This is a question that has circled around on the fringes of my consciousness for years now, but one that I've never quite found time to test. And it is a simple question: When using a random wire antenna with a portable shortwave receiver, is it better to string the wire vertically or horizontally, or does it even matter? Mostly this is a question when out camping, because arranging a 19' wire vertically is usually a good bit more involved than just stringing it out along some nearby bushes.
Before going any farther, I want to point out that this is an exercise in ordinary backyard shortwave listening with relatively inexpensive equipment. There are many, many better-engineered and more costly solutions to the technical challenge of shortwave scanning, and this does not address any of those sophisticated approaches. This is for the person who opens up the box and wonders about the best way to hang the included long-wire auxiliary antenna.
Equipment: Tecsun PL-660 SW/AM/FM/Air Band receiver, with its included 19' random-wire antenna. Internal battery power used.
Conditions & Time: Clear local weather. hamqsl.com's nowcast of band conditions were fair from 3.5-14.35 MHz, and poor for higher frequencies, with SFI = 72, SN = 26, A = 5, K = 1. Time was 21:00-21:30 UTC, or 4-4:30 pm local CDT.
Sawhorses spaced ~17' apart. Radio and notepad can be seen on ground in front of the near sawhorse. |
Results: For the vertical antenna orientation, 32 stations were detected between 5959 – 15730 kHz. Nearly all were intelligible, with those at the lower end more steady and those a the higher end much more variable in strength. For the horizontal antenna orientation, 21 stations were detected between 9265 – 1570 kHz. Similar overall signal quality was heard for the received stations in either antenna orientation. More noise was noticeable at the lower frequencies between the stations for the vertical antenna orientation. However, this was significantly below the received signal levels, and not an issue in the overall listening quality.
Conclusions & Discussion: Suspending the wire antenna vertically worked better, especially at the lower frequencies. Getting a wire up 21'+ vertically is usually not as convenient as stringing it horizontally, but it may be worth the extra effort, depending on the location, campsite, nearby trees, etc. The overall conditions were typical for fall camping weather, with fair-to poor radio propagation conditions, so this result should be broadly applicable for how SW portables are often used. This result may change with propagation and radio noise conditions, both for atmospheric and local noise sources. Testing will continue as propagation conditions improve with solar cycle 25 getting underway.
-------
Addendum, 10/12: While writing this up yesterday evening, it occurred to me that I hadn't tested the PL-660's built-in whip antenna. This comparison is important, because sometimes the wire antenna is too cumbersome to deploy. So, how does the whip antenna compare?
Conditions & Time: Overall, very similar to yesterday. hamqsl.com reports fair conditions from 3.5–14.35 MHz, and poor for higher frequencies. SFI = 72, SN = 26, A = 3, K = 1. Same time of day as yesterday's testing.
Procedure: Repeat of yesterday, with the whip antenna added to the test. The whip was oriented vertically.
Results: For the vertical 19' wire, 31 stations were found by the auto-scan function between 2380 – 15770 kHZ. Electrical noise was low but audible in the 3 MHz region, fading to none at higher frequencies, and not a significant source of interference with any stations. For the horizontal wire, 15 stations were found between 9265 – 13630 kHz. Electrical noise was barely audible. With the whip in use only 1 station was found. Switching the antenna gain to its DX (most sensitive) setting, 6 stations were found.
Revised Conclusions: Adding to yesterday's conclusions, the whip antenna functioned but was vastly inferior to the wire antenna in either configuration, even with the gain set to DX. Today's results with the wire antenna were, unsurprisingly, very similar to yesterday's, given that the ionospheric and weather conditions were nearly identical. Noise was not a factor in receiving for any of these antennas or configurations, but did noticeably increase for the vertical wire antenna.
Good deal, John! Now get that wire up in the air. Since you mentioned just getting back into SW, I'm going to recommend a site you may already know about, https://swling.com/blog/ Lots of good ideas and project write-ups there.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, best wishes on getting some good SWLing in.
Thanks for this. I often use my PL-660 with the random wire mounted vertically. I live in a condo with an HOA, so temporarily hoisting it up a fiberglass fishing pole is easy and effective. I've experimented with a 65ft inverted L configuration using a 20 ft vertical leg by way of the fishing pole and then stretch out the remainder as far out as I can. I find more signal (more noise too) which usually makes is not worth the effort. Instead, I feel a slighting longer vertical would be better. It also doesn't force me into a stealthy night install of the inverted L. I figure a 10m vertical would do nicely and facilitated by a Spiderbeam 10m telescoping mast.
ReplyDeleteChris, I'm glad that you got something out of this. Keep us posted on how your experimentation goes.
ReplyDeleteLaunching off of this related ham bands random wire investigation: https://coyoteswamp.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-quasi-random-wire-antenna-revisited.html , and using the same program for the SW bands, with a 4:1 unun with insulated wire, 26.5', 34.5', and 52' all look like promising lengths. But I have not tried this, and won't get a chance to until next camping season (definitely not mid-July in north FL!).
er, make that a 9:1 unun.
ReplyDelete