Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems Part 2

[Art Snapper]

Hi Mark,

I would be curious if you are getting a significant S-Meter reading using
the external preamp and testing with the antenna disconnected from the
cable?

If so, my guess would be that the Ewe pattern is terribly distorted by its
surroundings, noise is coupling in from other sources - or the noise figure
on the external preamp is too high.

73
Art NK8X
ᐧ

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Mark K3MSB  wrote:

> Good Morning!
>
>
> Last night was the second night in a row with nice conditions between the
> east coast and Europe on 160M.I took the time to get a cup of coffee
> and spend a few hours comparing the Inverted-L and EWE, and recording my
> observations.
>
>
> All Inverted-L data was recorded with the Icom on-board preamps OFF.
>
>
> All EWE data was recorded with the 20 dB external preamp ON.
>
>
> The external preamp is an Advanced Research Receiver P1-30/20VD
>
>
> The EWE is pointed roughly 40 degrees, and the grounds are not connected
> via wire.  That means the transformer end is towards Europe, and the
> resistor end is towards California -- some of you asked for clarification.
>
>
> General Noise Floor:
>
> INV-L: S2-S3 spikes above S5
>
> EWE:   S4 steady, no spikes   (Higher than the INV-L !)
>
>
>
> Forward reception:
>
> In the following table,  (S1, S2) means S1 on the INV-L,  S2 on the EWE.
>
> SP5GRM   (S7, S7)
>
> OK2RJC   (S9 , S6)
>
> RA2FV(S6, S4)
>
> RN3CT(S7,  S4)
>
> EU3AR(S5, Below noise level)
>
> UT7NY(S5,  S4)
>
> EI4KF(S5,  S4)
>
> YO9HP(S5,  S5)
>
> UY0ZG(S5,  S4)
>
>
> Those stations that were S4 on the EWE were pretty much riding the noise
> level and I could hear them, but they were much stronger (and easily
> copied) on the INV-L!
>
>
> Conclusions (perhaps incorrect…..)
>
> A) The noise floor of the EWE can be higher than that of the INV-L.
>
> B) The EWE is NOT suitable for weak signal reception
>
>
> If A and B above are correct, what’s the point of using an EWE?
>
>
> I state my conclusions based upon my observations, knowing full well a lot
> of you successfully use the EWE antenna,  so I still need to learn more, do
> more tweaking, etc.
>
>
>
> Back Rejection:   I recorded some stations that should have been off the
> back of the EWE (or thereabouts…..  I didn’t check them on QRZ.com,  but
> just
> assumed 8,9 and 7 land stations were behind me…..)
>
> N8 (S9+10 ,  S7)
>
> N7: (S7,  S4)
>
> N8  (S9+10,  S9+10)
>
> N9  (S9,  S7)
>
> N8 (S9+10,   S8)
>
> N8  (S9+20,   S9)
>
>
> So, I am seeing rejection off the back of the EWE.   It doesn’t happen all
> the time, but as I said I didn’t do a search to see where each station was
> actually located.
>
>
> Some of you asked how I know my cable and transformer are good.  I attached
> the feedline to the transformer,  then used a resistance substitution box
> to put a load on the other end of the transformer.   A 470 ohms resistance
> provided an SWR of 1.1.  As I moved the resistance above and below 470,
> the SWR moved as expected.   Since the transformer is 9:1,  I felt this
> showed the coax and transformer were OKI.
>
>
> Comments welcome.
>
>
> 73 Mark K3MSB
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems Part 2

[Don Kirk]

Hi Mark,

I modeled your antenna last night, and have some comments.

There is almost as much reactance as resistance at the feedpoint of your
EWE based on your dimensions and termination resistor, but sounds like
that's typical (per the ON4UN low band DXing book).  The back null is also
not as deep compared with Pennants and Flags that I work with.
Nevertheless the RDF value of your design is not much different than the
Pennants and Flags I work with.

I use 3 very small pennants on 160 meters, and their signal to noise ratio
is never worse than my 68 foot base loaded TX vertical (so you have a
reference point regarding what I would expect from your EWE, as Pennants
are considered to be part of the EWE family and they have similar RDF
values).  During every QSO I make on 160 meters (as well as casual
listening) I compare signal to noise performance between my TX vertical and
my pennants, and the pennants have never lost (your situation might be
slightly different due to the horizontal section of your Inv-L, but more
times than not when working DX I would be surprised if a properly working
EWE type RX antenna was not equal or slightly better than your Inv-L).

I wonder why you went with a classical EWE versus a Flag or Pennant  The
Flag and Pennant are ground independent (no connection to ground), which is
a very nice feature and makes them very easy to construct as well as easy
to rotate in the direction you desire.  The Pennant is nice because you can
drop the feedline directly to ground from the feedpoint.  Something else I
like about Pennants or Flags is the fact that their feedpoint impedance is
almost pure resistive when using a termination resistor that provides a
nice pattern (deep null off the back) with peak RDF performance.

I am not suggesting you abandon your classical EWE design, but I did want
to share some off the cuff comments which may or may not help you down the
road.

Here is a test I would recommend (typically I would do this during the
middle of the day when there is no skywave).  Connect a 50 ohm dummy load
to your preamp in place of your EWE and its feedline, and tell us what your
S meter reading is, and then connect your EWE with its feedline to the
preamp and tell us what your S meter reading is.  Hopefully the S meter
reading is much higher with the EWE versus the dummy load.  If you can
repeat this same test but with the dummy load out at the EWE feedpoint
(disconnect the EWE from the end of the feedline and connect the 50 ohm
dummy load in its place), as this might also shed some light regarding your
situation.

I should also mention that I would not expect a Hugh improvement in Signal
to Noise ratio when using a EWE to work DX compared with a Vertical if the
Noise is arriving equally from all directions (versus a point source
noise).  Based on my experience I only achieve 1 or 2 dB of improvement in
Signal to Noise for stations 4000 miles or more away as an example (but
this can often be the difference between a solid QSO and no QSO at all on
160 meters).

I do have Toroid Chokes installed on my pennant feedline (per the K9YC
design) to help with common mode noise, and in my installation I have never
observed common mode noise issues (I have run tests with my HF rig and
pre-amp right at the feedpoint of my pennants and operated them with a
battery to see if the noise level was much less than in the shack, and
thankfully it is not).

As others have said you may be experiencing pattern distortion which I have
not addressed above.  For starters I would float your inverted L at it's
feedpoint to see what happens to your noise level, and I would also connect
it direct to ground at it's feedpoint to see what happens to your noise
level and I would do all of this while also listening to AM radio stations
as high up in the AM broadcast band as possible during the middle of the
day.  I would do this listening to AM radio stations that are at various
headings from your location to see if you can detect pattern distortion on
any of them depending on the configuration of your inverted L (grounded
versus floating).  If the AM radio station signals change when listening on
the EWE when changing the configuration of your inverted L (grounded versus
floating), then this might provide a clue regarding the need to detune the
inverted L when receiving on the EWE, etc.

Just some long winded thoughts from my end.

73, and Happy New Year.
Don (wd8dsb)

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Mark K3MSB  wrote:

> Good Morning!
>
>
> Last night was the second night in a row with nice conditions between the
> east coast and Europe on 160M.I took the time to get a cup of coffee
> and spend a few hours comparing the Inverted-L and EWE, and recording my
> observations.
>
>
> All Inverted-L data was recorded with the Icom on-board preamps OFF.
>
>
> All EWE data was recorded with the 20 dB external preamp ON.
>
>
> The external preamp is an Advanced Research Receiver P1-30/20VD
>
>

Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems

[Mark K3MSB]

Good Evening

I completely repositioned the EWE today, it's about 70 feet from it's
original position and is not pointing at the INV-L.It's pointing
towards southern EU.

I Verified the feedline was OK,  verified the transformer was OK etc.

Same results.   When listening to an EU station on the INV-L,  I switch to
the EWE and the signal disappears.

It's just not working guys.   The transformer is pointed NE towards EU,
and the resistor is pointed SW.

I've checked just about everything I know to check, and the EWE just ain't
workin' for me!   Ideas?

73 Mark K3MSB






On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Mark K3MSB  wrote:

> Greetings fellow Top Band enthusiasts!
>
>
> I'm Mark K3MSB, and I live south of York PA.  This is my first time posting
> to this list.
>
>
> I’ve been licensed for 43 years and got on 160M in November 2014, so this
> is the start of my second year.   Why I didn’t get on TB sooner is a
> question I keep asking myself!   I’ve enjoyed the challenge of 80M DXing
> for years, and I find 160M to be an even more challenging band!
>
>
> Last year I used an Inverted-L for TX and RX.  The vertical part was 30
> feet high and I used about a dozen ground radials.   I was very pleased
> with its performance and was delighted to be able to work stations in
> Europe.This year I changed the Inverted-L;  the vertical section is now
> up 50 feet and I’m using about 16 ground radials.
>
>
> This year I also decided to put up a separate RX antenna.   I put up an EWE
> oriented towards Europe.  Each leg is 10 feet tall, and the length is 50
> feet.The terminating resistor should be 1.2K, so I used a 2K
> potentiometer set for the correct resistance.   The preamp is the
> P1-30/20VD from Advance Receiver Research.
>
>
> After attempting to use the EWE for a few weeks, I’m convinced the EWE
> doesn’t work.  Obviously, since a lot of people use the EWE,  the antenna
> design must work,  so it’s an installation or usage problem on my end
> that’s the issue. I hope some of you seasoned 160M men can help me out.
>
>
> I have the terminating end supported by a fiberglass mast about 2 feet from
> the end of my house (vinyl siding).  The transformer end is supported by a
> rope to a tree, and the drop to ground on that end is vertical.The
> terminating end goes to a 4 foot ground rod.   The transformer end goes to
> a 2 foot ground rod (septic line concerns prevent me from going deeper).
>
>
> When I turn on the preamp, the noise level rises to the same level as that
> heard with my Inverted-L.  Stations in Europe are sometimes at the same
> signal level, but a lot of times much lower, so that I can hear them better
> on the Inverted-L and not on the EWE.   Stations off the back of the EWE
> sometimes are attenuated, but not all the time.
>
>
> I tried adjusting the potentiometer, and that has no effect at all.   I did
> this by running a long patch cable from the headphones jack on the
> transceiver to the area of the terminating resistor.  I tuned in a
> moderately strong station (off the back of the EWE) whose signal level was
> fairly constant, and adjusted the pot while listening to the audio.  No
> change at all.Granted, the ear is not the best way to do this.
>
>
> I have a noise issue here, and I think it’s man-made, but from reports of
> 160M hams in the area, I’m not sure it’s local.   The bandscope on the
> radio shows a ragged saw tooth waveform .  When I switch from the
> Inverted-L to the EWE, the ragged waveform goes away, but I do not see a
> decrease in background noise as I expected.
>
>
> My expectation of the EWE is that both signal and noise would go down
> (relative to the Inverted-L), but the preamp would boost the signal higher
> relative to the noise (although the signal level itself on the EWE would be
> less than the Inverted-L).   As mentioned above, the noise level is
> unchanged, and the signal is much more difficult to copy with the EWE.
>
>
> It was suggested that I connect the two ground rods with a wire.  I did
> this and it had no effect.
>
>
> So, I’m open to any and all suggestions.
>
>
> 73 Mark K3MSB
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems

[Mark K3MSB]

Bjorn, Tim:

Thanks for your comments.

I don't have much time to play with the antennas until the weekend, but I
did manage to hook up an SWR Analyzer.  The analyzer says 1.5:1 at 1820 Kc
(35 ohms R).   So, there is an antenna out there.

A need to clarify that the noise level is the same between the INV-L and
EWE when I use the EWE preamp.   Without the preamp on, the EWE noise level
is almost nonexistent.

A did notice something.  With the coax cables on my other HF antennas, when
I unscrew the shield connector and break shield contact the noise rises
significantly but goes to nothing when the shield is screwed back on.  This
does NOT happen when I disconnect / reconnect the PL-259 shield connector
on the cable.

Re-orienting the EWE to be "in front" of the INV-L isn't possible right  (I
have only an acre).   What I may do is take down the EWE and put it up in
the front yard where it will point N/S.   I really would like the EWE for
EU DX,  but if it's not working, then a N/S attempt may be in order.

73 Mark K3MSB











On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Tim Shoppa  wrote:

> I would like to concur with SM0MDG's comments about receive coax
> connections. I betcha the OP's system is leaking in at levels way higher
> than the Ewe actually produces. I know everyone loves to detune their
> transmit antenna, but there's no way an Ewe should sound noisier than the
> inverted L.
>
> A reversible array is far and away the best way to convince yourself that
> you have a working receive antenna system. If you reverse it and nothing
> ever changes, well, you're listening to some other antenna! Some (e.g. YCCC
> array) are supposed to be far more sensitive to near-field metal objects
> than others (e.g. K9AY loop) but even then I'm sure you'll be able to find
> a convincing F/B on known BCB stations once you have stuff working right.
> Another useful beacon is W1AW code practice at 1802.5.
>
> Tim N3QE
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:19 AM, JC  wrote:
>
>> Hi folks
>>
>> I would like to add some comments to receiving antennas issue. Any
>> resonant thing (wire, cable, rotor cable tower, TX antenna...) will
>> interact with the RX antenna if they are in the same polarity, different
>> polarity has 27 dB or more of isolation due the polarization itself.
>>
>> The inverted L is easy to detune, just open the wire from the coaxial and
>> check the noise on the EWE. The noise on the RX antenna needs to decrease
>> one or 2 S units. However, it is possible you will not see any difference.
>> The reason is that you may have another point where common noise is
>> deteriorating the directivity of the RX antenna. If it work, just add a
>> relay for detuning the Inv L during RX.
>>
>> The integration with the inverted " L " TX antenna is the easy one do fix
>> the others resonant "things" could be difficult to recognize. Example, if
>> you have a low dipole or elevated radials, these "things" will destroy any
>> directivity of nearby RX antennas, and nearby distance on 160m means 300ft
>> or more, one wavelength. Rotor cable, VHF or other's 120ft feed lines could
>> be resonant and a good reflector for noise and re-radiate them too.
>>
>> Lack of good ground (or no ground at all) is receipt for failure on RX.
>> Running the cables outside the tower and far from the ground is the
>> preferred way to screw things up.
>>
>> I am following every installation of my WF's and there is an issue very
>> frequently found. It is bad connectors contact with the cable shield. Cold
>> solder, no solder, little copper wire on the braid. One single point with a
>> bad shield can ruin you RX system.
>>
>> Doug Waller when he build the first WF was very disappointed with the
>> results until he found a RCA connector with one RCA   ear not contacting
>> the preamp input RCA female. Just one little gap in ear with no contact was
>> enough to leak noise into the preamplifier input. After fixing the bad
>> contact, the RX antenna started to work with good directivity. PL259 or a F
>> connector with bad contact with the braid can cause several S units of
>> noise.
>>
>> Spending big money on the radio and do not care about the quality of the
>> connectors used for RX is no sense.
>>
>> Open frame relays (not coaxial relay), open contact switches, plastic
>> boxes are the most common points to add noise and destroy the directivity
>> pattern.
>>
>> Running cable outside de tower and ground them at the base is not a very
>> popular solution. It is hard to run the cables inside the tower they say.
>> As a result RF is everywhere in the shack. No solution for that too.
>>
>> I am just trying to help, there is no free beef regarding good RX systems.
>>
>> 73's
>> JC
>> N4IS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems

[John Kaufmann]

> A reversible array is far and away the best way to convince yourself
> that you have a working receive antenna system. If you reverse it and
> nothing ever changes, well, you're listening to some other antenna! 
> Some (e.g. YCCC array) are supposed to be far more sensitive to near-field

> metal objects than others (e.g. K9AY loop) but even then I'm sure you'll
be
> able to find a convincing F/B on known BCB stations once you have stuff
working right.

The YCCC array and other high-performance receiving arrays have much higher
directivity, and correspondingly higher RDF's, than a K9AY loop.  On 160m,
the YCCC array has an RDF of 12.1 dB while the K9AY loop is 7.7 dB.  This is
not a criticism of the K9AY loop because it is a very simple yet effective
solution for many people.  However, it is a fact of life that achieving
higher directivity in multi-element arrays necessarily means more careful
control of the amplitudes and phases of multiple elements.  A corollary of
that is small perturbations introduced by external influences, like metal
objects, can degrade directivity rather easily.  There is no free lunch.

73, John W1FV

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems

[JC]

Hi folks

I would like to add some comments to receiving antennas issue. Any resonant 
thing (wire, cable, rotor cable tower, TX antenna...) will interact with the RX 
antenna if they are in the same polarity, different polarity has 27 dB or more 
of isolation due the polarization itself.

The inverted L is easy to detune, just open the wire from the coaxial and check 
the noise on the EWE. The noise on the RX antenna needs to decrease one or 2 S 
units. However, it is possible you will not see any difference. The reason is 
that you may have another point where common noise is deteriorating the 
directivity of the RX antenna. If it work, just add a relay for detuning the 
Inv L during RX.

The integration with the inverted " L " TX antenna is the easy one do fix the 
others resonant "things" could be difficult to recognize. Example, if you have 
a low dipole or elevated radials, these "things" will destroy any directivity 
of nearby RX antennas, and nearby distance on 160m means 300ft or more, one 
wavelength. Rotor cable, VHF or other's 120ft feed lines could be resonant and 
a good reflector for noise and re-radiate them too.

Lack of good ground (or no ground at all) is receipt for failure on RX. Running 
the cables outside the tower and far from the ground is the preferred way to 
screw things up.

I am following every installation of my WF's and there is an issue very 
frequently found. It is bad connectors contact with the cable shield. Cold 
solder, no solder, little copper wire on the braid. One single point with a bad 
shield can ruin you RX system.

Doug Waller when he build the first WF was very disappointed with the results 
until he found a RCA connector with one RCA   ear not contacting the preamp 
input RCA female. Just one little gap in ear with no contact was enough to leak 
noise into the preamplifier input. After fixing the bad contact, the RX antenna 
started to work with good directivity. PL259 or a F connector with bad contact 
with the braid can cause several S units of noise.

Spending big money on the radio and do not care about the quality of the 
connectors used for RX is no sense.

Open frame relays (not coaxial relay), open contact switches, plastic boxes are 
the most common points to add noise and destroy the directivity pattern.

Running cable outside de tower and ground them at the base is not a very 
popular solution. It is hard to run the cables inside the tower they say. As a 
result RF is everywhere in the shack. No solution for that too.

I am just trying to help, there is no free beef regarding good RX systems.

73's
JC
N4IS





_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems

[Tim Shoppa]

I would like to concur with SM0MDG's comments about receive coax
connections. I betcha the OP's system is leaking in at levels way higher
than the Ewe actually produces. I know everyone loves to detune their
transmit antenna, but there's no way an Ewe should sound noisier than the
inverted L.

A reversible array is far and away the best way to convince yourself that
you have a working receive antenna system. If you reverse it and nothing
ever changes, well, you're listening to some other antenna! Some (e.g. YCCC
array) are supposed to be far more sensitive to near-field metal objects
than others (e.g. K9AY loop) but even then I'm sure you'll be able to find
a convincing F/B on known BCB stations once you have stuff working right.
Another useful beacon is W1AW code practice at 1802.5.

Tim N3QE

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:19 AM, JC  wrote:

> Hi folks
>
> I would like to add some comments to receiving antennas issue. Any
> resonant thing (wire, cable, rotor cable tower, TX antenna...) will
> interact with the RX antenna if they are in the same polarity, different
> polarity has 27 dB or more of isolation due the polarization itself.
>
> The inverted L is easy to detune, just open the wire from the coaxial and
> check the noise on the EWE. The noise on the RX antenna needs to decrease
> one or 2 S units. However, it is possible you will not see any difference.
> The reason is that you may have another point where common noise is
> deteriorating the directivity of the RX antenna. If it work, just add a
> relay for detuning the Inv L during RX.
>
> The integration with the inverted " L " TX antenna is the easy one do fix
> the others resonant "things" could be difficult to recognize. Example, if
> you have a low dipole or elevated radials, these "things" will destroy any
> directivity of nearby RX antennas, and nearby distance on 160m means 300ft
> or more, one wavelength. Rotor cable, VHF or other's 120ft feed lines could
> be resonant and a good reflector for noise and re-radiate them too.
>
> Lack of good ground (or no ground at all) is receipt for failure on RX.
> Running the cables outside the tower and far from the ground is the
> preferred way to screw things up.
>
> I am following every installation of my WF's and there is an issue very
> frequently found. It is bad connectors contact with the cable shield. Cold
> solder, no solder, little copper wire on the braid. One single point with a
> bad shield can ruin you RX system.
>
> Doug Waller when he build the first WF was very disappointed with the
> results until he found a RCA connector with one RCA   ear not contacting
> the preamp input RCA female. Just one little gap in ear with no contact was
> enough to leak noise into the preamplifier input. After fixing the bad
> contact, the RX antenna started to work with good directivity. PL259 or a F
> connector with bad contact with the braid can cause several S units of
> noise.
>
> Spending big money on the radio and do not care about the quality of the
> connectors used for RX is no sense.
>
> Open frame relays (not coaxial relay), open contact switches, plastic
> boxes are the most common points to add noise and destroy the directivity
> pattern.
>
> Running cable outside de tower and ground them at the base is not a very
> popular solution. It is hard to run the cables inside the tower they say.
> As a result RF is everywhere in the shack. No solution for that too.
>
> I am just trying to help, there is no free beef regarding good RX systems.
>
> 73's
> JC
> N4IS
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems

[Björn SM0MDG]

On 09 Dec 2015, at 01:49, Mark K3MSB  wrote:

> The EWE is aimed directly at the vertical part of the inverted-L, about 25
> to 30 feet away.   The transformer end is towards the Inv-L.I didn’t
> think about that when I put it up.


Hi Mark,

This is what I would change if possible. The TX antenna will re-radiate noise 
it picks up. This is probably what is picked up by your RX antenna.

Do you have space to move the EWE away from the inv-L? Best of all is to put it 
in a place where it has the inv-l in its back and a minimum of noise sources in 
its forward facing direction.

I am using pennants located around 130 ft away from the TX antenna. I have more 
noise picked up from the TX antenna (and the building) on my N/W pennant which 
pattern somewhat includes the direction of the TX vertical.

Maybe you can make a test by reversing the antenna in its current position to 
see if S/N improved when facing away from the inv-L.


73 de Björn,
SM0MDG
SE0X
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems

[Mark K3MSB]

By the way,  there is a thread on 160M Noise Levels that is active.

Is the noise that I'm seeing common to what others are seeing?   If it is,
that means it's not local to me (which doesn't mitigate the EWE issue.)

73 Mark K3MSB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems

[Mark K3MSB]

Good Evening Everyone


Thank you for all the responses, some public, some private.   Since some
content overlapped,  I’ll post my answers to the group.


I replaced the 2K pot with a 1.2K resistor.  No change.


I disconnected the feedline at the base of the Inverted-L (simulating a
relay).  No change

.

The EWE is aimed directly at the vertical part of the inverted-L, about 25
to 30 feet away.   The transformer end is towards the Inv-L.I didn’t
think about that when I put it up.


One radial passes the transformer end of the EWE by about 4 feet.  No
radials pass under the EWE.


I took some pix of the bandscope / S-Meter tonight:


http://www.k3msb.com/temp/INVL_No_NB_NR.jpg

http://www.k3msb.com/temp/INVL_With_NB_NR.jpg

http://www.k3msb.com/temp/EWE.jpg




Here are some measurements (taken before the above photos were taken, so
there isn’t necessary any correlation to the measurements and the photos….

With the INV-L feedline disconnected:

EWE:  S5  1.2 Khz filterNB no effect

   S3-4  500 Hz filter   NB no effect

   S2-3  250 Hz filterNB no effect



With the INV-L feedline connected:

EWE:  S5.5  1.2 Khz filterNB no effect

S4  500 Hz filter   NB no effect

S1-2 250 Hz filterNB no effect


INV-L  (NB/NR OFF)

  S7-8  1.2 Khz filter

  S5  500 Hz filter

  S3-4 250 Hz filter


INV-L  (NB/NR ON)

  S2-3  1.2 Khz filter

  S1-2  500 Hz filter

  S1 250 Hz filter


The noise looks partially artificial.  I’ve done the gig of popping all the
breakers in my house (except the one that powers the radios) with no effect
on the noise.


Using a portable radio, I swept the entire house and found nothing that
caused the noise issue go away.   I didn’t turn off the cable modem  (need
to keep the inmates happy….), but we got our cable modem in January, and
this problem pre-dates it.


Drove up an down my country road tonight with the car BC radio on as well
as the portable battery radio.  The car radio didn’t pick up anything;
pretty quiet.  The portable radio picked up hum, but it was everywhere I
went (including inside the house); when I plugged the portable radio into
the house mains, the hum went away.


I had my neighbor turn off his dusk/dawn light – no change in the noise.


The only thing I haven't yet checked is the matching transformer.


73 Mark K3MSB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems

[Wes Attaway (N5WA)]

It sounds like you have a problem with either the terminating resistor 
or the matching transformer.  Or, there could be a problem with your 
switching if you have more than one EWE.  There is no reason why a EWE 
would behave the way you describe unless it is simply acting as a 
shortened U-shaped length of wire that is possibly coupling to your main 
TX antenna.


On 2015-12-07 16:39, Mark K3MSB wrote:

Greetings fellow Top Band enthusiasts!


I'm Mark K3MSB, and I live south of York PA.  This is my first time 
posting

to this list.


I’ve been licensed for 43 years and got on 160M in November 2014, so 
this

is the start of my second year.   Why I didn’t get on TB sooner is a
question I keep asking myself!   I’ve enjoyed the challenge of 80M 
DXing

for years, and I find 160M to be an even more challenging band!


Last year I used an Inverted-L for TX and RX.  The vertical part was 30
feet high and I used about a dozen ground radials.   I was very pleased
with its performance and was delighted to be able to work stations in
Europe.This year I changed the Inverted-L;  the vertical section is 
now

up 50 feet and I’m using about 16 ground radials.


This year I also decided to put up a separate RX antenna.   I put up an 
EWE
oriented towards Europe.  Each leg is 10 feet tall, and the length is 
50

feet.The terminating resistor should be 1.2K, so I used a 2K
potentiometer set for the correct resistance.   The preamp is the
P1-30/20VD from Advance Receiver Research.


After attempting to use the EWE for a few weeks, I’m convinced the EWE
doesn’t work.  Obviously, since a lot of people use the EWE,  the 
antenna

design must work,  so it’s an installation or usage problem on my end
that’s the issue. I hope some of you seasoned 160M men can help me 
out.



I have the terminating end supported by a fiberglass mast about 2 feet 
from
the end of my house (vinyl siding).  The transformer end is supported 
by a

rope to a tree, and the drop to ground on that end is vertical.The
terminating end goes to a 4 foot ground rod.   The transformer end goes 
to
a 2 foot ground rod (septic line concerns prevent me from going 
deeper).



When I turn on the preamp, the noise level rises to the same level as 
that

heard with my Inverted-L.  Stations in Europe are sometimes at the same
signal level, but a lot of times much lower, so that I can hear them 
better
on the Inverted-L and not on the EWE.   Stations off the back of the 
EWE

sometimes are attenuated, but not all the time.


I tried adjusting the potentiometer, and that has no effect at all.   I 
did

this by running a long patch cable from the headphones jack on the
transceiver to the area of the terminating resistor.  I tuned in a
moderately strong station (off the back of the EWE) whose signal level 
was

fairly constant, and adjusted the pot while listening to the audio.  No
change at all.Granted, the ear is not the best way to do this.


I have a noise issue here, and I think it’s man-made, but from reports 
of

160M hams in the area, I’m not sure it’s local.   The bandscope on the
radio shows a ragged saw tooth waveform .  When I switch from the
Inverted-L to the EWE, the ragged waveform goes away, but I do not see 
a

decrease in background noise as I expected.


My expectation of the EWE is that both signal and noise would go down
(relative to the Inverted-L), but the preamp would boost the signal 
higher
relative to the noise (although the signal level itself on the EWE 
would be

less than the Inverted-L).   As mentioned above, the noise level is
unchanged, and the signal is much more difficult to copy with the EWE.


It was suggested that I connect the two ground rods with a wire.  I did
this and it had no effect.


So, I’m open to any and all suggestions.


73 Mark K3MSB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband