Which Antenna is Better? 49:1 EFHW VS 9:1 Random Wire

Have you ever wondered which antenna is better? Me too. So I went out and tested them both and the results just may shock you!!
Consider becoming a Patron @ / k8mrdradiostuff
Follow me on Twitter. / k8mrd
Links to many of the things I use can be found here:
www.amazon.com...
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Big Geek Battery Box, k8mrd.square.site
Watch the video here: • Big Geek 12V Ham Radio...
Tri-Lam BuddiStick Pro Counterpoise Support: k8mrd.square.site
K8MRD Radio Stuff Shirts:
Happy Skull Guy: grapevineamate...
Tower of Terror: grapevineamate...
Parks On The Air Merch (non affiliate) www.clubgearon...
Links to other stuff (affiliate where possible)
**Save 10% off your Coax order at ABR Industries. Use code K8MRD at checkout.
abrind.com/?sld=2
The SkyHook Portable Mast Antenna Mount (non affiliate)
www.thehamstop....
Use code K8MRDRADIO for 20% off
Save 5% Off At Gigaparts With Code K8MRD:
www.gigaparts....
5% off Messi & Paoloni Coax
Use code K8MRD for 5% off.
messi.it. (or you can order from Gigaparts)
Signal Stuff Signal Stick Antennas:
BNC Antenna: signalstuff.co...
SMA Female Antenna: signalstuff.co...
SMA Male Antenna: signalstuff.co...
Signalstuff Antennas: signalstuff.co...
~~~$15 off most purchases over $65 at Radioddity:
radioddity.refr...
#hamradio #k8mrd #parksontheair

[@MikeN2MAK]

Thanks for doing those tests! That was neat to see how similar they were, with the exception of 40m, where the 9:1 was closer in length to a quarter wave but the 49:1 was a half wave. It'd be neat to see how a 71' random wire does, since that's a little more comparable in length to the EFHW.

[@YeloSub7]

Agreed! But 41' is its own advantage over 66'. But I would like to see a test on 40m with the 71'

[@jonmcadams5401]

Thanks for all your testing! I use a 71' non resonant sloper, 9:1 unun, no counterpoise, 50' of coax & common mode choke as a stealth antenna at my QTH because I like to work all the HF bands including WARC bands. SWR is 1.5 to 1 or less on all HF bands using tuner in my Xeigu XPA125B 100 watt amp. From California, 100 watt SSB contacts to Europe, Africa, Mediterranean, South America, Asia, Australia & New Zealand. I get solid signal reports on daily West Coast 80 & 40 nets with 100 watts SSB. It's an inexpensive and fun all band HF antenna!

[@jerryKB2GCG]

That’s not “hands down”, looks like less than a 5% difference, they are very very close. Great experiment though, thanks for doing this hard work in the heat!

[@anonymous_friend]

This sounds like an argument from a liberal. 😂

[@jerryKB2GCG]

@@anonymous_friend Guess liberals like arguments based on math ? 😀

[@alanb76]

The math says the EFHW consistently outperformed by 2-3 dB on most bands. That's a lot more than 5%. Percentages and averaging can be misleading with logarithmic physical quantities. The frequency agility of a tuner and 9:1 is traded against a longer wire and less agility. The 9:1 requires no fiddling. The EFHW may require cutting and mods to get the resonances where desired, and it may not cover some bands or parts thereof. Each antenna has utility and some compromises. Thanks again for the data, hopefully others will do some testing as well. So many people put up an antenna, work a faraway station and proclaim excellence without any real comparative data. Refreshing to see some real experimenting with data!

[@nealbeach4947]

So what you're saying is your antenna didn't win and your feelings are hurt.

[@socallars3748]

@@jerryKB2GCG Liberals value math, science, reality. Rationality.

[@kb9jqu]

Your results are consistent with my experience. Both will work, the mission will dictate which one I’ll grab, but I’ll favor the 49:1 all things being equal.

[@oobihdahboobeeboppah]

A 49:1 and the 9:1 are NOT antennas, they are impedance transformers. You completely glossed over the PURPOSE of these two types of unun's and why someone might choose one over the other. 49:1 unun's are needed for the exceedingly high feed point impedances (thousands of ohms) of RESONANT HALF WAVE end fed antennas. 9:1 unun's are used for NON-RESONANT "random length" end-fed antennas which generally have a fraction of the feed point impedance of a half wave end-fed antenna. They are not the same and need to be considered on their own merits and NOT necessarily straight across replacements for each other. A halfwave antenna, be it an end-fed or a center fed dipole "will work" on the fundamental frequency and ODD HARMONICS without [much of] a tuner. The WARC bands likely will need a more robust tuner since they do NOT fall within the harmonics of the other HF bands. Conversely, because NON-RESONANT "random length" end-fed antennas present impedances ranging in the hundreds of ohms on ALL HF bands, the 9:1 ratio should manage to bring a mismatch within the range of available tuners, internal and or external. Put another way, the EFHW with a 49:1 unun should be a good fit for the non-WARC bands if only an internal tuner is available. The EF random length is a good fit for ALL HF bands with a 9:1 unun when a robust tuner (10:1) is available. In most cases, the length of the wire is based on the lowest band of operation. For example, if you only have up to 66 feet to hang a wire, don't expect to get much done on 80m using an EFHW, and to a lesser extent the random length (53') antenna. Any discussion of these two different antennas needs to start with: 1.) What band(s) will be used? 2.) How much space is available to hang wire? 3.) What kind of tuner is available? If you plan on 40m and up including the WARC bands, choose the random length, IF you have the room for it AND you have an external tuner available. If on the other hand we're talking about Field Day where the WARC bands aren't used, use the EFHW. So turning to WSPR reports first is putting the cart before the horse. In other words, don't let WSPR numbers be the first and only consideration. Start with what you want/need to cover, then what resources you have AND can put up. If you can go with either antenna, then and only then pull out your spreadsheet to tip the scales. Even though we're "amateurs", there's no reason we can't apply critical thinking and experience to improve our skills. Also, crunching numbers can be deceiving; don't let a snapshot of propagation in one afternoon convince you it'll be that same way next month, next week or even tomorrow. NO ONE can control propagation! The only things we can control are the use of the physical resources we bring to the field. Don't forget to use a couple of counterpoises or if you use your coax for that, put a choke/line isolator at the radio.

[@floridasaltlife]

I thought it was perfectly clear, unnecessary blabbering

[@nvrumi]

I'll offer a couple of comments. First, I'm not sure that the SNR reports as averaged are directly comparable. A better approach is to compare the SNR from the same station... otherwise an extra station that heard your signal but it was weak will bias the average. Yes, I might be picking at nits, but we are being "sciencey" right? ;) Second, the Elecraft radios will tune the random wire with no external turner. One of my go-to antennas is called the Sagebrush Antenna (wrote it up on my weblog, heh). I throw one 25 or 29ft piece of wire over the sagebrush and another on the ground. These wires are attached to a BNC cobrahead attached directly to my rig (Elecraft). It sometimes struggles to get a match on 15m with the 25ft wire, so I clearly have some work to do. But I always get a match on this antenna to work 10m through 40m. It'll match on 80m but I have to believe the antenna would be horribly inefficient on that band. Someone else commented that the mission determines what antenna is used. I agree... "the mission determines the loadout." I always have the EFRW, EFHW, and a vertical antenna in the kit. For a quick deployment, I'll put up the SOTAbeams 10m travel mast and run the EFRW. I can make my POTA quota in an hour with QRP and go home. Third, when I built my EFHW for 40m (81:1 matching transformer), I played around with some testing on the non-resonant bands. I found that the Elecraft KX3 would match it from 6m down to 160m. I was stunned because I did not expect that. Again, I have to believe that the 40m EFHW would be horribly inefficient on the lower bands, but the radio will match it. It's good to see another ham getting out in the field and testing stuff. Thanks for doing the work and sharing it with us. 73 de AG7TX

[@PaulReedy]

This, plus putting a wattmeter on the last output going to the antenna. This way you know you're really doing 5w on both instead of "1 bar" which may not be the same.

[@KeepEvery1Guessing]

If you also want WARC bands, 80, and 160, the 9:1 will step ahead. The 49:1 probably won't tune on the other bands. Use both.

[@timbookedtwo2375]

whatever the right tool for the job is.

[@MentalWhiplash]

I ran a 9:1 today...the REAL difference is that I ran on 6, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 30, 40 and 80m only being required to press a button during band change....car vs truck. the 49:1 only wins when you don't add the abiilty of the 9:1 on all the other bands.

[@HamRadio2]

The answer to the question you're asking is, "Yes"

[@jmac217x]

I can rely on Ham Radio Tube to always have the hands on! This is exactly what I was looking for now that I have a simplistic grasp of these types of antennas.

[@tomstrum6259]

Thought the label read "Packed Enima" .....?

[@tommycheshire5508]

Sir: could you find it in your heart to select a neutral site to send me a copy of this spreadsheet? It’s not that I don’t believe what you did nor am I looking for errors, I am to the age where I can’t remember very well. I know that you are busy as jumper cables at a poor man’s funeral. I will owe you a favor for the remainder of my life, just ask me for anything. Thank you for your consideration and I will pout if you say no, but I will get over it. Thank you again. Tommy N4KBM

[@hamradiotube]

Just go to wsprnet.org

[@johng1560]

I agree lots of us tmi in short time, love ur vids

[@alanwheelock1460]

great comparison. wish u wuda used more length on 9 to 1 closer to your 60 ft on the 49 to 1.

[@thebugg333]

When away from my home I like my 9:1, but keep a 49:1 and a wolf river in my kit. For constrained space, I am using a 29 foot wire with the 9:1 on a fishpole and my tuner matches quickly.

[@timg5tm941]

On 20 the 41ft 9:1 is close to a 5/8 wave so maybe that helped her a bit on 20m.

[@i2gpt]

Hi Mike, that's the way to do the things! Fantastic report. Thanks for setting the way of doing in comparing antennas. Then all differences come out out (quarter wave or half wave in some band etc) but the way of reporting the things is great, out of emotions (my antenna is better than your antenna HI) and strictly linked to the facts. For future tests, would be interesting to have the directions of the antenna on the ground and the simulation of the radiation pattern (I suppose someone has a MMANAGAL simulation here), to understand also the lobe of the two antennas. Very well done I2GPT Vic

[@VE9ASN]

Great efforts thank you! Versatility certainly goes to the 9:1, all the bands vs 4 is an easy choice for my backpack!

[@don_n5skt]

Interesting experiment and I think that you would be hard pressed to make a wrong choice by using either antenna. I am sort of wanting to put up a 9:1 at home and I have found that my internal tuner works fine on the CaHR 9:1 from 40 through 10. So as long as I am not really running 80 and 160, I can get by with the internal tuner.

[@djdommes9302]

Great experiment ! I’m running a 991a with 9 to 1 on 84 foot sloper . Radio tuner works on 80 through 20 meters. I’m in San Antonio Tx, hitting east and west coast pretty easy, and South America. I do want to get a tuner soon. Thanks K5EGD DJ

[@electronictreasure4191]

I ran a 49:1 for awhile and always had some issues getting it to tune up well. Recently started running a 9:1 with my little G90. The 9:1 tunes up just about everywhere and has worked great. Easy to deploy too.

[@Bond2025]

You are *NOT* tuning the aerial, it is already cut to resonance, what you are doing is making the radio see 50ohms - that is not altering the resonant frequency of the antenna. This is a mistake nearly everyone makes. If I have a wire that is 20m long it will be a half wave (no matter how it is matched to the radio) and will be resonant on 40m plus harmonics with differing radiation patterns and efficiency. If I was to cut that wire to 18m, it would no longer be resonant on 40m, so would be really inefficient, even if you could get the radio to see it as a 50ohm match on 40m. Do you see what the ATU is for ? It is an Impedance Matcher *NOT* a resonance matcher! The End fed half wave is a brilliant multiband aerial - even if a compromise, it works very well across multiple bands as it is resonant on them without any extra impedance matching. If you need an ATU, your antenna is NOT RESONANT and is horribly inefficient. Most of your power is being wasted and receive desensitized too.

[@electronictreasure4191]

@@Bond2025 Which is the purpose of the 9:1 un-un. Unbalanced line to unbalanced(not resonant) antenna.

[@RF_Burns]

@@Bond2025 "The End fed half wave is a brilliant multiband aerial" lol. Why is the power rating of a 49:1 usually less than 400W SSB/100W Digital?

[@stephanhersey1186]

Great video, thanks. I use both antennas for different needs. The 9:1, 41 footer is for when I don't have the room to put up the 65 ft 49:1. There are times I have had to use a 29 foot 9:1 but with less satisfaction as the 41 footer. I carry these plus others in a bag when out camping so I have all my bases covered. The 65 ft 49:1 is my normal go to antenna when I can use it. Mine are all home brew wound and cut so didn't have to spend a lot of cash. Thanks, Steve, k7ofg.

[@dougdaniels]

I've found that the 49:1 is easy to build, easy to use and gets great results. I never got good results with a 9:1, but I chalk that up to being lazy 🤣

[@MrRayfieldcomm]

I really enjoyed your video. From the standpoint of a video, it wasn't 'boring' like so many others are, where you didn't show us all of your testing, but just how you set things up and the results. Excellent! So many videos on KZbin show way too much 'detail', such that I often stop the video as I'm 'bored stiff'. You also appear to have a good understanding of overall antenna design and testing. Nice! I see so many videos where it's very clear that the person producing the video really has a very poor understanding of the subject material and may even be providing inaccurate information in the video. But the internet makes us all "experts", doesn't it!!??!! Finally, your final comparison of the two antenna designs is great. While it appears that the 49:1 EFHW has a little bit of an 'edge' over the 9:1 random length antenna, it looks like the random length antenna is only about 3 to 4 down from the EFHW, but not in all cases. That would seem to fit with the fact that the EFHW is a resonant antenna and the random length antenna is not. One thing that I might suggest is that you use a wattmeter in your next tests, to make absolutely sure that the power output is the same on both antennas and on all bands. Again, I enjoyed your video. Nicely done! John - W0PM

[@paulkinas7926]

A very interesting experiment. The results are about what I have experienced with thousands of POTA contacts as an activator running QRP. I did a similar experiment a few weeks ago using the same park. radio, frequency, and power over a 3-day period of time. I tested a homebrew EFHW 49:1 unun, homebrew random wire with 9:! unun to a manual tuner, and homebrew ground mounted vertical. While my sample size was lower than yours the results were pretty much the same as yours. In my experiment all 3 of the antennas I used had almost exactly the same number of contacts, and almost identical pattern of contact by call areas. Very interesting. As mentioned by others comments, just pick your favorite antenna based on the area you want to work from, and the results will probably very similar no matter what antenna you use... 72 Paul NA9M

[@bartwesselius1900]

Thanks, this is a subject that really peaks my interest. I love to see more testing done with a longer wire on the 9:1. Thanks again and keep up the good work.

[@Bugkiller991]

I’m a relatively new ham. My first antenna was a 71 ft “random” wire that after a bit of fiddling, has a SWR of 2:1 or less on all bands down to 80 m, except 15m. But jeez is it noisy! I put up a Gabiel vertical I plan on using for POTA and the noise difference is huge. If I can figure out the noise problem, I’ll be happy with my 9:1

[@NgakpaW]

What’s a gabiel?

[@airheadzradioadventures]

Lotta work. Well presented. Nice job man - thanks for the footwork!

[@kevinverville8608]

The MAJOR advantage of the random wire versus the EFHW is that you can get 80m, and maybe 160m on a much shorter wire. I run a 43' fiberglass push up mast off the back of the RV. I set the transformer so it is a foot or two above the roof, then run 50' of coax down and across the ground to the from of the RV where I have coax bulkhead connectors into the RV. There is another 35' of coax that runs along the floor to my operating position. There is a common mode choke immediately inside the RV. I can run a 20m EFHW from the top of the mast. I can double the wire length and run a 40m EFHW as an Inverted-L, or Inverted-V. Using approximately another two meters of wire (71', or you can use 84') as a Random Wire, you pick up 80m, and maybe 160m. Because I camp in summer (I am in New Hampshire), I don't care about 160m much. I keep three antennas in the RV. Spark Plug Gear EFHW, with elements for 20m, and 40m; 71' random wire on a Packtenna 9:1, and a doublet cut a little long for 40m, that can also be used on 80m. Because of the 300ohm twin lead, I only run the doublet when I am camping without the rest of the family.

[@kd8opi]

You don’t “get” 80 or 160 meters on a shorter wire with a “random wire” antenna. Your tuner matches it so you don’t reflect 80% of the standing wave back into your receiver. Once you get below a half-wavelength in the length of the antenna, the efficiency drops like mad. Yup, you can put a few hundred watts of power into a 1/4 length approximate random wire, but you’re probably going to be at -3 to -8 db in gain. In other words, you’re probably going to lose at minimum 30-50% or more of what you put into it. It’s why for any “random wire antenna” it’s recommended you cut it for as close as you can to a half wave on the lowest frequency you want to operate on, and why 31’ lengths are so popular - it’s pretty close to a half wave on 20m.

[@kevinverville8608]

@@kd8opi but I CAN'T match 80m or 160m on the EFHW...AND I am smart enough to know that AN antenna is ALWAYS better than no antenna. So, really, it sounds to me like you are indirectly saying that there is some minimum efficiency threshold that, in your mind, NO ONE should dare drop below. I do not subscribe to being told, or telling others, what they may, or may not do. Is there a loss in efficiency? Yes. Is it significant? Perhaps. It depends on what one is trying to accomplish. I have always found that I have far greater success on any, and so far every, antenna that strangers tell me will not do this or that. The most common claim in this category is, "It's a cloud warmer..." bullocks!!! I have worked virtually all of my DX on an antenna that models, and know-it-all's alike suggest will not be good for the purpose. But thanks for your $0.02! Remember, the only thing worth less than a penny today is a penny tomorrow! 73 de KC1DBR

[@kd8opi]

@@kevinverville8608 Funny, I never told you what you can or can’t do. That’s all in your mind, I’m trying to help you. I just pointed out that using a short wire less than a quarter wavelength of your desired frequency is inefficient- no matter what swr you can achieve with a tuner. Your set up sounds way, way better with EFHW. But I don’t understand why you don’t simply deploy the 40m EFHW, get 20m, 15m, and 10m with resonance in its harmonics, and enjoy true 1.2-1.5 SWRs no tuner needed? It’d be an amazing antenna especially if you deployed it horizontally with a NE/SW broadside from NH, you’d even get +2dBi gain in those directions compared to -3dBi from a vertical deployment. On 15 and 10m especially you might enjoy lobes as high as +3dBi. Your 80m set up sounds frustrating. It’s short, low, and burning clouds. I’m guessing you’re losing 50% of your radiated running a non resonant, less than 1/4 wavelength antenna on 80m, and most of your power is shooting up with an inverted L or V. What would work better for you is simply moving to a dedicated 1/4 wave vertical for 80m and throw down a few temporary ground radials. While not great, it would flatten out your signal and dramatically boost your ERP at lower angles. Working DX with a poor antenna is not proof that antenna is good for DX. People have crossed the Atlantic in a row boat, that doesn’t make row boats good for crossing the Atlantic.

[@kevinverville8608]

@@kd8opi you missed the point in my post about space. I am referring to working portable off the back of my RV. I have not been to any campgrounds serving RV's that have sites sufficient to string an efficient 80m antenna, let alone 160m, which, as I originally mentioned, I am not doing, as I avoid 160m during the summer months. I am not referring to my QTH, where I primarily run a homebrew 160m linear loaded doublet fed with 600ohm open wire. Stop by this weekend where we will be camping in an RV campground in the White Mountain National Forrest, and teach me how to string an efficient 80m antenna on my tiny little campsite. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

[@kd8opi]

@@kevinverville8608 Oh no, I didn’t miss your point, and I think you’re making my point. You can’t really deploy an efficient 80 m antenna where you’re at. But, at least there are ways that you could try to make it better. All you need for a quarter wave vertical on 80m is a tree a little more than 60 feet tall. It’s pretty easy to throw down a few radials down. But I certainly agree with you in that your campsite probably sucks for an 80 m antenna deployment. Why bother? You’ve got a great solar cycle, daylight till almost 10pm, and an EFHW that should give you 40-20-15-10. 80m this time of year with a cloud burner is more trouble than it’s worth.

[@w4mps1964]

Great job. Thanks. I’m a 66 ft EFHW 49:1 user here at my limited space QTH, and have had better than expected results. A couple of thoughts. Try a longer wire length on the 9:1 like 53 ft or one of the other non resonant recommended lengths. I think that would be more of an apples to apples comparison. The 49:1 end fed is limited to harmonic bands. The 9:1 can be used on the WARC bands as well (obviously with a tuner). Either one is a good choice depending on your needs and preferences. 73 Marc, W4MPS

[@hennero.3826]

Thanks for all this testing and for sharing the data/ results. 🙂 I am new to ham radio and so far merely have a German class E license which limits the upper HF bands to 15m and 10m. The latter one seems to be like "dead" to me, so I am focusing on 15m. My newbie conclusion is that if I anyway only want to work on that one band, the best option is to use a 1:49 unun and a wire with 0.5 wave length. Am getting that correctly? 🤔 73 de DO1HNR, Henner

[@gregorharrison1806]

Swapped out a 71' EFHW for a random wire 92 ft (with 90 foot coax counterpoise). Inverted L with 70 horizontal/20 vertical so very close layout. On the 40/20/15/10 the EFHW supports, I see approx twice as many FT8 spots as the random. However, the random can tune

[@kd8opi]

EFHW’s don’t require a tuner. EFHW’s do not burn up signal in their feed lines when used on resonant bands, so long runs of coax are ok. EFHW’s can really only be used on their resonant bands, or their advantages evaporate. Random wires with a 9:1 balun require a tuner, but can be used on any band. They burn signal up in their feed lines (even with a tuner), so they’re not good with long coax runs (try to keep it less than 10’, I run mine with 2’ of coax); but with a short coax feedline losses are minimal.

[@pvdk]

Hi Mike, as I watched your excel tables for both antennas they cover the same most far distance on every band. Signals tend tot be slightly better on thé 49:1 but I take more antenna wire into account. Watching this video I'm thinking of putting up a spiderbeam HD 12,5 meter vertical with 41 feet of wire and just next to the 9:1 matching network I will mount the Chameleon URT-1 remote tuner so all frequenties are tuned at the antenne itself. I think this will outpetform my 49:1 end fed half wave hanging in inverted-L configuration. Icing on the cake is having alsof 30 and 12 meters available. Good video. 73 Phil ON4VP

[@justincompton4593]

I love this style of video. Thanks for sharing this with us.

[@RobertLemp]

You should show off your kitty sometime...I always see him/her in the background...

[@chrisb012]

I’ve made an Efhw with a 9:1 and 71ft of wire. Works a treat. Had a 2,000+km SSB QSO on 10 watts, using the wonder wand widebander tuner. Be interesting to see how a longer wire performs for you. 73 de M7LGC

[@martinsmaling8105]

I love my 1:9 non resonant 85 ft endfed. Tuneble from 160 to 6 meters with the internal tuner of all my radios (FT991, FT710 and FTdx101) so no external tuner needed. Made ssb contacts all over the world, using only 100W. 73, de PA3GSQ

[@dougkoudelka3089]

I have both 9:1 and 49:1 antennas at my QTH. Switching between the two, I found the 49:1 as having more gain but, the 9:1 is definitely less noisy.

[@yophotoman]

I like the 9:1 for ease of deployment. I use a G90 so tuning is no problem. Take it to the beach and you'll notice less difference ... IMHO.

[@aaronhope8366]

Thank you for your science. Appreciate the insight so I'm not going to end up with buckets of parts I don't use.

[@Andrew-dg7qm]

Very interesting on multiple fronts. Thanks for the test I have the 9:1, and I have had end fed envy. This reminds me why I got the random wire to begin with

[@swenner64]

I run a 9-1 with a tuner in the shack with my ft891 for convenience but when I go to the field I prefer a 49-1 because I don't have to drag a tuner.

[@johnmishler6617]

It would be interesting to see whether these results are statistically significant?

[@louissicajr]

Curious if ground counterpoise wires/ground screen (in addition to the counterpoise the coax gives you) would help with signal levels. Also - does using a line isolator/choke on the coax cause issues with its usefulness as a counterpoise?

[@theoldhobbit3640]

49:1 every time for me. Easy to wind, easy to build, easy to deploy and good results.....

[@alexdiamantopoulos6614]

Great explanation and great antennas to built. I think it will also help of you include the SWR reason all antennas on all frequencies.

[@jamesmoore6424]

I think it's a win for the 9:1 because of the space.

[@LambertMatias]

Thanks for this Mike. 'preciate ya dude! Cheers and beers, 73!

[@cledusneighbor2630]

I like your video could you do the same but with a 4:1 /49:1 and 9:1 Random Wire

[@PARTner91]

Nicely done analysis. Thank you

[@FraterAlex]

I liked this test, would be interesting to get more data on various days. Thanks!

[@ko4rntdavid222]

Wire length should have been closer for each radio. 71 ft for the 9:1

[@marcelookunz-lu1fk]

Me resultó muy esclarecedor! Era una de mis grandes dudas. Los que solemos usar este tipo de antenas en el campo, sabemos que a veces lograr un espacio de 20 metros para montar la antena, no es fácil, 20 metros es muy largo. en Cambio 12,5 metros o 16,20 se crea o no, siempre es algo menos. Gracias Colega.73 desde Argentina. EG: I found it very enlightening! It was one of my big doubts. Those of us who usually use this type of antennas in the field know that sometimes achieving a space of 20 meters to mount the antenna is not easy, 20 meters is very long. On the other hand, 12.5 meters or 16.20, whether you believe it or not, is always something less. Thanks Colleague.73 from Argentina.

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

Josh saw this coming. 😂

[@TictacAddict1]

Hi Mike. I just got an X6100 for Christmas. Your conclusion sold me ... get both.😊 Seriously, my question is will the X6100 internal tuner be capable of running a 9:1 antenna?

[@i2gpt]

Sorry for asking. You haven't still clarified if the cat plays a role here. Was it present at the testing? Was it influencing the pattern of the antennas in some way? Please, clarify! 🤣

[@hamradiotube]

That's a good question, thanks for asking. Satan (my cat, not the mythological figure) plays a roll in everything I do. Any human owned by a cat will tell you, you're not allowed to do anything without their permission. Try getting off the couch when they are laying on your lap. It's physically impossible. Lest you get bit. But no, he was not present at testing as he is not a fan of car rides at all. He's much more akin to sleeping many hours on his king size bed, while simultaneously shedding copious amounts of black hair on his white comforter. And there is no influence on the radiating pattern of the antennas, so long as his food and water bowls are adequately stocked. And he has treats. He also proof read this response and said it was ok for me to reply.

[@Schlem]

TL;DR 41' random wire with 49:1 works OK I'm late to the party, but I've been running a 41 ft EFRW with a 49:1 balun (kit from HF Kits in NL,), 20+ ft off the ground. This after a miserable resonant dipole experiment. I didn't know what to expect, but with a short (6 ft ?) counterpoise, it seems to work pretty well. I can tune up all bands from 80M to 10M with both my G90 and FT-900. SWR looks good with the RigExpert analyzer. I've worked a little Dx with it... BUT I'm thinking about subbing in a 9:1 and extending the wire to 71 ft, just to compare. I'd be really interested in seeing identical wires hooked up to the two baluns. Thanks!

[@hophoppy4842]

Nice experiment. One advantage I liked about the 9:1 is that it also works 80m, 30m, 17m, 12m and 6m. The SWR on all bands was easily handled with the onboard Yaesu tuner. Mine is 41' vertical with the feed point on the bottom with a choke at 16' from the 9:1.

[@natestone85]

Ghostbusters. A man after my own heart. I hit ya on FT8 last week!

[@natestone85]

My first KZbinr contact.

[@_0815_]

The 9:1 gives you two more bands. 17 and 12 wouldn't be possible with the EFHW. Depending on the material of the Toroid the 9:1 could even give you 6. The 9:1 nearly always wins as far as versatility is concerned, the 49:1 is usually more efficient because there is no mismatch on the coax and the radiation pattern is much more of a "real" dipole. If you use a longer wire and feed it with an antenna coupler the results should be even closer but the EFHW won't give you 17 and 12.

[@davidvaughn7752]

I use my PackTenna 9:1 with 17.5 ft. of coax as the counterpoise for my SOTA work. I find this more effective than hooking a dedicated wire to the board and (subjectively) have benefited from this configuration. It is also one less step while setting up. Great success with PackTenna. I also run 73 ft. of wire which offers some more gain which you mentioned, you might lengthen in a future video. Your numbers would have changed with these differences for the 9:1. Thanks for your effort, it was interesting.

[@JohnWallace74]

. Thanks for the comparison video. Interesting… I use a 9-1 unun with a 107 foot “random” wire antenna with an external antenna tuner because I’m wanting to use it on any band, not just 1/2 wavelength bands… it’s mostly horizontal from about 25 ft high at the feed point on my chimney mount point to about 16 foot on my garage at the other end of the property.. it works well considering. If I had more room for a better, higher antenna no doubt I would have a better one. I have worked 200 countries on FT8 in the last 16 months. Between that and my 40 ft vertical with a 4-1 unun, I do ok…

[@RF_Burns]

I prefer the 71ft 9:1 EF vs the 66ft EFHW because It allowed me to work all continents on 7 bands, not just 4. It also got me 5/6 continents on 80m vs nothing on the 66ft EFHW.

[@oncomics1128]

Use the Ellinsworth EFHW design 49:1 so you don't have to use a tuner. Less battery ftw

[@artc9114]

49:1 are traditionally a QRP or lower wattage transformer or maybe as high as 1KW but prone to saturate, and 9:1 UNUN's can be made for 5KW of headroom wattage.

[@socallars3748]

Interesting comparison, thanks for collecting and sharing this data. I'd like to see the same sort of test done but using a tuner at the feedpoint of the 9:1 antenna, to eliminate high SWR on the coax and the associated losses. I have an LDG remote tuner I use for this purpose, my FT-891 will even power & control it (using the ATAS settings) directly, so I don't need to bring the bias-t box along. Both of these end-fed solutions deserve a spot in our arsenals, as you've demonstrated here.

[@markanderson8066]

My 9:1 wire is a bit over 33 feet. No tuner needed 40-10 except for 60m. Usually don't have space for 66ft wire.

[@donaldsmith3048]

I have a 49:1 66 feet long. I have all the normal bands good. But with my MFJ 949E I can tune in 80M

[@davenewmyer3735]

And no windowscreen was injured in this test. Sounds like the 9:1 setup could fit places the 49:1 couldn't with adequate performance. n0km

[@donaldsmith3048]

I have a 49:1 66 feet long. I have all the normal bands good. But with my MFJ 949E I can tune in 80M

[@jmount1200]

That with my G90 I used Adam, K6ARK's 49:1. When I picked up and 857 I needed to switch to the 9:1.

[@1OFGODSOWN]

TennTenna is a great choice if you have somewhere to hang one end.I also use a Harvest Outback 2000.

[@dirkesterline372]

Highly recommend. Walt is a great guy and makes a great product.

[@1OFGODSOWN]

@@dirkesterline372 I have one along with a New Wolf River Coil 213” telescopic antenna and the stainless steel spike.They are my portable antennas for my ICOM 703+

[@alistairfyffe]

Interesting. I set out a few weeks ao to design/build a Doublet - then got from a friend the idea of an end fed long wire with a 1:9 Balun - now wondering if it should be a 1:49 device! decision time... Al GM4ENF.

[@paulsengupta971]

It seemed to be that the biggest difference was on 40m, and that's probably because of the length of the 9:1 antenna, with the longer length (71ft?) it would probably be very similar again.

[@hamradiotube]

The 9:1 is 41’.

[@paulsengupta971]

@@hamradiotube Yep, and with the next step up in "random" length, it would probably improve on 40m. Someone in the comments said they used 71ft, which is closer to the 66ft of the EFHW.

[@pcfreak1992]

Honestly the numbers look to be within margin of error, except maybe 40m, which can be explained with the difference in length of the wire. You could redo the experiment and maybe use the same wire but switch transformers and fold the wire onto itself for the 9:1 tests to shorten it to a good random wire length. 🤔

[@vironpayne3405]

I am not sure why the results are surprising. In addition there was a tad insertion loss from the tuner, jumper, and added connections. That could be all the difference.

[@Only_Hams]

I've always had better results with a 9:1 but I think my homebrew 9:1 is better quality than the 49:1 I bought.

[@bobcatskrieman3384]

Nice data collection, shows more similarities than not. I been using a 9:1 w/ a 55ft wire. (+/- a foot) with great results w/ my G90. You always do an excellent job, very informative and give me some ideas also. Bob K. KD2WBz 73

[@drewbuller7680]

I was gonna say neither because they are never in stock😂. Checked their page and saw they had some so I ordered! Thanks!!

[@ae4xo]

all sold now

[@nvrumi]

You're absolutely right... never in stock. ;)

[@ae4xo]

@@nvrumi he had some for about a day yesterday

[@robertvantichelt6448]

K6ARK 100 watt 49:1 with the more efficient toroid would beat the Pactenna by a hair more than 1db

[@feltusfeicit]

You did better than me. Yesterday I went out with 3 antennas, and was not very empirical at all, ultimately only making 2 say contacts. I will make the test with WSPR soon.

[@Zavestang]

Just wanted to add, I have a 9:1 about 84 feet long (about 30 feet up horizontal) with a long counterpoise going to ground and a Yaesu FT-710, it tunes 160-10 no problem. When I go on vacation I bring a 10 meter pole and shorten the 9:1 to 29 feet with ~ 33 foot counterpoise to ground but only tune up 40-10. So you def need the length on a 9:1 if you want to tune up all bands on a shack radio. Never tried an external tuner.

[@robertmeyer4744]

well both of them are a win. I will pack both. more bands on the 9:1 . some are set as a offset center working 6 meters as well. for parks on the air I say pack them both. 73's

[@jonthebru]

I bought an end fed long wire from Palomar that is 155 ft long. I wanted to be able to use it on 160 for regional nets (and on all bands of course). When I first set it up the resonance for 160 was in the broadcast band so I communicated with the manufacturer he suggested looking at it as an off center fed dipole and install ferrite current chokes to get the SWR down on 160, it came with the snap on ferrite choke. It worked though I still need a tuner, but without moving the snap on ferrite setup father up the feedline to a good 12 ft away from the shack entry point, SWR simply wasn't possible. You used a choke but not in a tunable way. I have put a small WSPR transmitter on it and it seems it works as well as my other antennas over a period of time. I love watching how the bands change as you observe the WSPR reports over a period of time.

[@9bar7and9bar8]

I use a 9:1 for a vertical antenna which gives me multi band use from 17m up because the wire is shorter like you say. I use the 49:1 for the lower bands because it is longer I have it up horizontally. Good tests, well done, that took quite a bit of effort to do that.

[@KI7JOM]

Hey Mike! Can you do a video on where you collect your WSPR data and how you do those calculations? The maths nerd on me is curious. 🤓

[@denelson83]

I'm sorry, but... Did you just say "Casa de Murder"?

[@redman840]

Ah,a nice cool day for you to operate on @ 104F….112F in Tucson yesterday…🥵

[@willian.direction6740]

Great experiment Mike. Could you use your FT818 next time and only run a few milliwatts on WSPR. I am amazed who hears my tests at milliwatts, and some other ops I hear running even less power than I do.

[@Davidjb37721]

Thanks for input today

[@LifeAtTerminalVelocity]

Excellent video Mike!

[@alanb76]

Nice experiment. Elecraft tuners will handle 10:1.

[@rearickjb]

Great to see real world comparisons! I wish more KZbin channels would do this, instead of just promoting a company that is donating the user an antenna. May I suggest using a center fed dipole antenna as a base line antenna in comparisons. It is single band, but probably the most efficient wire antenna/dipole.

[@W9HJBill]

Now do it with 49:1 vs 9:1 for 160M and you'll see that the 9:1 will be much easier to get on the air than a 49:1 (because of room needed). Also, try to use that 49:1 on 60M and 30M. That ought to tick off the EFHW fanboys. 😁😁 They BOTH have their purpose.

[@TeamYankee2]

I'm about to make one of these.. so watching with baited breath!

[@justgregm7843]

I (KD1XI) have done similar experiments with the same types of antennas. I got similar results. I now use a 40 meter end fed half wave with 49 to 1 transformer.

[@aaronlindemann2669]

Fantastic experiment! Thanks for doing it. There is a formula for determining and rejecting outliers. You may have done that, I don’t know. But it’s worth looking into. Cheers again!

[@dennisjoiner3717]

Great test! I use both types of antennas, and I too am surprised how close they are to each other. I normally use 158' Wire into the MFJ L-Network Tuner as my Portable antenna. I use this mostly when camping so I'm on 80 and 40, but will make a contact where I can. Going camping this Saturday for a week in fact. I'll be taking a 80 meter EFHW, and 40 meter EFHW (in case I can't get that much wire up). Enjoyed the video for sure!

[@jimlynch9390]

I think you've shown the antennas are statistically identical. Thanks for that.

[@pauldanielczyk3398]

Too bad they are out of stock on everything...

[@hamradiotube]

You know, I get that a lot. And I understand. Waiting sucks. The reality is, most of the good antennas that people are using these days for portable radio are often made by small businesses like PackTenna. More often than not, these are side projects they do in their free time when they can get away from the many other things that keep them occupied in their daily life (myself included with the battery boxes I build and sell). The best advice I can give you is to subscribe to packtenna.groups.io/g/main Get on their email list. George is very good about keeping customers informed of when and what products are being manufactured and when they should be available. When it gets close enough for him to expect delivery, he usually opens up a pre-order for groups.io members to get in early. Trust me when I say this, they sell out QUICK. He just had a full inventory a few days ago and they are already gone. Hope that helps. I promise you, it is worth the wait!