Turning the Hammarlund HQ145 into a Sweet, Sensitive, and Stable Ham Receiver

In this article we will look at a few of the big deficiencies of the Hammarlund HQ145 general coverage shortwave receiver, and put in some fixes.  CW/SSB reception with AGC and S-Meter, stability issues, bandspread, and sensitivity on the high band will be addressed.

Once modified, the HQ145 turns out to be a very nice ham and general coverage receiver all the way up through 10 M.  It’s like my wife: attractive, capable, and a pleasure to be with.  Or, it could be said Sweet, Sensitive, and Stable!

hammarlund-hq145-2

Continue reading Turning the Hammarlund HQ145 into a Sweet, Sensitive, and Stable Ham Receiver

3,603 total views, 2 views today

Why we use a Base Matching Unit (BMU) with End/Base-Fed Verticals and Inverted-Ls

In this article we look at the reduction in feedline loss when we use a BMU to mitigate impedance extremes at the base feedpoint of a Vertical or Inverted-L antenna.  Naturally, these antennas are worked against a proper counterpoise radial system for decent efficiency, especially on the low bands.

We look at the cases of a 42 ft antenna, and use an average of the measured and modeled feedpoint impedance to calculate feedline losses* for 50 ft of RG8x and for 100 ft LMR400.

BMUs Bottom View Portable QRP and Med Power

The BMU referred to here is:

A 9:1 UNUN for the mid and high bands
A Loading Coil, switched in instead of the UNUN, for the low bands

Continue reading Why we use a Base Matching Unit (BMU) with End/Base-Fed Verticals and Inverted-Ls

2,756 total views, no views today

End/Base-Fed Inverted-L, 90 ft and 45 ft versions, Feedpoint Impedance and SWR

Below are presented the results of actual measurements as well as EZNec modeling of both a 90 ft long End/Base-Fed Inverted-L 45 ft high and 45 ft across, as well as a 45 ft long Inverted-L 23 ft high and 22 ft across. Measurements of both were taken with a combination of a RigExpert AA-1400 and an HP8510 Vector Network Analyzer.

The 90 ft antenna is suspended by a pair of tall LobLollies, and is driven against a counterpoise system consisting of 14 surface ground radials and a low chain link fence.

loblolly-antenna

Continue reading End/Base-Fed Inverted-L, 90 ft and 45 ft versions, Feedpoint Impedance and SWR

3,349 total views, no views today

Z of EFHW vs. “Counterpoise” Length

We look at the magnitude of the impedance of an EFHW “antenna” for short counterpoise lengths.

Thanks to Jon AF7TS for the suggestion and discussions that led to this article.

In engineering we sometimes can not directly calculate a value, often when a “divide-by-zero” shows up, as when we try to calculate an impedance wiith a zero length element.  However we can usually still tell what that value will be by sneaking up next to it and determining what it asymptotically approaches.

sqrt-sum-of-squares-4 Continue reading Z of EFHW vs. “Counterpoise” Length

3,763 total views, no views today

Current Flow Example for an “End-Fed” Antenna with a Loss-Less Choke

A simple transmitter, transmission line, and an “End-Fed” antenna WITHOUT a formal “Counterpoise” – We add a loss-less choke at the feedpoint, tune out it’s inductance with a capacitor, and see why common-mode current on the coax shield is the SAME as without the choke.

From Part 1 and Part 2 of the “Current Flow Fundamentals for an “End-Fed” articles, we saw that common-mode current must always flow on the coax shield when we don’t use a formal counterpoise.  And that the value of current on the “counterpoise” is identical to that on the “radiator” at the feedpoint.

In Part 3 we saw that it doesn’t matter what loss-less device(s) we put at the feedpoint – when we re-adjust our transmitter or tuner the SAME current flows common-mode on the shield as before.
choked___transformer_to_-efhw-2-1

Continue reading Current Flow Example for an “End-Fed” Antenna with a Loss-Less Choke

2,955 total views, no views today

Current Flow Fundamentals for an “End-Fed” Antenna – part 1

Part 1 – A simple transmitter, transmission line, and an “End-Fed” antenna WITHOUT a formal “Counterpoise” – We will see why common-mode current must ALWAYS flow on the coax shield.

End-Fed Antennas have been around since the good ‘ol days and were once most popular.  Yet for some reason, much discord still exists regarding the “counterpoise” – what its behavior is, or if one is even needed.  Not all that surprising since the term “counterpoise” doesn’t seem to have a firm definition.  Hopefully, we can figure out what’s going on despite the semantics, and deal only with easy to understand basic principles.

Principles like this from basic physics:

…charge conservation is the principle that electric charge can neither be created nor destroyed.”*

Continue reading Current Flow Fundamentals for an “End-Fed” Antenna – part 1

3,886 total views, no views today

Current Flow Fundamentals for an “End-Fed” Antenna – part 3

Part 3 – We place various devices at the feedpoint of an “End-Fed” antenna without a formal “Counterpoise” – We will see why the SAME common-mode current must ALWAYS flow on the coax shield just as in Part 1.

The typical “end-fed” generally has an impedance greatly different from 50 ohms, so it is rarely fed directly with coax, as losses on the transmission line will be undesirably high for lengths of coax greater than a few 10’s of meters.

Note the high loss on several bands when a 42 ft “end-fed” is directly fed with 50 ft of RG8x coax (yellow bars)* ===>

cableloss_unun-vs_direct_feed Continue reading Current Flow Fundamentals for an “End-Fed” Antenna – part 3

3,366 total views, no views today