In particular one member has a magnificent full wave 160 meter loop up around 50 feet or so. He is contemplating using it for NVIS on 80 meters. He desires to lower it to about 15 feet to improve the NVIS characteristics.

It is true lowering a dipole will focus more energy straight up while reducing the energy towards the horizon. This is a tried and true technique on 80 and sometimes 40 meter NVIS and offers a potential added benefit of less sensitivity to far away thunderstorm noise. This is a method of diminishing returns; Lowering the antenna favors the sky more, but the overall gain is reduced. In other words, less signal is focused in a better NVIS favoring pattern.

Full wave loops are quite different as this EZNEC simulation suggests. Here is a simple four sided loop with 128 foot sides and fed near one corner – just like my friend’s 160 meter loop.

It is possible almost any antenna sends a little energy towards the sky for NVIS communications, but to fully take advantage of this capability, your antenna design should flood the sky with energy including straight up. This will ensure all possible angles of refraction/reflection are covered.

It seems clear from this very basic, but perfectly reasonable, EZNEC simulation a full wave 160 meter loop running in the 80 meter band is a good antenna for DX work, but leaves much to be desired for NVIS even if you lower it towards the ground like you do with a dipole. At 40 meters NVIS performance is even worse, but WOW the DX capabilities are nice even while the azimuth pattern is a four lobed cloverleaf restricting this nice low-angle gain to four general directions.

The proof of a 160 meter full wave loop antenna’s DX performance is highlighted by my friend’s achievement with his; He just finished 80 meter WAS… Phone… QRP… using, in part, this antenna. Wow.

…But I want NVIS
The practical solution is to keep your 160 meter antenna where it is and add a new simple 80 meter dipole 50 feet or less in height. This pair will team up nicely to get you want you need for 80 meter NVIS in addition to DX capabilities. Keep the 80 meter dipole well away from the 160 meter loop.

The sister web site to Ham Help Desk published several simulations of dipole discussing 40 meters and NVIS at…

Dipoles that are not too high are a quick answer for NVIS.

Other Techniques
Quadrature feeding two orthogonal dipoles, as discussed elsewhere on Ham Help Desk, yields circular and selectable polarization. This technique leverages what the ionosphere sounding folks use to probe the ionosphere at HF frequencies. This is what I am trying this year for the Virginia QSO Party. We will see how well it works.

Conclusion:
Big Full Wave Loops provide good NVIS at their native full wave frequency, but become more like DX antennas at higher frequencies. Loop antennas provide impressive performance at higher frequencies and are, thus, a great no fuss and simple antenna. However, other than the base full wave frequency, this antenna is less than ideal for NVIS above its base full wave frequency.

The above EZNEC plots detail the difference in gain you can expect with the loop antenna at different heights. For loops it seems higher is better. Other expensive improvements include laying a network of ground wires in a crisscross pattern underneath the loop. The simulations for this are not shown, but do reveal a real benefit in the total energy performance. I don’t have an unlimited supply of wire… do you? We will try to stick with the more practical antennas here at Ham Help Desk.

If 80 meters NVIS is your goal, consider a dipole or a full wave 80 meter loop rather than a 160 meter loop.

Unfortunately, one web site promoting a 5/4 wave antenna solution failed to realize you can’t make an antenna longer without eventually hitting a limit.

During commute time repeater discussions my friend was contemplating the use of a 5/4 wavelength vertical for his VHF antenna. He mentioned a web site with the construction details for just such an antenna which results in a nice simple no fuss vertical antenna housed in a PVC enclosure. Great, I thought, but I had some concerns over this whole 5/4 wavelength thing. I told my friend I would work up a simulation to see how good this antenna is. The first step was to find the web site containing the construction details for a 5/4 wave VHF antenna. This was easy resulting in this web site…

The author provides superb details on how to construct the 5/4 wavelength VHF antenna. He wisely predicted the installation into PVC would change the speed of light of conductors within. He revealed the need for a matching network. Good so far. In fact, I bet this antenna design provides a good match to 50 ohm coaxial cable, is of sound construction and will last many years in the elements.

However, that’s only part of the story isn’t it. How will the antenna actually perform.

EZNEC to the rescue…

While it is time consuming to simulate all the wire size and dielectric constant details the candidate 5/4 wave antenna offers, we can make the following assumptions and model accordingly…

• Since there is a parallel line component about 1/4 wavelength long, this is really an end fed full wavelength antenna with the extra 1/4 wave portion acting like an impedance transformer just like a J-Pole
• The existing models of J-Pole antennas from Cebik’s excellent NEC antenna simulation collection provide just what we need to start analyzing the full-wave antenna
• The 5/4 wave “tall” antenna will be compared directly to the 3/4 wave “tall” J-Pole

Both antennas are modeled with 18 AWG wire, used by the web site author for most of the vertical element, with the horizontal portion 300 inches over EZNEC’s “Real/High Accuracy” ground. Here they are with their RF currents shown…

Half vs. Full Wave Antennas

Those in the know will already spot trouble with the full wave radiating element. Those RF currents do not result in more RF radiation in the horizontal plane, but rather help to cancel it. For those of you experimenting with EZNEC be sure “Current Phase” is selected in the View Antenna options so you will see the vector, not just the magnitude, of the currents on the antenna view. You also need to ensure all your wires go in the same direction with end 2 connecting to end 1 of the next wire or the current phase might show incorrect vectors; The RF simulation plots work perfectly with wire direction either way, however.

Here is the full wave plot in red compared with a simple half wave J-pole in blue…

Elevation Plots of Half vs. Full Wave Vertical Antennas

Recall both antennas are simulated with the base 300 inches above ground with the following discoveries:

• The full-wave vertical is at least 7dB worse than the regular J-Pole at 4 degrees elevation – important for base to mobile and most any VHF communications
• The full-wave vertical shows negative 1.67 dBi gain at the terrain hugging low angles
• The full-wave does provide move energy at high angles which might be of benefit for base to air communications

I ran SWR calculations for both antennas and they both offer an excellent match to 50 ohm cable throughout the 2 meter band. For completeness here they are…

End Fed Half Wave (J-Pole) SWR

End Fed Full-Wave SWR (with J-Pole Feed)

What are we to draw from this?

First, great SWR does not a good antenna make.

Second, the full wave antenna does not, by itself, provide any benefit for terrestrial radio use and is, in fact, detrimental.

One can ask, though, how is it taller antenna designs provide better radiation towards the horizon.

The answer is based on the idea of making the RF current peaks in the antenna be in the same phase so the energy, towards the horizon, adds rather than subtracts. Many methods exist to achieve this, but one popular technique is to add a half-wave delay between the two half-wave antenna portions. By doing this we cause the current in the top antenna to be a full 360 degree delayed from the current in the bottom and, thus in phase. This technique results in a type of antenna generally called “Collinear.” The figure below illustrates how this is achieved in the popular Double J-Pole antenna…

Full-Wave J-Pole with Hairpin to make Collinear

Plenty of web sites exist to show how to build a Double J-Pole antenna so we won’t go into that here.

The UHF antenna on your vehicle may well have two or three antenna sections arranged as a collinear antenna with half-wave delay coils between each section to keep each radiating in phase. If we look at the evolution of the vertical antenna…

Evolution of Vertical Antenna

…we see 5/8 wave antennas tend to be the upper limit of length before phasing techniques need to be applied if we are to keep a good signal towards the horizon. Collinear antennas are a tried and true approach for antennas longer than 5/8 wave. Whether a hairpin or helical resonator is used to phase the 1/2 wave antenna “pieces,” improved performance awaits the antenna builder. As we any good thing there are diminishing returns by adding more co-phased antenna pieces.

The 5/4 wave antenna discussed is really a full-wave antenna with a 1/4 wave feed. The lack of an additional half-wave delay element between the two high current portions of the antenna suggest the author has missed an important detail in antenna design which will render the antenna far less useful than anticipated.

It is likely the author confuses his desire for a single wire antenna with dipoles of similar length – the extended double Zepp type is an example. The difference between an end fed piece of wire and a center fed dipole is, again, the current phases. A center fed dipole pushes current in one wire while pulling on the other thereby ensuring each dipole leg has current in phase – assuming the dipole legs diverge from the feed-point of course. This cannot happen in an end fed single wire one wavelength or 5/4 wavelength long without some means to delay the half-wave portions by 180 degrees.

However, the author’s noble attempt at antenna design and excellent construction techniques remind us there are other ways to apply his ideas to realize the suspected intent; A desire for a good sturdy Collinear antenna.

A final note worth considering is this… Can EZNEC or any antenna simulation program provide good enough results to use for antenna comparisons? Of course, but there are limits. If you are trying to see if one antenna is a dB or so better or worse than another you do need to be careful with the assumptions you put into your simulation. However, comparing a half-wave antenna against a full-wave antenna, both end fed with a 1/4 wave section, is well outside almost any margin of error so you can expect the full-wave antenna antenna to be far worse than the half-wave for horizon coverage based on the simulations above.