a bit of fun, then fair enough.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2008
  7. M3KXZ

    M3KXZ Ham Member QRZ Page

  8. M3KXZ

    M3KXZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    AND "it is believed that all measurements were performed on an equal and fair basis, and therefore this shootout provides a worthwhile comparison for determining radiation efficiency at among antennas in the same class. "

    In REALITY, the shootout determines nothing about radiation efficiency of each antenna.
     
  9. MM0XXW

    MM0XXW Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Sorry to butt in but the simple answer seems to be try it & see what happens!

    That combination may work superbly in your area but crap in mine so it's a kinda open question!
     
  10. MM0XXW

    MM0XXW Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    @4TM;

    You expect a sensible answer where 'Miracle Whip' is concerned:confused:!

    I thought not :rolleyes::rolleyes::confused:;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: w5yi