Enthusiastic Steve Don't use BIG antennas Amateurs and HAM radio operators

Hello from Enthusiastic Steve.
Firstly thank you to all of my subscribers for your continued support, if new to my videos then welcome, please consider clicking the like and subscribe buttons, it all helps the smaller content makers like my self get noticed on KZbin. I have content for all radio enthusiasts.
So a brash statement "Don't use BIG antennas".
In this video I will give an example of a large antenna Vs a smaller antenna and compare actual on air reports, show the results on a world map and allow you to make up your own minds if bigger is actually better?
All the best
Enthusiastic Steve
Please share my videos and help me build my channel.

[@l.a.2646]

Long time ham here: remember your antenna system is the most important tool for a radio. I have a postage stamp sized yard or garden, I use a 73' wire that is bent around starting as an inverted L slope from 40' to 15' with a 1:6 UNUN with an elevated counterpoise that is 12' - its my main HF antenna, it works 160 meters up through 6 meters. It's a compromise system, but if you're using it as both a transmitting & receiving antenna. It's all right for what room I have . Also, I have a half-wave inverted V dipole for 40 meters ( remember, that's a more efficient antenna for 40 meters and it hears much,much better on 40 meters than my all-around antenna. Yes a 40 meters antenna will also work on a harmonic for 15 meters band, -transmitting its fine but receiving isn't good. I'm blessed with a radio that has a 3rd antenna port that is for receiving, I use a loop on the ground or L.O.G. antenna for low band reception under noisy conditions. So you can get other antennas to work for the bands you want to work, but you have to keep in mind that both transmitting and receiving levels won't be very good. But as the saying goes, "any port in a storm" or any antenna is better than none.

[@tzm1843]

Testing in an apartment, an indoor wire antenna only receives noise!

[@l.a.2646]

@tzm1843 indoor antennas are tough, especially with all the electrical noise. Try making up a loop and try both vertical and horizontal. Loops are a good bit resistant to noise. There's lots of different types to try. Also if you're interested, try a magnetic loop using a variable capacitor, you can get soft copper tubing or try an aluminum bicycle rim. Don't get discouraged. My next door neighbor has grow lights to start his vegetable garden started, when he started them up this year, it destroyed my low bands , I installed a LOG - Loop On the Ground for receiving because my wires were overloaded. - it made a huge difference, also my neighbor being a friend adjusted his timer so they turn on after my evening radio time. And they are offline totally by 0500 local, so I can work my morning net. See what works for ya.

[@jeffdwyer6105]

Over the last 50 years I had to make many changes to my antenna systems everywhere I lived and what bands I wanted to operate and could operate . For 4 years I had to operate mobile only . I have worked over 100 countries from the car until I was able to overcome noise and antenna issues in my small apartment with a 7ft X 7ft X8ft balcony . I now can talk the world from my little apartment .

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Brilliant, your persistence paid off, glad you got it sorted. Thanks for the comment. Regards Steve

[@daveg8htfadlibaudio250]

Hi Stephen, yes the smaller hf verticals will work but the bandwidth you get will be limited, so you need tune them on the portion of the band you like to work on, keep up the good work. Regards Dave.

[@IvanNedostal]

Yeah, tuning and filters, foxhunting, noise elimination, is what everyone should start with. Another thing is just pointing antenna up, opens a lot more people relatively close to you, instead of talking with people on other continents.

[@rajeshvaid9044]

Hello....I am from india & recently I got my Amateur Radio licence. I was confused & worried about how I am going to manage big H.F. Antennas. Your video came as a blessing where you are explaining about alternate to big antenas. Great Video...keep up with good Amateur Radio videos...🙂🙂

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Thank you, all the best, good luck, regards Steve

[@johnadams-fn4nd]

Been operating from my pickup for years with good results on 12 meters running 25 watts into a quarter wave whip. Might try cutting power back to 10 watts and see how it goes. Food for thought, good video

[@M6EastCoastGirl]

I love QRP / P lightweight radio but equally love my brilliant QRO friends with their great big boots and even bigger antennas! It’s all beautiful! I love AmPro whips too! Lots of food for thought here Steve, thanks for posting! 73 de Lucy

[@davidsradioroom9678]

Nice comparison. Thanks.

[@alanslade2319]

Bloody brilliant loved watching this show of yours and wow. I’ve been on CB radio for about 40 years now and I’m just getting very interested in ham radios. And were I live is exactly what you were talking about. Have no room to but up a great big Arial or lots of wire.but I’ve just gone and brought myself a 1/4 wave and pole which I hopefully will be able to put up. Because of neighbours. Thanks again for letting me know about all the things I thought I new but you learn something new everyday. I’m subscribed to your channel now and I’ll let you know what happens next when I get my Arial up. And take my test. Thanks again Alan from DUNSTABLE CT.48-70 hope you have a great new year’s 😱💯🇬🇧🍻👍👍

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Thank you Alan. All the best, happy new year, regards Steve

[@alanhewitt6607]

Hi Steve I agree less is more.I have suprised so many people using low power into a small antenna.Having a small antenna tightens up the front end of your radio.(Cuts down background rf).If you have a tightly tuned antenna that resonates on the frequency you want to chat at.With a high Q Happy days it works.🙂

[@fintronics]

less is NOT more....Why not plug into a dummy load...that;s a LOT less!!

[@justiceforall8574]

Great presentation Steve,Look forward to more of your great videos in the new year.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Many thanks regards Enthusiastic Steve

[@metalfabman5477]

Really enjoyed this video and your presentation, thanks for making it!

[@ellisc.foleyjr9778]

Well done Steve, and a good representation of the real world. I chase a lot of pota/sota stations and watch the results on YT. and one op Tom K4SWL operates QRP 99.9% of the time at 5 watts or less!! and he oft times uses a whip antenna off the back of his radio sitting on a park bench!. the antenna (AX1 and AX2) have been used and he's achieving grat results with them. each one well over 1K miles of contacts and even into EU on occasion. I have run QRP on and off for over 50 yrs so small antennas and small ourput does work. do not beg off for fears it won't . thanks again for sharing . 73 es 72! de Ellis WA1RKS

[@W1ZY]

The horizontal loop low to the ground will exhibit high angle whereas the vertical on the car will exhibit high angle with larger component of low angle. The car antenna set up on 20 meters is better tuned to that frequency than the full-wave horizontal loop. Bottom line is the test results show no difference between the two antennas. The most important thing in a radio set up is the location. After that, it is the antenna. After that, it does not matter.

[@MrTommy001]

Thanks for this video, Stephen. I'm cramming for my General license - just to see if I can get it. Didn't much care about the added HF because I've not got the money for a big-time tower and fancy antenna array. BUT, now I see that I may actually get interested in HF with the ability to get on the air "for cheap" (relatively speaking, that is. I still need a new radio to do this). Taking the test on the 20th of January. Wish me luck! I'm 78 and the old brain is not good at remembering ANYTHING! Ha.

[@davidknowles7466]

All the best Tommy you'll do it no worries 73s Tommy good luck 👍👍🙏

[@MrToymod]

Did you pass?.

[@MrTommy001]

@@MrToymod Yes I did. I took the test online through ZOOM. Now I can relax - ha.

[@MrTommy001]

I did, @@MrToymod I'm 'HF'ing' now!

[@sphinxskates]

Congratulations on your general. I'm a newer general as well and the "getting on the air cheap" got me in love with building and learning more and more about antennas. Its so satisfying.

[@petercook278]

Sorry totally disagree with your findings, the mobile vertical has a lower angle of radiation and therefore the distances achieved will be similar if not better than that of the larger antenna. A better test would have been the 40m delta loop versus a 20m delta loop, after all the title is basically small versus large.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Thank you Peter, yes i may do that in the future. Good point. Regards Steve

[@christopherjeffery6228]

Good video interesting looking back over old Magazines

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Cheers Chris

[@skyhill4279]

As a CBer I found that very interesting. Thanks for all your great videos.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Many thanks, regards Steve

[@kiweekeith]

Thanks a Stack for a Very Interesting vidclip ..... Best to You and Yours from ChCh, NZ

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Thank you, and all the best to you and yours also. Regards Enthusiastic Steve

[@steveverhoef5667]

I love the phone app. That’s going to be the first digital I try! Thanks VE3WLX

[@KH07734]

Bottom line is that a full wave antenna with the driven element facing the direction you are working is best but of course not always the best option in most cases. I believe we all mostly try our best to use the most effective compromised antenna to use our transceivers. If only I had the property.

[@toby000000]

Half wave you mean. A full wavelength antenna will be no-where 50 ohms and will not radiate where you want it to either

[@tzm1843]

@@toby000000he means full size. BTW, a full wavelength antenna works well as a loop.

[@c.hundley9714]

I live in storm country. Since losing a few thousand in Yagis, I too put up a 126 foot wire. That's how much was on the spool. 9:1. The thing is a vertical for 30 feet. Then it gently slopes about 75 feet and turns 90 degrees gently. Way over 100 countries on 80 watts. 10 to 80 with no tuner, 160 and 6, I use a tuner. I don't have a big yard. We work with what we have. As far as receiving, the wire wins.

[@garyclark4930]

Nice video Stephen, I have very limited space yard, so I made a fan dipole for 40, 30, 20, 15 and 10 meters. I was given several CB whip antennas, so I took 2 and made a 10 meter dipole, got it up about 9 meters and have made a lot of 10 meter DX contacts. I have a Hustler 5BTV vertical, that I use mostly for DX on 40 meters because I can't get the I can't get the dipole higher than 9.5 meters. I agree with you, most of us do not have the room for big antennas let alone the finances to put up large antennas. You can get a lot of ideas from the POT and SOTA operators for smaller antennas too. Have a great Day KF6EWO

[@earlyadapter643]

I rather observe it on reception that in some circumstances a bigger antenna doesn't help. Example 1: receiving the QO-100 satellite with a satellite dish. At a certain dish size, the received noise is dominated by the transverter noise of the satellite and further increase of the dish size does not proportionallly improve reception. Example 2: HF in a noisy band and you already have to reduce gain (RFG, IPO, attenuate etc. depending on the manufacturer). Then you can switch to a smaller antenna and re-increase the gain accordingly without noticable difference. Maybe an effect by how the RF bounces off the troposphere that more antenna gain does not reflect in better SNR ? Or, the directivity of the bigger antenna does not help you if it is not on a rotor and not aiming exactly at the station you want to receive? However in TX a bigger antenna with accordingly higher directivity, aiming at the other station, should always improve things, so maybe it is just your delta loop that despite being bigger, does not have more gain.

[@clintwilde1048]

Everybody wants to reinvent the wheel. There has been a lot of water under the bridge since Marconi first started tinkering, and over the many decades, the half wave dipole cut for one band has become the standard. Variations of this, longer wire, loops, slopers, all change the pattern, but anything that is not a resonant half wave is a compromise. If it is 'multiband', it is a compromise on any band it is not a half wave or sometimes 3/4 wave on, if it has a trap, it is a compromise, if it is helically wound as in a mobile ant. it is a compromise. Long wire ants do a good job, but as you go higher in freq on a long wire primarily cut for low bands, you get multiple lobes and nulls, and by Murphy's Law, the null will be in a direction you want, and a lobe pointing in the middle of the ocean somewhere. The biggest P.T. Barnum moment, (A sucker born every minute), was the 43ft vertical sold several years ago with it specifically saying it was a multiband antenna and you did not need a tuner or a counterpoise. Did it work, sure it did as any antenna is better than none, and the old saw of "I work everyone I hear", has to make you ask the question, "Wonder what I am not hearing?" Not spending hundreds of dollars on a commercial multiband vertical antenna, compared against the relative low cost of any end fed wire of all the length you can muster out the window which might be all you can do in a small lot, approaching a resonant length on at least one band, will be money well saved with more stations heard and worked. I've been in this game for over 57 years now, and I have owned towers and beams, verticals on the ground, elevated with radials, and multiband no counterpoise pole mounted verticals, and took everything down to just run a 160 meter 1/2 wave inverted VEE, and an 80 meter half wave dipole fed with window line through a manual tuner, and hassle free and contact wise, they are the best and get the job done. Now, if you are a wild eyed, off the deep end, deep pockets DX'er that wants to be the first to work the rare ones, or a rabid contestor where points are your opiate, that is a different story, but they are not in this game to be a ham, it is blood sport to them.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Great comment, thank you, here in the uk space is a premium and it puts off many who believe you need a large ppbig antenna to get out on the bands. The video was to demonstrate though nice to have the BIG antenna system a small one, like a whip or like you say a resonant wire will perform well. All the best. Regards Steve

[@K6TJO]

Golf is a great analogy

[@brianshanahan3878]

Excellent topic!

[@iamnobody9542]

Yoosta was a program called Mobile, on a disk in the ARRL Antenna book that calculated the antenna efficiency for various length loaded whips on different positions on a car, and for small, medium and large cars. One thing you noticed right away was the efficiency fell off a cliff below 1/3 of full quarter wave length. On 20 and above efficiency was very good as an 8' whip is at least 1/2 or more of a quarter wave in length. However, on 40, efficiency was around 15% and on 75 ~3.5%, just too short. Ahhh, for the Goode Olde Daze when cars had a real iron bumper to mount my Hustler...

[@petemillis4666]

Great video Steve. I have great success with the Ampro 20 and magmount, and it seriously seems to work just as well as the full size 1/4 wave with elevated radial that I set up on the beach. 73 and Happy New Year, M3KXZ

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Thank you, happy new year also. Regards Steve

[@davidknowles7466]

I'm pretty much in the same situation I live in a flat and I'm using a kenwood TS50 and a AC50 through 30 metres of coax on Saturday I copied a guy called Tim who was in Kentucky on 27.700 USB I've also had contacts on the North West Coast of Greenland more Canada than Iceland with good reports, im using what comes out the back of the radio 100w. 73s 26DTK03

[@oobihdahboobeeboppah]

This is like a differential equation; so many variables. While relying solely on number crunching for efficiency, patterns, height above ground, etc oh and the ever present "expert" opinion of the professional ham, we'd "naturally" conclude the loop antenna would be the winner, it's hard to argue with WSPR. That being said, the loop is NVIS by design and the ham stick isn't, for someone with antenna restrictions this demo could be encouraging, and I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the demonstration.

[@mattbates6887]

Bigger antennas pick up more noise than smaller ones, so as in the case of a high gain VHF/UHF collinear, this may well be the case. Signal to noise is the most important thing when receiving, so if you have a high local noise level on say 145 MHz, then a lower gain collinear antenna may well work better for you. It will pick up less noise, and you can then use a VHF amp if required, to increase the signal level. A larger VHF/UHF collinear will also tend to present a much higher wind load in stormy conditions, compared to a smaller one, resulting in the antenna swinging about affecting the received signal. So bigger isn't always better, as I have found out from experience. On the other hand the reverse can be true, a high gain VHF yagi say, can pick up more signal and less noise, so in this case usually bigger is better. So it all depends what antenna you use for best performance.

[@alasdair4161]

I'm watching this and I spotted your Leson TW232 in the background... my favourite mic from the 80's, I have no idea where mine went, but I wish I had another.

[@johnwest7993]

Big isn't critical, but high up is often quite nice.

[@bigchew3149]

i have ben into radios for 35+ years & I always say and Firmly Believe That you can have a 10,000$ radio with a crappy antenna and/or cheep coax and be very disappointed Or ya can have a really good antenna & coax with a 100$ radio & Do Great/Talk Around The World So I Would Argue that Your Antenna & Coax Is The Most Important Part Of Any Station ! Just IMHO & from trying different things!

[@MakeDoAndMend1]

Sounds like you have been watching my videos of homebrew aerials for portable qrp outings. Cannot beat the washing line aerial I use. Cheers from old George. 😂 I love cheapo diy aerials from scrap

[@val058]

In areas of high noise level, line noise, neighborhood static, yes, a larger antenna..more metal in the air, will have improved S/N Ratio. The line noise will still be there but now buried by the increase signal levels. if you aren't plagued by very high noise levels at your location then the size won't matter much at all. noise is outrageous here and shorter antennas are deaf to most weaker to moderate signals.

[@jamesmoore6424]

Brilliant video... rf is a seriously weird thing to play with. Thanks for tip on the wspr tx app.

[@alcampbell]

Good job on the antenna chat Steven. Yah, I know I spelt it wrong. Waddaya gonna do. You`re across the pond and i`m in sunny stuck up Orange County. 73`s catch you on the bands. KD6CFE was here. Hi Hi

[@kingduckford]

Tested LOS CB radios, one time using a short coil CB antenna, and using a full 108 inch whip. Short antenna fought hard just to get to 2 miles away, while the whip was still doing well 10+ miles away. Yes, bigger is better.

[@geraldscott4302]

99% of the time, the bigger, and higher, the antenna, the better it is going to work. A smaller antenna may work well for single band use, but again, the higher up it is the better it will work.

[@justcompton]

Try the test again with two antennas designed the same band. Like maybe a true 1/4 20m vertical vs the "Ham stick". The more antenna in the air will always be better when used on the band its designed for. I personally have used and been let down by the "Ham sticks" and wish someone would have told me about the end fed half wave antenna way earlier. its very portable and very easy to deploy.

[@dandypoint]

Yes, in general an antenna works best when full size for the specific band. I say in general rather than always because there are other variables in specific cases. A half wave horizontal straight 1/2 wave dipole is probably the best antenna (short of using multiple halfwave dipole in a directive array you can rotate). However best results are always broadside. Almost always much much better than a full size vertical. However, even short verticals can be better than directly off the end (deep null) of a dipole. Full size verticals (1/4 wave ) always better than short verticals. Verticals over seawater are nearly as good as a high dipole. Verticals over seawater have very good low angle radiation but not so much over land. Low angle (for DX) from a vertical depends on the ground out in front of the vertical and the frequency band used. (Look up the Pseudo Brewster angle). Low angle from a horizontal antenna depends only on height above ground. I think those things are the most misunderstood items in ham radio.

[@tzm1843]

1. He didn't compare receive and rx noise levels, only transmit. 2. He didn't try them at over 1/4 wavelength height. Verticals have lower angle radiation close to the ground, whereas horizontal dipoles/loops have high angle radiation unless they are up high. @dandypoint @justcompton

[@davidknowles7466]

I live in a flat and haven't got the option of a big antenna, im using a kenwood TS50 through the AT50 and plugged into a dominator out on the roof, I had a recent copy on 27.555 and he was on the North West Coast of Greenland more Canada than Iceland good report aswell running 100w.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Great cont David, we all have to use what we can to get out, that was one of the pointsci was trying to put across, yes big probably does work better in some instances but as in the experiment and as you have proved small works as well. Thank you for your comment, happy new year, regards Steve

[@davidknowles7466]

@@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV Thanks Steve, you'd laugh Steve I've got it running through 20 meters of coax.

[@kc8653]

Bigger the better. Higher even better. Of course if you dont have the realsate you have to compromise

[@alainbibi0047]

0:43 Yes i want one ! 4:19 After the Protestant priest's sermon, the results. Hey 73 :)))

[@emoisit]

Radiation pattern and orientation of an antenna matter most. I run WSPR full time of several bands. My 80 EFHW does better on 12m than my A99 does. Interesting video. Thanks for sharing. 73 de N1PCE

[@homersaypian3798]

Very interesting. I have a feeling that a car’s metal body works as one heck of ground plane with a higher takeoff angle. I’m not sure the same results would be had if you were to use that shorter antenna in the yard, but I’ve been known to be wrong every now and then. In any case, thanks for the video!

[@geraldscott4302]

Actually a car body makes a terrible ground plane, especially for longer distances. The reason is because it is unbalanced. A balanced dipole is the absolute best configuration for unity gain. A beam will give you better range, but only in one direction. I had a 106" antenna on my truck for 11 meters, and was unable to get it below 1.5.1 in the middle of the band. I attached that same antenna to my house, using a mobile mirror mount attached to wood with lag bolts, and connected a 106" piece of wire to the mount, ran along the edge of the roof. After slight trimming of the wire, I got the SWR down so low that it wouldn't even move the needle, and my range increased significantly. Same thing applies to any amateur HF band.

[@petemillis4666]

@@geraldscott4302 car being such a terrible ground plane is clearly wrong. I very regularly work Australia, New Zealand and a whole heap of other DX using Ampro (Hamstick types) whips on a magmount on my car while parked up, while running just 5 W or less. Car makes a fantastic ground plane / bottom half of antenna.

[@norrinradd8952]

But I WANT big AntennaZZ. Thanks Steve, this video made me Enthusiastic as well.

[@Ei2iP]

Yes, antenna is number 1, the rest follows

[@theradiorover]

Try laying a bit of wire on the ground and transmitting using WSPR. You'll be surprised by the results.

[@biophillie]

Two horizontal delta loops at 1468 ft. each. They work for me!

[@chrisolson968]

Good test. Sure you can split hairs and say the moblie antenna is better for the longer distance, thus lower take off angle. However it is on a magnet mount and shorter. So a compromised antenna. The delta loop isn't that high, maybe a tad of nvis, but much higher than the mobile antenna and should exhibit better gain on 20 being a 40 meter loop. Bands conditions can change in the blink of an eye. The loop could have a weird pattern also due to it reacting to something. All and all a good test. I believe a person with limited space would enjoy the video and get them excited on trying different things. So I think this is useful and will encourage new and old hams a like. 73

[@justawfulgamer7738]

Its not about the size, its how you use it.

[@ssubaihi]

Thank U Steve for such a wonderful experiment. i wish you review/examine the Power output @ the Antenna Input connector in both Antenna's i mean @ the end of the Transmission Line. i say that because Transmission Line in the Car normally Shorter = hence more power to the Mobile Antenna Besides some times the Real Output Power of the Radio isn't the same .. Some times Radio Panel Tells you 5 Watts , But in Realty it's 12 Watts @ CW mode . Hopefully you repeat this experiment in other video @ (Receive Mode) to determine which Antenna has a better receive signal and lower noise using the Same Radio/Same Sitting with both Antenna's and considering the same type/length of Transmission Line.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Thank you for the comments, yes hopefully i will be doing further reviews, tests on antennas, it is a very interesting subject. All the best, happy new year regards Steve

[@BusDriverRFI]

I couldn't tell what polarity the delta loop was but a vertical is hard to beat.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

It is fed to be vertical but does slope more than it should to fit in the garden. All the best, happy new year, thank you, regards Steve

[@355k13]

I was always told to get as much wire or aluminium in the air as possible By the way, is that an old Leson TW232/Ham Master 4200 desk mic in the background?...had the pleasure of owning and using both in years gone by and wish I still had one...fantastic microphones & built like the proverbial brick outhouse!!

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Yes it is a Leeson, genuine 70s mic. Antennas are like loudspeakers, grew up listening to big cabinet size speakers, now realise really good audio can also come from tiny shelf speakers if well made. A big antenna array would be great but for those limited to what they can put up i just wanted to demonstrate, sometimes small will also work. All the best and thank you for your comment. Regards Steve

[@planca3430]

size of the antenna depends on the freq you are using. to listen or transmit on.

[@jiml40]

So here’s a factor that some people may not have considered. Your large antenna is resonate on 40 meters and your whip is resonant on 20 meters, the band that you were testing on WSPR. Could I challenge you to put a 20 meter loop and do a new test comparison??

[@wonderingworld119]

I am surprised the non-resonant small whip on the car did so well.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

That ampro whip tunes nicely to the voice and data section of the 20m band, no further matching required. It has got me to Australia long path on voice ssb using 10w whilst psrked at the seafront. Thats in another video on my channel. They do work and very cheap comparatively. Ty regards Steve

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

The rf pattern would be similar, but i hear what you are saying, my loop is set up to be vertically polarised, the same as the whip. If cross polarised i would expect a bigger difference in performance outcomes. Good call to try again using a purpose built 20m, that would be interesting. Thank you, all the best for 2024 and ty for the comment regards Steve

[@tzm1843]

@@EnthusiastSteveM6WVVhow do you make your horizontal loop vertically polarized, and why would you want to?

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

@@tzm1843 its is all down to where the feedpoint is attached. Minevis on one down leg, a quarter wave down from the apex, that makes it a vertical antenna, if you feed on the base bottom wire half way along it will be horizontal polarised. May give quieter recieve horizontal. Mine is vertical as it was easier to attach coax to that point. Regards Steve

[@TR6Telos]

To me the smaller is more of an accomplishment if it works! Shame coathangers are now plastic!

[@MidlifeRenaissanceMan]

Hey Steve. Just grow the hair out. The _Ageing Rockstar_ is a thing….if you can pull it off My results vary. Often I simply look homeless, or homeless adjacent. Anyway, I know it’s been a while, but… …. What were the figures like between the two antennas. WSPR at 5W is closer to 50W of CW. How many of those signals were better than say -15dB on one antenna over the other ?? I’m working on my _Poke-Out-The-Window-Tenna™️- at the moment….with varying success. My tests so far have simply been a CQ on CW to the local Reverse Beacon and noting down the dB over noise it reports back. Some of those have been as much as 10dB difference between two design ideas.

[@threeMetreJim]

This is not a test of which antenna is "better", just which is adequate for the power and communication method. You need very little radiated power for WSPR; after all, it is a WEAK SIGNAL mode. You can fool your rig into a perfect match simply by connecting a dummy load, but you won't propagate a signal very far. This test simply shows that 5 watts into either antenna is plenty enough for WSPR. Maybe test which antenna is "better" when you use 100mW (-17dB down from 5 watts).

[@josephatnip2398]

I'm in the middle of nowhere I mean seriously in the middle of nowhere I've got to get antenna up high to even hit the only repeater in my area

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

At vhf yes at height will get you over the horizon, but a single antenna willl work, yes some advantage from stacked yagi arrays but they still need to get over the horizon. On HF, here in the UK many are put off of the hobby as they think you have to have massive big antennas to get out, not the case, i have used just 10w from a whip on my car and held a 15min conversation, long path, plus 14,000 miles to Australia from the UK. Big is nice but not always required, and many here have got on air when they realised that. Thank you for your comments, much appreciated, regards Steve

[@clivedewhirst]

good video steve ,just subscribed ,ps get the haircut lol

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Thank you regards Steve

[@jamesbeemer7855]

The size of your antenna makes a difference as to how much signal you can capture . Also height makes a difference too . But the F C C limits how high you can mount it . But hey , sometimes the limits are a blessing .

[@donmauproductionstv]

The fcc does NOT limit the height on ham radio.

[@jamesbeemer7855]

Read the rules , dummy . That’s why there are those beacons on commercial tv and radio antennas . @@donmauproductionstv

[@giotis62]

of course the vertical antenna radiation lobe is lower than the horizontal loop even if it's shorter, this is why you got more spots in north america. The loop has more spots in europe, that's normal with a higher radiation lobe. Maybe if the loop could be very high the result will be different. Just my 2 cents.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

The loop is vertical polarised but just a comparison of small and big for those with small gardens. Regards Steve

[@bill-2018]

Use whatever you can get out. An interesting experiment. My outside area is 15' x 25' and I've squeezed a 60m inverted vee in, 5 dipoles in the attic for 20m to 10m and a 2m 2 element collinear in the bedroom, all homebrew and 5 Watts max. Getting on 10m here, worked Sicily and Bulgaria recently both about 1400 miles with one Watt c.w. How much further was my signal actually going? Some beacons coming in. On Sunday the furthest I heard was K5AB beacon in Texas, website says 20 Watts into a ground plane, I received it at 3.2.9. G4GHB.

[@M6EastCoastGirl]

Thats fantastic what a great use of space for stealth antennas Bill! Im inspired to string some dipoles up in my attic after reading your comment! The only antenna permanently installed at my home QTH is a random, very thin gauge, copper wire run the length of my back garden. I operate almost exclusively /P but it would be nice to have different options at home sometimes too! 73 de Lucy

[@bill-2018]

@@M6EastCoastGirl Yes, give them go Lucy. I've never found information about signal attenuation of brick at h.f., it's always about u.h.f. and microwaves so I guess it's not too bad. They do droop at the ends, with 20m I think three turns round the main supporting timber beams and 17m I think has one or two turns at the ends. I've tried verticals, doublets and long wires for years until I decided about three years ago I could fit dipoles in my attic. A small hole through the plaster (rear bedroom shack) for three RG58 coax cables, one for 20 + 15m, one for 12 + 10m and the other for 17m so hopefully there's less interaction between them when tuning them. You do see in radio books where 5 dipoles are on one coax. Last year I made my own version of a Joystick which was around in the 1960's and 70's. Two aluminium poles I had just over 3' long with a coil in the centre to separate them, then a length of wire, mine is about 20' to an a.t.u. Using an MFJ 16010 tuner which I was given as not working but all it needed was one wire soldering, it even tunes on top band, not efficiently but it does allow me to get on. A long (short) wire with a lump of inductance at the end! I don't buy aerials. I made a 2 element centre fed collinear for 2m. I'm able to get on 20m and below now since the internet broadband noise has gone with the change from copper wire to fibre. About 8 years of only using 2m f.m. with a rare bit of c.w. and 60m c.w., for some reason 60m was free of noise. 73, Bill, G4GHB.

[@M6EastCoastGirl]

@@bill-2018 Many thanks Bill for all the information 💐 this is definitely food for thought, for me! 👍

[@bill-2018]

@@M6EastCoastGirl Glad you found the info. useful. G4GHB.

[@ericeugenecole7090]

HF Hamstick vertical antennas on a vehicle are typically quite inefficient compared to a vertical over a ground plane or a suitable counterpoise. At the upper end of the HF band like your 20 meter test Hamstick’s will be more efficient than they will be on lower HF like 75 & 80 meters. In my experience reception is vastly superior on larger antennae than it is on hamstick in a mobile environment. Your test did show that you did better on the RBN reception while mobile. Yes this did surprise me a bit. However it does not address the reception capability or Incapability at all. I agree that it is often surprising what can be worked with a physically small antenna. Your test did demonstrate the surprising capability of your mobile. The variables are many as you point out. We’re you stationary when you tested the mobile whip? Or were the test signals sent from a variety of locations? It just was not clear to me what you did and did not do to make sure that variables were minimized. I enjoyed the video. You did show that your mobile whip was heard on more RBN inputs. This demonstrated what can happen on 20 meter mobile with a small antenna. My issue was that the testing did not show whether both antennae had similar ability to hear signals.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Hello, thank you for your comment. The main aim of the video was to give some hope to those who cannot use a physically larger antenna and that results between small and larger may not be as bad as they had thought. In this experiment the mobile slightly out performed the bigger antenna. On rx the loop did just hear a few more stations but not that many more. I was surprised but that day those were the results. I have had many users who said they had not used hf because of lack of space and now they will experiment. Regards Steve

[@ericeugenecole7090]

@@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV I agree with and understand both; your reply. and your video content. I live under the thumb of an HOA's authority and have antenna restrictions which so far I have been unable to get an exemption from. Then again my HOA rules still forbid rooftop TV antenna's which was nullified by the OTARD. So small antennae are what I must use. Also trailers may not be parked outside of our garage's on the common areas, nor even on our individual driveways. It is sometime quite surprising what can be accomplished with smaller antennae on HF. This said antenna location matters a great deal. Moving my handheld scanner 6 inches within the confines of my car and my home can make the difference between not even breaking the squelch and receiving with full quieting. This is not always the case: yet it is a reproducible behavior more often than not. I demonstrate this to people to illustrate how much the location of an antenna makes a difference. I have inferred (perhaps incorrectly) that using fuller-sized antennae improves reception of signals simply by being physically present in more space within the atmosphere. Empirical data gathered from my non-scientific samples seems to confirm this. Hamsticks seem to work much better (for me) when I am operating at higher frequencies. Mobile on 6 meters FM and vertically polarized works well. On 6 meters my car provides close to a .25 wavelength ground-plane. Mobile on 20, 15, and 10 meters SSB works alright. Mobile below 20 meters SSB goes downhill to very poor performance quite rapidly; the lower the frequency the worse the performance seems to be when Mobile. Reception seems to improve when I am not stationary when mobile. However a screwdriver antenna on my car in a field or a vacant parking lot with 4 or more long radials changes the game and offers much better performance. There is a learning curve to learning how to tune a screwdriver antenna. Making a screwdriver antenna takes a bit of time and $material$; but is not beyond most Ham's that have access to the the necessary tools and mentors that can guide them. However; the addition of the radials seems to help the antenna hear better in addition to becoming more efficient. Working HF with smaller antennae is challenging sometimes. Certainly doing some experimenting to see what works and what does not work is part of the hobby. Starting with HF at and above 20 meters is a good starting point. Trying to do the same below 20 meters should follow these initial tests. trying these bands with smaller antannae in the reverse order may lead to frustration which quell's enthusiasm for HF. I note that you too did your testing on 20 meters instead of 40. 80. or 160 meters. The proof was found in the RBN feedback.

[@Cannibal_169_Nor-Cal]

How were both done on the same band when your mobile is 20 meters and your delta loop is 40 meters?

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

The 40m delta loopbis a full 2 wave resonant antenna on 20m, it also works well on 15 and 10m. No tuner required. Thst is the beauty of a loop. Mainly i just wanted to demonstrate that physically large antennas were not always better, lots of people cannot use a big antenna and get put off of the hobby, this helps with seeing their are other ways, just experiment, have fun and use what works in your location. Thank you for the comment, happy new year, regards Steve

[@ON7MV]

I just watched this video and my apologies but what is being said here is completely incorrect. If you want to compare that small antenna, you should compare it with a 1/4 wave vertical antenna on the same band and not with a loop and use the same receiver. You can use this 1/4 wave with elevated radials or you have to do it with ground radials. I saw your garden in the video... put a 4sq on the 20m band and compare it with that whip... only then will you really see that size does matter.

[@fintronics]

Actually, bigger IS better, and I've been doing it for 50+ years. You can't change the laws of physics.

[@destr65]

Unfortunately, size does matter !

[@LWRC]

Should really do the same WSPR test between your whip antenna and a dipole antenna! The delta loop has some inherient advantages over the whip so the size factor isn't truly significant!

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Thank you for the comment, their are so many variables to try, this was just one example to show a smaller antenna in some instances will give results similar or even better than a much larger physical one. I may try different ones in the coming year. Happy new year regards Steve

[@LWRC]

@@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV Thanks for sharing!!

[@DXCommanderHQ]

Hey Steve.. You should rename your channel "Enthusiastic Steve"!!

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Hello Cal, happy new year. Yes i was wondering about that but was unsure if changing the channel name would cause problems with subscribers who had linked to existing one? I always put Enthusiast Steve in the title to aid the search engine. My channel is slowly growing, never going to be a dx commander size but doing it for fun and to help others in the hobby. Thank you for your comment, all the best, keep up your great channel, regards Steve aka Enthusiast Steve aka M6WVV

[@ne2i]

The bigger and the uglier the antenna is, the better it works.

[@djmossssomjd8496]

OK the wind noise is out performing your mic. Maybe try again with a baffle or on a still day.......

[@KC3UVF]

So much wrong with this. I am 100% a fan of your premise, getting whatever you can up in the air and making some contacts, but the idea that a hamstick (or any similar compromise antenna) will be as *efficient* as the big loop is preposterous... and don't forget tx is only half the equation. I say this as someone that actually likes and uses hamstick antennas while mobile.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

I agree many variables, bigger should be better but in this experiment the results wete surprising, though i have used a ampro whip mobile on 20m using just 10w and have spoken long path to Australia from here in the uk. On the loop only ever got as far ad Brazil. Like i say many variables, i woul love a stack of yagi's and i know they would be better but thats not possible here. It is good to experiment and it does give hope for those who can only use a smaller antenna for the hobby. Appreciate the comment, happy new year regards Steve

[@KC3UVF]

@@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV I don't think it's surprising at all. In fact, it's exactly what should have happened. The hamstick is an omni directional 1/4 wave vertical with notoriously good radiation between 5-20 degrees off the horizon. The fact that it is physically short doesn't change that much. The loop on the other hand is an entirely different animal. It's a double wave for starters, which gives all kinds of weird lobes and nulls to the radiation pattern. I'm also guessing it is up 20-25 ft in the air by the look of it. That's still pretty low relative to wavelength on 20m. If it's fed horizontal, the ground is acting like a giant reflector and you have a 2 element quad beaming into space 🫤. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does muddy any conclusions. I'd also imagine that your feed line losses are far far higher with the longer coax run and transformer at the loop than on the whip. I also suspect that if you did a simultaneous receive test, the loop would hear signals the whip doesn't even know exist. At the end of the day if you can't hear, it doesn't matter how loud you scream. 73s and happy new year to you and yours 👍

[@chazwozza67]

So 40m delta loop had similar results to a 20m whip on 20 meters who’d thought ..how’s the whip on 40?

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

The 40m delta loop is also fully resonant on 20m being 2 wave, i may compare the 40m ampro against the delta loop to see how that goes. Regards Steve

[@chazwozza67]

@@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV you need to test a 20m loop for the test to be equal

[@tzm1843]

1. You didn't compare receive and rx noise levels, only transmit. 2. You didn't try them at over 1/4 wavelength height. Verticals have lower angle radiation close to the ground, whereas horizontal dipoles/loops have high angle radiation unless they are up high.

[@larspregge6420]

Wspr doesn't count for me. It is made for weak signals and you need a computer (an smartphone is an computer as well :P). The computer communicates, not the operator, he clicks only. Minimum mode is cw.

[@martinevans3863]

How do you define 'big' Steve ?

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

When i look in the mirror lol, i shall add diet to haircut list. Big as in sizable, its all relative, lots of people cannot use big antennas and get put off trying hf, hopefully this will give some encouragement to show big/larger antennas are not always required. Nice if you have the room. Thank you for the comment, happy new year, regards Steve

[@gfodale]

Title is rubbish, content is not. All antennas are a compromise. Wide bandwidth is desirable to many, something you won't see in a loaded 1/4 wave. Most antenna tuners are a transmatch, not an antenna tuner. They don't tune the antenna, but rather, prevent the reflected power from harming the finals of the transmitter. A lot of what you say, has merit in it's narrow scope, but that scope is not enunciated. Beginners should be told to research for their own goals and desires, in addition to what has been presented. This is a learning opportunity for many. Don't take that away with a simple, ' loaded vertical ' is all you need. Just an opinion and statement from a non-expert that is still learning too.

[@truthfilterforyoutube8218]

Lose the rug. It deters people from taking you seriously

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Yes it needs a cut, at my age its a bonus when it grows back. All the best, happy new year regards Steve

[@CubDriver451]

Hmm… not to be negative, but your test really doesn’t prove anything at all. The delta loop is a directional antenna, not to mention it’s built for an entirely different band. Without knowing the orientation and radiation pattern of the loop, there is no guessing how well it “should” have performed. It will certainly have peaks and nulls in some directions, yet the vertical will have an omnidirectional azimuth pattern. It’s nearly guaranteed to reach more stations simply because of that. Then there is the fact that it appears the delta loop is fed with coax, which will cause a very noticeable impedance mismatch. This causes high losses in coaxial cable, meaning that you’re not really transmitting from the antenna with the five watts your radio is putting out. Try the same test with a twenty meter delta loop and count only the stations within the 3dBi beam width of its pattern, and I’ll bet any amount that the delta wins.

[@olivertaylor8788]

Bull shit,I'll use what works best for me.i have twin m6s,and 2 a99s.4 102s on the mobles,and big mama on the riding mower.all I need..

[@KB1UIF]

I'm sorry Stephen, I know what is are trying to say here, BUT your tests are not scientific. You can't compare different antennas with different radio configurations. Did you measure power output from both setups? How about field strenghts, SWR and tuners? Have you taken into account polarization factors of the antennas or even directional properties? Propagation changes? Takeoff angles? Overall your experiment does not prove anything as you are not doing your comparisons scientifically. Trust me antenna size CAN make a huge difference. If you are trying to say this to an interested party that is put off with antenna size, then that's a whole other story. Please don't try to tell us your unscientific approach proves anything, because it doesn't. There are way too many factors involved that you are not taking into account.

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

I agree it was totally non scientific, what i was trying to get over, especially to new comers or those thinking that it would be impossible for them to get involved in the hobby because on limitations of putting up a large hf antenna. I just wanted to show you can still get on hf with a very small modest set up. Of course it will not beat a stacked array, a full size 160m dipole etc but it will get them on air. Just last evening i used a 1/4 wave whip on my car for 12m, less than 20w and contacted a USA POTA station in North Carolina. Yes i used good propagation and location, i was right by the sea. It is all the variables that make the hobby so interesting. I take on board and thank you for your comments. Its a great hobby, the big challenge is to encourage young people into the radio hobby to keep it and the industry alive. Thank you regards Steve

[@KB1UIF]

@@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV Thank you for your reply Stephen. To encourage new prospective hams yes then I'm all for it. It just needs to be worded that way. I did understand your intent. 73.

[@ianharling9569]

Hi I always use the Ampro whips and I have them for all the HF bands. 73 and Happy New year. G7HFS/PA3IKH

[@DonzLockz]

I like real tests. Thanks for sharing.... but get a haircut!😊... I didn't notice until you told me, and then I kept staring at it.🦳😂👍

[@petemillis4666]

I like it as it is!

[@EnthusiastSteveM6WVV]

Its due but at my age when it grows back its a bonus 😁