Maybe, Kevin,you can do a short video tour of your RV? Just saying....😮😅😊 Maybe it an older model ,but don't put it down. Tell us about the fun ,maybe you and your family had in it.😊
Hello Kevin, the only electrical difference should be the band width. The "Q" is effected by the size (diameter) of the elements. Given all other conditions equal. Have fun. 73' LEO
Thanks Leo, your right, and being that the bandwidth on both antennas was good enough for me, I might prefer to go with the smaller wire, it is far lighter and can tolerate windy conditions much better. thanks and 73
@@hamradiowithkevin Hi Kevin, Thank you for all the work on this project! Did you happen to log the bandwidth differences between the two wire gauges at the same frequencies? I'm trying to track down info that cross-references AWG vs bandwidth (or Q) at representative frequencies while using specified conductors to select optimum antenna wire for a "permanent" multiband EFHW. Thicker wire should increase bandwidth/decrease Q, but is of course stiffer and heavier with attendant ill effects on a fiberglass pole. However if the difference is truly negligible, then the lighter gauges will be better. Would like some quantification and also to not reinvent this wheel if you or others have the data. Figuring out best compromise is problematic, for me anyway. 73, John - KK7JBZ
Being 30 feet away from each other, I am not sure that was an effective reflector on this setup. Your are right about the effect, I plan to build a setup with two verticals as a reflector configuration. Thanks for watching. 73
Hi Kevin, Great videos you are putting out. I would recommend using WSPR for these tests.. You could run 3 or 4 2 minute transmissions, alternating every tranmission to the other antenna... this would give you some sort of quantifiable findings but as you know mother nature can make these bands wobbly! The other test that I do to compare antennas is do two or three cq test de k7co and the reverse beacon network picks me up and gives me the signal reports in DB. You probably already know about all of this I mention. Hope to meet up with you sometime. 73 from South Jordan UT, Jon K7CO.
Thank you Jon, it has been a while since I used wspr, that's a great idea. Also rbn I forgot about that. I can absolutely try those on the next test. I appreciate the idea. 73 K7SW
I'd like to suggest a change in the comparison setup. Use just a single pole, a common set of radial wires, and run both vertical wires up it a few inches away from each other. Most important, this puts the two vertical radiators at essentially the same place. Connect the unused wire of the two to the ground plane through a moderate reactance (either capactive or inductive) to detune it by a frequency factor of at least 1.5. For example if you are on 20 m, get the detuned wire to resonate at say 21 MHz or else 9.3 MHz, so that it will have minimal interaction with the used wire. You can use the same detuning reactor for each of the two wires. Adjust the lengths of the two vertical wires very carefully so that their resonant frequencies are the same; their lengths will differ a bit because of their different diameters. There should be very little difference then between their (resonant) impedances. Then run the conmparison tests again, preferably using the reverse beacon network, or else with a nearby station within ground wave range. David VE7EZM and AF7BZ
David, these are some really good ideas for a future test, thanks for the great suggestion. A test like this would certainly take a couple of people, ground wave might have more more reliable results. Band conditions change so fast recently that I would not expect the RBN to not be that reliable of an indicator.
The smaller gauge wire has always worked well for me, sometimes I just want to see if something else will work better and It is never a bad day to test another antenna ;) 73 and thanks Kevin
From memory the radials out at 90 degrees horizontal will give the feed point incorrect (higher) impedance similiar as vertical ground plane. At 130 degrees the ground plane should give feed point about 50 ohms, similar to a dipole.
Am not sure why you went through the all the effort to set up the test, but only made a couple of contacts. More data is needed. I would think the two antennas would be virtually identical in performance assuming that all important resonance of the two antennas is identical. Also the fact that the two antennas were in close proximity to one other is affecting this experiment, Ideally the other antenna would be minimum 10 wavelenghts away. Too bad you didnt make more contacts. I do appreciate you doing this test though. Good Stuff
I like your test, Kevin. I'm thinking later in the day when it gets hotter, the 14 gauge should out perform the 27 gauge wire the thinner wire has a higher resistance. Therefore probably lower voltage and current. The temperature will probably make a difference but I'm not sure.
Thanks for doing my grunt work for me. I've wondered about this idea for a while and, "one day", was going to do what you just did. You've saved me some time and confirmed what I thought was the outcome.
Great video I do know that the thicker wire has more broadband I did an experiment on 10 meters think it was 14 gauge if I remember right wire has 1 Mhz bandwidth and 15 mm copper pipe has all most 2 Mhz bandwidth the I didn't see any difference on the RX. (M7XCB)
Kevin, very interesting. I think it would be really interesting to see the difference between your vertical (either one) and a 20m horizontal loop. Loops are typically supposed to be quieter antennas. In your environment, it would be nice to see the difference. 73, Steve AE6SS
I've wondered about this idea, thinner versus thicker gauge and how it would affect RF. Thank you for taking the time to show us. Setting up field antennas takes time and you have two for this one! The results you had make me think about how thick of wire I'd want to go portable with. Ha, I guess we could make a coefficient for RF gain to weight ratio :) Or something fun like that. 73, Eric
Eric, it does take time and is very fun to put effort into an antenna that works reliably. Simple verticals work really well and are a good addition to a ham radio antenna bag.
Enjoying your videos Kevin. I haven’t been a Ham for very long (just upgraded to my General yesterday) and your channel is actually the first amateur radio TH-cam channel I’ve subscribed to. Keep ‘em coming sir! 73 KA0BOB/AG
Thanks Bob i appreciate that, welcome to the adventure of ham radio. Congrats on getting your General . So much fun awaits you. Thanks for watching. 73
Great video. I have a 20m wire vertical and also have a 20 meter stainless telescopic vertical. I’ve tried to find performance differences between the two and have come to no real conclusion. They both work well. Either way, it’s a super fun experiment and looks like you had a great time testing it out!
Thanks for watching, if you have both verticals, then you absolutley know how fun it is to use both the SS whip and a wire vertical. I have never tried the 292. I will be looking into it now. Thanks for the tip. 73 Kevin
I totally forgot about the signing on to the Net. I miss those check-in days. The craziest antenna I ever tried to build and use was turning a Navy Battleship into a HF radio antenna. It worked but not very well. We (M.A.R.S.) didn't care to trouble shoot. We had to go back to running the station for welfare calls. At least I can cross turning a battleship into an antenna off my to do lit. 😂
Capt. Jack, THAT is a really cool story. Not many people can say or claim to have tried using a navy ship as an HF antenna. you are a true experimenter ! I love it.
I think an antenna with a thicker wire will give you more bandwidth but you won't notice it that much the longer the length of the antenna is. Length is always better than thickness. With shorter antennas for higher frequencies, you will notice better bandwidth from the thicker wire a lot more.
It's an interesting experiment, but I got confused about what you were doing when you said that one mast was taller. Was the second antenna at the same height as the first? Was one mast fiberglass and the other carbon fiber (conductive?) Was 1 antenna near a tree and the other one not? Was the coax the same length? Thicker antenna elements increase the antenna capacitance, so the elements need to be shorter. Also, various types of insulation on the elements increase the capacitance of the elements, again meaning a resonant antenna needs to be a bit shorter. I'm afraid there are a lot of variables in this equation that need to be accounted for in order for the results of the experiment to mean anything. Also, what I'd really like to see is someone with a signal strength meter LOS about a mile off monitoring for any differences in measured signal strength. But thanks for giving it a try. You have piqued my curiosity since I'm about to build a similar antenna.
Great questions John, Taller mast had thicker sections to hold the weight of the thicker wire. For the test, both were within 6 inches of each other off the ground. Coax was the same length as well. If this setup was important enough to me, I could have spent more time looking at the variables that you mentioned. For my comparison in this video of SOTA and POTA activation gear, I really needed to see If the performance was significant enough to warrant taking heavier gear. You would be surprised would will work when creating a small antenna. I hope you do build the one you talking about. Tons of fun ! 73 Kevin
Comparing fading signals is really hard. I would rather compare ground wave or even better: line of sight. But ground planes also rely on radials and what direction they are in. It is probably way easier to compare two dipoles side by side at the same height. There are also some interesting effects of stainless steel vs copper, where the former has eddie currents on RF and surprisingly high resistance at skin effect. But still I use stainless here, but quite thick and sturdy. It does not come down every winter in my stormy location. ^^
Per-Einar Dahlen, Your right, a set of dipoles could have been easier to get better reading from. I am now curious about the effects of stainless vs copper. Copper wire antennas like these really are meant for fast, simple portable use. 73 K7SW
I wish band conditions were better so that I could do just that John. It seems like every time I go out recently, the conditions are really poor and do not yield a better test
Interesting I wonder is a 12 ga thhn wire would be even louder? It seem like it would be tougher, & if you doing a drive up & set up activation the heavier weight probably wouldn't matter as much.
I think the results would be inevitably predictable, favoring the antenna with more conductor area present to be "hit" by the transmitted waves. This did make me wonder, if weight and bulk were the concerns, how a fiberglass rod or perhaps one made one of the newer types if plastic, coated with conductive paint or similar coating would perform as a lighter weight high performance antenna.
Hi there! Thanks for the video. I've been wanting to make a 40 meter 1/4 wavelength vertical with my 40 foot spiderbeam. I have one of those BNC binding post adapters that I use with a KX2 and QRP use. I want to run 100 watts from the antenna I want to make. Will those adapters withstand a full 100 watts for an extended SSB activation? If not, what alternative do I have to connect a wire antenna and radials to construct a vertical antenna that doesn't involve soldering something up myself? Would I need an unun? A balun? 1:1, 4:1, etc.? I don't fully understand these aside from the fact that a 9:1 is typically a EFRW and a 49:1 is for an EFHW. I'm pretty much in the mud when it comes to the other two and how to construct this. It's probably easy but I've turned nothing up online. If that BNC adapter would work for 100 watts, then maybe that's my simple way out. Otherwise, what are your thoughts? Thanks again, enjoy watching your videos.
I have never had enough power while our portable operating to test the connectors capability, so I really can't give you a diffusion answer. Your test sounds safe enough to me.
Awesome video Kevin Thanks! Was wondering about wire thickness recently. I wanted to ask what mic do you use for videos? I'm trying my hand at making an odd video and would love to improve them 😊
Your welcome, I hope to do more practical field testing in the near future to provide more information about the wire differences. I use a number of microphones in different ways, sometimes connecting them directly in the speaker sequence. it really depends on the situation. I wish i could say that thee is one best way. I am still experimenting. get the mic as close as you can and protect it from wind and you will see the most improvement in your audio.
@@AmateurRadioSouthAfrica , if I were to suggest something, it would be the Senheiser MKE400. That mic has been really good and getting audio that I need. I also rely on and count on the Tentacle Sync 32 bit float pocket recorders. Not cheap but work fantastic for what I use them for. I hope that helps you and gives you a better Idea. 73
It might be better to set up a CW memory with “test de k7sw k7sw k7sw k” and run it at 30 WPM, switching between antennas and alternating between two frequencies just above the FT8 frequencies. The RBN will give you far better data,
I am not an expert but I think that common sense dictate that heavy gauge wire antenna might is most attractive only if the transmitter gives a better signal or if doing better reception & that is my view !!!
How do you realistically perform this test under constantly varying conditions? You would need to talk to somebody not that far away where you have a consistent signal path between you. No?
Pat, 4 antennas forever? Or 4 antennas for a given trip? I say, make this a journey, and keep making antennas until that is no longer a question that you have. For a trip I would say a 20 meter vertical. A linked dipole, 20/40m , a 10/40m endfed. A vehicle mounted Hustler or hamstick system. These would cover you for many uses. Thanks for asking.
Probably not a big difference in those 2 wire gauges. I may make a video on 26 gauge and 14 gauge. the 26 awg is extreme and I use it commonly for SOTA activation's. and super fast stealth setup.
@@hamradiowithkevin you very welcome Kevin. You doing such a great job everytime escpecially in this high Temperatures out in the Desert. Believe it or not we had 100°F were I live for the last 3 days in the Row which is way too soon for the Summer Season as it usually gets this hot around mid or end of July. This year everything got torn upside down, wx wise. I love that funny comparison with the 2 different Antennas on the Coax Switch. Everytime the Bands are stronger opening and closing and you ask for a Signal Report your QSO Partners getting confused about which Antenna is AT1 and which one is AT2. Again one more time PLS.... 😂😂😂. I really hope and wish we making that 1st Contact happening really soon. I still haven't worked no Portable or Mobil Station in CA, NV, AZ, OR or UT yet. Time to get that done. Have a kickass Week and keep up your fantastic Work. 73 de YFUG 🍻👍🙋♂️
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
Let’s fire up the Slab Daddy!
Never saw that phrase coming when I woke up this morning.....
Slab Daddy! Thanks Doug👍
I'm inspired to come up with a 20M vertical. Nice vid!
Fantastic ! You will enjoy the experience
Maybe, Kevin,you can do a short video tour of your RV? Just saying....😮😅😊 Maybe it an older model ,but don't put
it down. Tell us about the fun ,maybe you and your family had in it.😊
Great idea
Hello Kevin, the only electrical difference should be the band width. The "Q" is effected by the size (diameter) of the elements. Given all other conditions equal. Have fun. 73' LEO
Thanks Leo, your right, and being that the bandwidth on both antennas was good enough for me, I might prefer to go with the smaller wire, it is far lighter and can tolerate windy conditions much better. thanks and 73
@@hamradiowithkevin Hi Kevin,
Thank you for all the work on this project!
Did you happen to log the bandwidth differences between the two wire gauges at the same frequencies?
I'm trying to track down info that cross-references AWG vs bandwidth (or Q) at representative frequencies while using specified conductors to select optimum antenna wire for a "permanent" multiband EFHW.
Thicker wire should increase bandwidth/decrease Q, but is of course stiffer and heavier with attendant ill effects on a fiberglass pole. However if the difference is truly negligible, then the lighter gauges will be better. Would like some quantification and also to not reinvent this wheel if you or others have the data.
Figuring out best compromise is problematic, for me anyway.
73,
John - KK7JBZ
The 2 antennas has a direct effect on each other - one becomes a reflector or director to the other - effectively making it directional…😜
Being 30 feet away from each other, I am not sure that was an effective reflector on this setup. Your are right about the effect, I plan to build a setup with two verticals as a reflector configuration. Thanks for watching. 73
@@hamradiowithkevin so your "reflector "will be a passive longer wire? How far apart from the driven wire?
@@hamradiowithkevinwill your second vertical have radials and voltage or passive.
Hi Kevin, Great videos you are putting out. I would recommend using WSPR for these tests.. You could run 3 or 4 2 minute transmissions, alternating every tranmission to the other antenna... this would give you some sort of quantifiable findings but as you know mother nature can make these bands wobbly! The other test that I do to compare antennas is do two or three cq test de k7co and the reverse beacon network picks me up and gives me the signal reports in DB. You probably already know about all of this I mention. Hope to meet up with you sometime. 73 from South Jordan UT, Jon K7CO.
Thank you Jon, it has been a while since I used wspr, that's a great idea. Also rbn I forgot about that. I can absolutely try those on the next test. I appreciate the idea. 73 K7SW
@@hamradiowithkevin WSPR is a good idea. I personally use FT8+pskerporter because there are dramatically more FT8 SNR reports being generated.
I'd like to suggest a change in the comparison setup. Use just a single pole, a common set of radial wires, and run both vertical wires up it a few inches away from each other. Most important, this puts the two vertical radiators at essentially the same place. Connect the unused wire of the two to the ground plane through a moderate reactance (either capactive or inductive) to detune it by a frequency factor of at least 1.5. For example if you are on 20 m, get the detuned wire to resonate at say 21 MHz or else 9.3 MHz, so that it will have minimal interaction with the used wire. You can use the same detuning reactor for each of the two wires. Adjust the lengths of the two vertical wires very carefully so that their resonant frequencies are the same; their lengths will differ a bit because of their different diameters. There should be very little difference then between their (resonant) impedances. Then run the conmparison tests again, preferably using the reverse beacon network, or else with a nearby station within ground wave range.
David VE7EZM and AF7BZ
David, these are some really good ideas for a future test, thanks for the great suggestion. A test like this would certainly take a couple of people, ground wave might have more more reliable results. Band conditions change so fast recently that I would not expect the RBN to not be that reliable of an indicator.
Hey Kevin - good idea for an A/B. Most importantly, alarm wire is completely usable.
The smaller gauge wire has always worked well for me, sometimes I just want to see if something else will work better and It is never a bad day to test another antenna ;) 73 and thanks Kevin
From memory the radials out at 90 degrees horizontal will give the feed point incorrect (higher) impedance similiar as vertical ground plane. At
130 degrees the ground plane should give feed point about 50 ohms, similar to a dipole.
Well...I am thanking you for the technical hold on the view which in my opinion it's very interesting & understandable !!!
Am not sure why you went through the all the effort to set up the test, but only made a couple of contacts. More data is needed. I would think the two antennas would be virtually identical in performance assuming that all important resonance of the two antennas is identical. Also the fact that the two antennas were in close proximity to one other is affecting this experiment, Ideally the other antenna would be minimum 10 wavelenghts away. Too bad you didnt make more contacts. I do appreciate you doing this test though. Good Stuff
I like your test, Kevin. I'm thinking later in the day when it gets hotter, the 14 gauge should out perform the 27 gauge wire the thinner wire has a higher resistance. Therefore probably lower voltage and current. The temperature will probably make a difference but I'm not sure.
Thanks, yes thinner more resistance. It will be hard to see a noticeable difference doing qui k operations.
Thanks for doing my grunt work for me. I've wondered about this idea for a while and, "one day", was going to do what you just did. You've saved me some time and confirmed what I thought was the outcome.
Nice job - I love comparing antennas but it's harder than one would imagine. 73 from Brigham
Thanks Stan, it sure is. I need to come up with a more predictable way
Great video I do know that the thicker wire has more broadband I did an experiment on 10 meters think it was 14 gauge if I remember right wire has 1 Mhz bandwidth and 15 mm copper pipe has all most 2 Mhz bandwidth the I didn't see any difference on the RX. (M7XCB)
I do think the receive was misleading. Your right about the thickness. I am so looking forward to 10 meters getting better.
Kevin, very interesting. I think it would be really interesting to see the difference between your vertical (either one) and a 20m horizontal loop. Loops are typically supposed to be quieter antennas. In your environment, it would be nice to see the difference. 73, Steve AE6SS
Steve, this is a great idea. I will be planning on something just like you described. Thanks for suggesting. 73 Kevin
I've wondered about this idea, thinner versus thicker gauge and how it would affect RF. Thank you for taking the time to show us. Setting up field antennas takes time and you have two for this one! The results you had make me think about how thick of wire I'd want to go portable with. Ha, I guess we could make a coefficient for RF gain to weight ratio :) Or something fun like that. 73, Eric
Eric, it does take time and is very fun to put effort into an antenna that works reliably. Simple verticals work really well and are a good addition to a ham radio antenna bag.
Enjoying your videos Kevin. I haven’t been a Ham for very long (just upgraded to my General yesterday) and your channel is actually the first amateur radio TH-cam channel I’ve subscribed to. Keep ‘em coming sir! 73 KA0BOB/AG
Thanks Bob i appreciate that, welcome to the adventure of ham radio. Congrats on getting your General . So much fun awaits you. Thanks for watching. 73
Great video. I have a 20m wire vertical and also have a 20 meter stainless telescopic vertical. I’ve tried to find performance differences between the two and have come to no real conclusion. They both work well.
Either way, it’s a super fun experiment and looks like you had a great time testing it out!
Thanks for watching, if you have both verticals, then you absolutley know how fun it is to use both the SS whip and a wire vertical. I have never tried the 292. I will be looking into it now. Thanks for the tip.
73 Kevin
I totally forgot about the signing on to the Net. I miss those check-in days.
The craziest antenna I ever tried to build and use was turning a Navy Battleship into a HF radio antenna. It worked but not very well. We (M.A.R.S.) didn't care to trouble shoot. We had to go back to running the station for welfare calls. At least I can cross turning a battleship into an antenna off my to do lit. 😂
Capt. Jack, THAT is a really cool story. Not many people can say or claim to have tried using a navy ship as an HF antenna. you are a true experimenter ! I love it.
I think an antenna with a thicker wire will give you more bandwidth but you won't notice it that much the longer the length of the antenna is. Length is always better than thickness. With shorter antennas for higher frequencies, you will notice better bandwidth from the thicker wire a lot more.
Great job with this antenna experiment!
Thank you Aaron. 73
Thanks Kevin for the video!
73 KN4YBA
You are welcome!
Thank you for the video, I was wondering this exact thing yesterday.
Thanks Jon
It's an interesting experiment, but I got confused about what you were doing when you said that one mast was taller. Was the second antenna at the same height as the first?
Was one mast fiberglass and the other carbon fiber (conductive?) Was 1 antenna near a tree and the other one not? Was the coax the same length? Thicker antenna elements increase the antenna capacitance, so the elements need to be shorter. Also, various types of insulation on the elements increase the capacitance of the elements, again meaning a resonant antenna needs to be a bit shorter. I'm afraid there are a lot of variables in this equation that need to be accounted for in order for the results of the experiment to mean anything. Also, what I'd really like to see is someone with a signal strength meter LOS about a mile off monitoring for any differences in measured signal strength. But thanks for giving it a try. You have piqued my curiosity since I'm about to build a similar antenna.
Great questions John,
Taller mast had thicker sections to hold the weight of the thicker wire. For the test, both were within 6 inches of each other off the ground. Coax was the same length as well. If this setup was important enough to me, I could have spent more time looking at the variables that you mentioned. For my comparison in this video of SOTA and POTA activation gear, I really needed to see If the performance was significant enough to warrant taking heavier gear. You would be surprised would will work when creating a small antenna. I hope you do build the one you talking about. Tons of fun ! 73 Kevin
Thanks for the vid is was helpful.
Glad it helped
Comparing fading signals is really hard. I would rather compare ground wave or even better: line of sight.
But ground planes also rely on radials and what direction they are in. It is probably way easier to compare two dipoles side by side at the same height.
There are also some interesting effects of stainless steel vs copper, where the former has eddie currents on RF and surprisingly high resistance at skin effect.
But still I use stainless here, but quite thick and sturdy. It does not come down every winter in my stormy location. ^^
Per-Einar Dahlen, Your right, a set of dipoles could have been easier to get better reading from. I am now curious about the effects of stainless vs copper.
Copper wire antennas like these really are meant for fast, simple portable use. 73 K7SW
Interesting video, enjoyed it 👍
Thank you !
Interesting video..Thank you..I would be interested to know if you manage a more conclusive test..73..
I wish band conditions were better so that I could do just that John. It seems like every time I go out recently, the conditions are really poor and do not yield a better test
Possibly a QRP rig, the thinner wire would match better?
Great question. It should not matter that much.
Interesting I wonder is a 12 ga thhn wire would be even louder? It seem like it would be tougher, & if you doing a drive up & set up activation the heavier weight probably wouldn't matter as much.
In the end, I believe that we will not see any significant difference
Thanks Kevin. Did you notice whether the heavier wire needed to be shorter? 73
Locksnut, I started with the radiator wire at the same length on each antenna and adjusted the radials to get the match to where it Ended up. 73 Kevin
I think the results would be inevitably predictable, favoring the antenna with more conductor area present to be "hit" by the transmitted waves.
This did make me wonder, if weight and bulk were the concerns, how a fiberglass rod or perhaps one made one of the newer types if plastic, coated with conductive paint or similar coating would perform as a lighter weight high performance antenna.
Rich, yes more surface area is good. Your right, exploring the possibilities can produce that perfect fit for our own unique operating needs.
73
Hi there! Thanks for the video. I've been wanting to make a 40 meter 1/4 wavelength vertical with my 40 foot spiderbeam. I have one of those BNC binding post adapters that I use with a KX2 and QRP use. I want to run 100 watts from the antenna I want to make. Will those adapters withstand a full 100 watts for an extended SSB activation? If not, what alternative do I have to connect a wire antenna and radials to construct a vertical antenna that doesn't involve soldering something up myself? Would I need an unun? A balun? 1:1, 4:1, etc.? I don't fully understand these aside from the fact that a 9:1 is typically a EFRW and a 49:1 is for an EFHW. I'm pretty much in the mud when it comes to the other two and how to construct this. It's probably easy but I've turned nothing up online. If that BNC adapter would work for 100 watts, then maybe that's my simple way out. Otherwise, what are your thoughts? Thanks again, enjoy watching your videos.
I have never had enough power while our portable operating to test the connectors capability, so I really can't give you a diffusion answer. Your test sounds safe enough to me.
Awesome video Kevin Thanks! Was wondering about wire thickness recently. I wanted to ask what mic do you use for videos? I'm trying my hand at making an odd video and would love to improve them 😊
Your welcome, I hope to do more practical field testing in the near future to provide more information about the wire differences. I use a number of microphones in different ways, sometimes connecting them directly in the speaker sequence. it really depends on the situation. I wish i could say that thee is one best way. I am still experimenting. get the mic as close as you can and protect it from wind and you will see the most improvement in your audio.
@@hamradiowithkevin no worries, completely understand, thanks!
@@AmateurRadioSouthAfrica , if I were to suggest something, it would be the Senheiser MKE400. That mic has been really good and getting audio that I need. I also rely on and count on the Tentacle Sync 32 bit float pocket recorders. Not cheap but work fantastic for what I use them for. I hope that helps you and gives you a better Idea. 73
Kevin,are you finding high noise with the vertical antenna.😮
Certainly in town, but in the wide open spaces, verticals are really good in my experience
@@hamradiowithkevin Cool! I tried a vertical but my ground is cement, difficult even elevated radials.
It might be better to set up a CW memory with “test de k7sw k7sw k7sw k” and run it at 30 WPM, switching between antennas and alternating between two frequencies just above the FT8 frequencies. The RBN will give you far better data,
Steve, thank you that is a fantastic Idea. I can make that happen on the next test. 73 Kevin
I am not an expert but I think that common sense dictate that heavy gauge wire antenna might is most attractive only if the transmitter gives a better signal or if doing better reception & that is my view !!!
Excellent. Thanks George 💪
Great👍⭐👋🍀
Kevin are your masts, fishing rods?😮
Yes those are, or were anyway👍
@@hamradiowithkevinmaybe 7.2 meters. That's what I have for my Delta loop antenna "V". They cost like 11 dollars each online.
How do you realistically perform this test under constantly varying conditions? You would need to talk to somebody not that far away where you have a consistent signal path between you. No?
I agree with you, at make a lot of sense.
If you could only have four outdoor ham antennas, what would they be
Pat, 4 antennas forever? Or 4 antennas for a given trip? I say, make this a journey, and keep making antennas until that is no longer a question that you have.
For a trip I would say a 20 meter vertical. A linked dipole, 20/40m , a 10/40m endfed. A vehicle mounted Hustler or hamstick system. These would cover you for many uses.
Thanks for asking.
whats the results? type it in the description dude.
Would be curios of difference between 14ga and 18ga wire.
Probably not a big difference in those 2 wire gauges. I may make a video on 26 gauge and 14 gauge. the 26 awg is extreme and I use it commonly for SOTA activation's. and super fast stealth setup.
@@hamradiowithkevin No pun intended but why such a light gauge?
Is it better to have the ground radials at an angle?
I have found that It does help get a good match
🤘💯🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸🤘👍🍻🙋♂️
Guenter , thanks ! 73
@@hamradiowithkevin you very welcome Kevin. You doing such a great job everytime escpecially in this high Temperatures out in the Desert. Believe it or not we had 100°F were I live for the last 3 days in the Row which is way too soon for the Summer Season as it usually gets this hot around mid or end of July. This year everything got torn upside down, wx wise.
I love that funny comparison with the 2 different Antennas on the Coax Switch. Everytime the Bands are stronger opening and closing and you ask for a Signal Report your QSO Partners getting confused about which Antenna is AT1 and which one is AT2. Again one more time PLS.... 😂😂😂.
I really hope and wish we making that 1st Contact happening really soon. I still haven't worked no Portable or Mobil Station in CA, NV, AZ, OR or UT yet. Time to get that done.
Have a kickass Week and keep up your fantastic Work. 73 de YFUG 🍻👍🙋♂️