To: Scott Neader Subject: Re: EWE Antennas... Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 22:41:31 -0500 From: Steve Sacco KC2X Recently, I posted a query on the cq-contest reflector (cq-contest@tgv.com), asking for comments about the performance of the EWE receive antennna. I was not sure what to expect - lately, the "noise level" on that reflector has been pretty high, and the EWE question might have just gotten in the way of more important things, like the correct spelling of "PFFFTTTTHHHH". The response was gratifying! I received no less than fifteen queries. Every one of them was supportive of the antenna. As I posted back to the cq-contest reflector, a one sentence summary of the responses would go like this: The EWE is much better than your standard "non gain" antenna (i.e: a dipole), but not as good as a Beverage > 280', and about even with a "gain" antenna (i.e: a '4 Square'). Tom, K1KI responded to that summary with the following: That one line summary seems too generous. The comments I saw suggested the EWE was better than a dipole, worse than a Beverage. My experience with a 4-square is that it receives (s/n) almost as well as a Beverage (1100') on both 80 and 160m. 73 - Tom =========================================================================== An interesting perspective on the performance of the EWE antenna with respect to the ground it is installed over came from PVRCer Brian WA3WJD, who wrote: "Hi Steve. I see you have got a lot of positive responses, cause a couple guys copied me knowing my interest in EWEs. I have a QTH right on the salt water (across street) neat the beach in Ocean City, MD. The EWEs really SCREAM near the salt water, as you might expect with a vertical. Given good conditions, they can hear Russians on 160m s9!!! I would say they are very QTH dependent. If you have a good QTH for verticals, then they would probably work very well. Salt water, marshland, beach property, etc they will work extremely well. Some guys that live on rocky hills say they do not work well at all for them... I have also heard that beverages do not work well near salt water or over near-perfect ground conditions. I see you live in Florida, so you might want to ask some locals about how beverages work over your ground type. You might find the EWEs are the best choice... The EWEs definately need a preamp. You can buy the expen$ive K2ZJ boxes with preamp, or use a regular beverage box and put a preamp inside the shack. The ewes really need the preamp - not so good barefoot. good luck! Brian McGinness WA3WJD " ========================================================================== This was something I'd never really considered, and will now have to, given that I have the option of mounting the antenna in a swamp, if I want to, or over pure "sugar" sand. Bill, N3RR, was positively glowing in his assesment of the EWE: "Hi Guys! Here's my experience with the EWEs: Last Summer I put up my first EWE using the 160/80 combo EWE as described in Feb 95, QST. That design is: 15 ft up, 38 ft across, and 15 ft down. I terminated it in a 830 OHM resistance and used the K2ZJ box at the ground-mounted feed point. Both ends utilized 4 foot ground rods into good ground conductivity clay soil. It was directional to the NE. The results were superlative. Not only on 80 but 160 as well. I was able to hear stations that were in the noise on my transmit antennas (see signature, below) on 80 & 160. I also compared the signal strength to my transmit antennas. Those EWE signals that were coming in from the direction of reception of the EWE and the direction of reception of my transmit antenna (more easily determined on my rotatable 80M antenna) were always equal to or less than those on the transmit antenna. But, signal strength is not the reason to put up a EWE. Signal to noise ratio is. I also had an 8-slinky Beverage that was aimed NE with which I compared to the EWE. The slinky was never better than the EWE. Sometimes they were equal. They both reduced the noise levels on 80 & 160 and improved the signal/noise ratio. With these results under my belt, in October 1995, I installed 3 more EWEs, completing my last one the day of the CQ WW SSB CONTEST. These three were built using 12 ft sections of aluminum tubing attached to my wooden fence rails and adding 3 ft of wire to them to attach them to the K2ZJ box and the terminating resistor. They were installed for reception South, East, and West. The E and W EWEs are back-to-back on a fence line and about 30 feet from each other. These two are positioned such that signals from the West encounter the West EWE before they encounter the East EWE, and vice-versa. Again, results were fantastic, and measurable. There is about a 15-20 dB front to back ratio between the E and W EWE. I have a switching setup where I can punch a button to switch from EWE to EWE. Likewise with the South EWE, I'm seeing a 15-20dB difference in signal strength between the NE and S EWEs on some signals. There are times that I can't hear Southern DX stations on the E,W, or NE EWE or Slinky that I can hear on the South EWE. I used the W EWE to receive JAs on 160 this year. They were much louder on the EWE than on my inverted "V" xmit antenna (which is broadside NW/SE). I do not have the space in my yard to install a classical Beverage antenna so, I do not have any comparison to make there. I found out that, due to a local broadcast station, my NE EWE was having the K2ZJ microwave oscillation problem (that was discussed on the Top Band reflector recently). I now use a non-amplified K2ZJ box on that antenna and the problem went away (as the theory says it would). I am very happy with my four EWEs. Without them, my 80 and 160 CONTEST scores would really be suffering. I should add that I read in someone's response to this thread, that they considered the 160/80 M EWE design in the FEB 95 QST a "compromise" design. That is an incorrect classification of this non-resonant type of antenna. The designer merely used convenient heights and lengths, analysed several, and came up with a design that produced acceptable results (modelled) on 160 and 80. That's far different from a resonant antenna "compromise" where the antenna would be electrically shorter (or longer) on the "compromise" band than on the "original", or, "basic" band. I will be glad to relate other anecdotes regarding my EWEs, if anyone wishes to have more info. 73! Bill, N3RR@CAIS.COM" ========================================================================== James, KD1NG, provided these thoughtful insights: "I built two EWEs last fall. Both were constructed to the dimensions cited in the first QST article for a compromise between 80 and 160 coverage. They were erected well prior to the publication of the second QST article that described the array of four EWEs. A few weeks later, I put up a short (~200') terminated Beverage to the NE. I thought that the receive pattern of the EWEs might be negatively impacted from close proximity to each other. With that in mind, I tried to keep them as far apart as practical. One was oriented NE and the other SW and were sited with one facing the other, separated by about 15'. From the end of each EWE, a shielded wire ran about 8' to a switching relay arrangement I constructed to select which EWE would be fed to a ZJ Beverage Box. From the ZJ box (http://4w.com/ham/zj) approximately 100' of RG-8X runs to an ICE splitter (includes a 2-4 dB preamp) and then to a switching relay box to select whether the TS-940 listens on the transmit antenna or receive only antenna. During the first week of operation, the EWEs just didn't seem to hear very well when compared to my transmit antennas (80: 1/4 sloper at 64'; 160: 1/4 sloper at 100'). Over the course of 3-4 nights of listening, the NE could hear a little, but the SW was pretty deaf. I thought it was the EWE select relay and/or the wire from the EWE to the relay box. I changed the wire from the EWEs to the relay box and noticed no improvement. I then removed the relay box and connected the ZJ Box directly to the NE EWE. This seemed to make some difference. The NE EWE could now hear - at least on 80. It was reasonably directional and, although signal strength was way down, it was much quieter than the sloper. I was able to pull European 80 meter signals out of the noise with the EWE that were not copiable on the sloper. Performance on 160 was never better on the EWE than the sloper. Just before NAQP I disconnected the NE EWE and hooked up the SW EWE instead. Performance was much poorer on 80 and, as somewhat expected, on 160 as well when compared to what I'd been experiencing with the NE EWE. Before, during and after NAQP both of the slopers heard much better than the SW EWE. A few weeks later (and in a few feet of snow), I erected a ~200' terminated Beverage oriented NE. I put the ZJ Beverage Box on it and ran ~200' of RG- 8x to the shack. In some instances the NE EWE was a (very) little better that the Beverage, but in almost all situations the short NE Beverage out performed the NE EWE. In order to continue the investigation (and in an effort to hear JAs on 80!), I reversed the Beverage so it was now oriented SW. When directed to the SW, the Beverage now suffered from very high noise levels. I've never encountered it here before, but it sounds like I have line noise towards the SW/W. Although the SW EWE was not a real good performer, it did reject the line noise better than the SW Beverage; but the slopers seem to hear better than either of the SW oriented receive antennas. The bottom line here: The EWE works - not great, not always better than a Beverage - but it works. For those with limited acreage for adequate Beverages, the EWE, I think, would be a very worthwhile investment for improved reception (at least on 80). I'm planning to move in the next few months and I'm thinking about new antennas on a green site. If I build on the property I want, my current plans are to assemble a four EWE array similar to that described in the follow-on QST article. This would be in addition to two ~500' Beverages oriented East and West. 73 James / KD1NG ========================================================================== Pete Smith, N4ZR, compares its performance to an inverted "vee": FWIW, I built one aimed at Europe right after CQWW. Used the compromise 80/160 dimensions from the QST article, plus a ZJ beverage box. Sometimes - I emphasize sometimes - long-haul sigs on 80 are better with it than with my high inverted vee - not louder, but better S/N, about what you'd expect. Other times there was no discernible difference. Sometimes the IV was better. I plan to build a 280-foot beverage to Eu before next fall, and run it off the same box with a remote A/B switch. Should be interesting. 73, Pete Smith N4ZR n4zr@ix.netcom.com ========================================================================== Dan, W8CAR, sums it up well: "Steve I have used EWEs for two seasons. I have one NE and one SE. I also have and E/W (switchable) 280ft two wire short beverage. The EWE is a keeper and the NE one is being enlarged next year to two in line phased. They are not beverages but I have had stations tell me that they here me work stations they can't hear. Switching between my inverted L and the EWE is like night and day. Sometimes as much as 20 db of noise reduction. Any other comments you would like I'll be glad to help. 73 Dan,W8CAR ========================================================================== Tony, K1KP, has another good comparison of the EWE to other antennas: "We built one at W1KM's place. It was compared against a single loaded vertical on 160 and a four square on 80. It beat the vertical, but was about tied with the four square. So I think you could conclude that it's really like a pair of phased verticals. A Beverage will definitely beat it. How about that horizontal loop the Beezley published? Looks intriguing... -Tony, K1KP, fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com" ========================================================================== Ken, AB6FO, offers another dose of reality about the EWE: "Hi Steve, I tried one as a kit from ZJ Electronics (http://4w.com/ham/zj). It was quiet, but I couldn't hear anything on it that I couldn't hear on a sloper. I tried a K6STI loop with the same results. A short beverage (250') worked better in the direction it was pointed. A balloon vertical, though noisy, worked the best for hearing in most cases in addition to being great on transmit. 73. Ken, AB6FO, KWIDELITZ@DELPHI.COM"