Good to see you sticking to low power. I love my EFHW but if going portable I would use a Rybakov vertical for ease of deployment and suffer the vageries. 73 M7BLC.
@@johnnorth9355 thanks for the comment :). We generally use 50W as it is easy to run off a battery. As for ease of deployment, it takes me about 3 minutes to deploy the bandhopper on its own :)
Nicely put together video Ian, The eagle eyed will have noticed that we changed from the Bandhopper II to the Bandhopper III but we were only active on 20 & 40m..... Most of the contacts were made on 40m. We used Ian's radio for this event so that both antenna was operated from the same radio at 50w.
Great video Ian. Lovely weather - must have been a great day out. When at a great outdoor location with a super low noise floor, I guess there’s never going to be night and day differences between wire antennas - main concern for me is ease of deployment for the given location. Nice to see you all enjoying outdoor radio. 73, Tom, M7MCQ.
Didn’t hear what band you were operating, but presume it was 40M? At the height of the antennas in your experimental configuration, of course both are operating NVIS. Given that the antenna were both 1/2-wave, no surprise on the similar performance. I did a similar experiment when camping in the Sierra mountains in California based on a bet from a ham friend that a resonant 40M >horizontally< configured dipole would perform better than an inverted V (in this case, one modeled after the NATO AS-2259, but cut for 40M). The dipole was strung between two trees at about 15’ (approx 4.6M); the peak of the V was the same height. Ground was granite with a shallow coarse, dry sandy soil overlay. Contact made with a station 400 miles (644km) distant, also with an NVIS antenna. Transmit power, coax, etc. the same for both tests. Results: Far end reported Rx from me one S unit stronger on the inverted V than the horizontal dipole. n6med
It's all fun and to be honest, I was surprised the EFHW did as well as it did. I remember once some time ago, we operated from Ingleborough cave mouth and we strung an 80m dipole across the valley. It looked tiny in the sky but worked a treat :). Ian
Food for thought!! thanks for the tests, the efhw should be better when the band opens/closes and of course the dipole should be good for unter Eu working. I have tried the link dipole on 40m vs an Ampro vertical again i found for dx the vertical was ok be the dipole as an inv vee with apex at 22 feet was great as stations found me weal on the Ampro. I think the Ampro is ok for limited use but you cant beat a full size aerial!!! g4lds
Good to see you sticking to low power. I love my EFHW but if going portable I would use a Rybakov vertical for ease of deployment and suffer the vageries. 73 M7BLC.
@@johnnorth9355 thanks for the comment :). We generally use 50W as it is easy to run off a battery. As for ease of deployment, it takes me about 3 minutes to deploy the bandhopper on its own :)
Nicely put together video Ian, The eagle eyed will have noticed that we changed from the Bandhopper II to the Bandhopper III but we were only active on 20 & 40m..... Most of the contacts were made on 40m. We used Ian's radio for this event so that both antenna was operated from the same radio at 50w.
Thanks for a great video, very nice location. I was interested to know if you get the adapters to add guy wires to the poles with the antennas? 73
@@hiltopuk hi Phil. I got it from sotabeams www.sotabeams.co.uk/multi-function-guying-kit/. You might like to get some larger rings from them too
Great video Ian. Lovely weather - must have been a great day out. When at a great outdoor location with a super low noise floor, I guess there’s never going to be night and day differences between wire antennas - main concern for me is ease of deployment for the given location.
Nice to see you all enjoying outdoor radio.
73, Tom, M7MCQ.
Loving it Tom. There is nothing as good as portable radio :)
Really enjoyed the vlog, as before. What radio is g0vgs using please? And the logging programme. Thank you Phil , Suffolk.
The radio is a Mission RGO One
@@bayamateurradiogroup Thank you. I hadn’t seen one before, clearly works well. Thank you. Phil
Didn’t hear what band you were operating, but presume it was 40M? At the height of the antennas in your experimental configuration, of course both are operating NVIS. Given that the antenna were both 1/2-wave, no surprise on the similar performance.
I did a similar experiment when camping in the Sierra mountains in California based on a bet from a ham friend that a resonant 40M >horizontally< configured dipole would perform better than an inverted V (in this case, one modeled after the NATO AS-2259, but cut for 40M). The dipole was strung between two trees at about 15’ (approx 4.6M); the peak of the V was the same height. Ground was granite with a shallow coarse, dry sandy soil overlay. Contact made with a station 400 miles (644km) distant, also with an NVIS antenna. Transmit power, coax, etc. the same for both tests.
Results: Far end reported Rx from me one S unit stronger on the inverted V than the horizontal dipole.
n6med
It's all fun and to be honest, I was surprised the EFHW did as well as it did. I remember once some time ago, we operated from Ingleborough cave mouth and we strung an 80m dipole across the valley. It looked tiny in the sky but worked a treat :). Ian
Nice video. What is the make of radio you using?
It's a Mission RGO One
Food for thought!! thanks for the tests, the efhw should be better when the band opens/closes and of course the dipole should be good for unter Eu working. I have tried the link dipole on 40m vs an Ampro vertical again i found for dx the vertical was ok be the dipole as an inv vee with apex at 22 feet was great as stations found me weal on the Ampro. I think the Ampro is ok for limited use but you cant beat a full size aerial!!! g4lds