On May 31, 1:07*pm, walt wrote:
On May 31, 11:07*am, Wond wrote:



* * *I sort of think also, the Lazy H (think colinear?) should be fed and
phased with 75 ohm line.

On Mon, 30 May 2011 14:48:45 -0700, walt wrote:

If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.

Just my thoughts,

Walt, W2DU

Another point to consider, Mark, is that the azimuth beam width is
narrower with the lazy-H than that of the dipole. So perhaps the
apparent lower signal level is in directions off the side of the
radiation pattern, where one would expect the signal level to be lower
than that of the dipole at the same angle.

Walt

I "MAY" have figured out what was wrong with the Lazy H. This is a
tentative post.

The Lazy H is located in Charleston, South Carolina and it is
broadside to Southern California. It should be aiming just barley
north of West and just barely south of East. The first clue came when
a station in the Caribbean gave me a 20 over S9 report. That
direction should be in a null spot. The propagation has been coming
in from Texas, Southern California, Central and South America, and the
Northeast (New York, Mass, New Jersey, etc). Well today the
propagation rolled in from the North west, and I saw a signal increase
from a station in Iowa when I compared the Lazy H to the dipole. That
is not the direction the Lazy H is facing, so it occurred to me there
might be something skewing the propagation angle of the antenna to the
north west and south east. Since there has not been any propagation
from the North/west direction until today I had nothing to test it
against. I went outside and noticed the 450 ohm feed line was not
coming away from the Lazy H at a 90 degree angle. It was more of a
45 degree angle. I added some length to the 450 ohm ladder line, and
then repositioned the feed line to come away from the Lazy H at a 90
degree angle. When I went back to test the antenna it was beginning
to show gain in the intended direction. Also the tuner had an easier
time matching the antenna. I may have to play with it some more, but
I may have found the missing 5.9 dbd gain with 1/2 wave spacing. I'm
going to keep my fingers crossed and hope I don't have to retract this
post.

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

On May 31, 11:45*pm, Michael wrote:
On May 31, 1:07*pm, walt wrote:



On May 31, 11:07*am, Wond wrote:

* * *I sort of think also, the Lazy H (think colinear?) should be fed and
phased with 75 ohm line.

On Mon, 30 May 2011 14:48:45 -0700, walt wrote:

If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.

Just my thoughts,

Walt, W2DU

Another point to consider, Mark, is that the azimuth beam width is
narrower with the lazy-H than that of the dipole. So perhaps the
apparent lower signal level is in directions off the side of the
radiation pattern, where one would expect the signal level to be lower
than that of the dipole at the same angle.

Walt

I "MAY" have figured out what was wrong with the Lazy H. *This is a
tentative post.

* The Lazy H is located in Charleston, South Carolina and it is
broadside to Southern California. *It should be aiming just barley
north of West and just barely south of East. *The first clue came when
a station in the Caribbean gave me a 20 over S9 report. *That
direction should be in a null spot. *The propagation has been coming
in from Texas, Southern California, Central and South America, and the
Northeast (New York, Mass, New Jersey, etc). * Well today the
propagation rolled in from the North west, and I saw a signal increase
from a station in Iowa when I compared the Lazy H to the dipole. *That
is not the direction the Lazy H is facing, so it occurred to me there
might be something skewing the propagation angle of the antenna to the
north west and south east. *Since there has not been any propagation
from the North/west direction until today I had nothing to test it
against. * I went outside and noticed the 450 ohm feed line was not
coming away from the Lazy H at a 90 degree angle. * It was more of a
45 degree angle. *I added some length to the 450 ohm ladder line, and
then repositioned the feed line to come away from the Lazy H at a 90
degree angle. *When I went back to test the antenna it was beginning
to show gain in the intended direction. *Also the tuner had an easier
time matching the antenna. *I may have to play with it some more, but
I may have found the missing 5.9 dbd gain with 1/2 wave spacing. *I'm
going to keep my fingers crossed and hope I don't have to retract this
post.

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Just a quick update. I am seeing some gain with the Lazy H now that
the feed line exiting the antenna has been moved to a 90 degree angle,
but I don't think I am seeing the 5.9 dbd gain promised in the ARRL
Antenna Handbook. I would guess it is more around 3 or 4 dbd gain
with 1/2 wave length elements and 1/2 wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements. It seems like alot of trouble to go to when an
extended double zepp at the same height as top wire of the Lazy H
might do just as well if not better. The plus is the Lazy H may have
cleaner nulls off the sides which is helping with the occasional AM
carriers that are coming out of Central and South America.

Michael

On 6/2/2011 1:27 PM, Michael wrote:

Just a quick update. I am seeing some gain with the Lazy H now that
the feed line exiting the antenna has been moved to a 90 degree angle,
but I don't think I am seeing the 5.9 dbd gain promised in the ARRL
Antenna Handbook. I would guess it is more around 3 or 4 dbd gain
with 1/2 wave length elements and 1/2 wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements. It seems like alot of trouble to go to when an
extended double zepp at the same height as top wire of the Lazy H
might do just as well if not better. The plus is the Lazy H may have
cleaner nulls off the sides which is helping with the occasional AM
carriers that are coming out of Central and South America.

Michael


Just curious, how are you measuring this -2 to -3 dB difference you are
referencing?

tom
K0TAR

Walt, you continue to amaze me with your apparently wonderful and extensive
knowledge
with antennas and transmission lines. I look forward to finding threads
where you have
entered a discussion on some topic or other. I have been a Ham since 1958.
I've studied,
and read lots on the subject and always wished, but was never able to really
understand the
aforementioned topics to any degree. I've built and played around with many
antennas over the years.
Reading this newsgroup and many of the discussions has taught me a lot, but
your ability to relate various
aspects which might to me be seemingly unrelated, and put them into words
which are both meaningful
and understandable blows my mind. Your replies advising Michael on just
this thread alone have been
great.

I've been meaning to say this for years -- now here it is --
Thanks for being around and sharing your goodies with us all.

Irv
VE6BP


"walt" wrote in message
...
On May 30, 9:31 pm, Michael wrote:
Thanks for your input Walt, but I already thought of those things.
I definitely made the antenna correctly. According to the ARRL
handbook when center feeding the Lazy H increasing the spacing beyond
1/2 wave makes the gain go up until the spacing reaches 5/8ths wave.
The handbooks states 5.9 dbd gain for 1/2 wave spacing and 6.7 dbd for
5/8ths wave spacing. In the real world this antenna does not have any
gain over a 1/2 wave dipole when center fed with 450 ohm ladder line
all the way back to the tuner. The phasing was correct. On 14 MHz
where it becomes two stacked dipoles the SWR comes down and the
performance goes up, but on 28 MHz it consistently lags behind a
dipole. I rebuilt this antenna twice. If you actually go to the
trouble of making one for 10 meters, and compare it to a real world 28
Mhz 1/2 wave dipole, the Lazy H will fall far short of the predicted
gain.
I have been a ham since 1986. I wondered why I had heard so few
hams using a Lazy H, and the one time I recalled hearing one the
signal was weaker than the other hams using a dipole. I assumed at
the time that I must have been off the side of the other ham's Lazy H,
but after my real world test who knows.
I'm going to remove the center feed from the antenna this week, and
rework the Lazy H for end feed with a twist, a matching stub, and 1/2
wave spacing. Hopefully the end fed version of the Lazy H will live
up to it's text book gain. I'd really like to have that 6 dbd gain
along with the nulls off the sides,

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

On May 30, 5:48 pm, walt wrote:







On May 30, 2:44 pm, Baron wrote:

Michael Inscribed thus:

Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire,
I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the
Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station
on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder
line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified.
A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will
consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a
20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build
a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to
the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.

Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy
H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;

1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line
feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time
in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and
hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.

In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

Hi Michael,

I'm sorry to hear you think the lazy-H sucks. I used one on 20m years
ago and it worked just fine--and no trouble in matching it with a
tuner.

However, I have a suggestion: Let's say you space the upper and lower
radiating elements by 180°, which is 1/2wl. If you now use 450-ohm
window line, the velocity factor for the line attaching the two
elements together makes the electrical length of the line greater than
1/2wl, which means the phasing between the upper and lower elements is
no longer correct, and therefore will not provide the expected gain.
I'm not sure how much phasing error that will produce, but it's an
issue you should consider. Correctly constructed, the lazy-H will
definitely out perform a 1/2wl dipole, so if it doesn't for you there
is sum ting definitely wong!

If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.

Just my thoughts,

Walt, W2DU


One other thought, Michael, is that if you made the lazy-H with 1/2wl
spacing for 20m and then use it on 10m, the spacing is now 1wl. I
haven't seen any figures for that spacing, but isn't it possible that
with that spacing the gain might not be what you expect? Especially if
it works properly on 20m?

Walt

I'm definitely using a less than scientific method, so don't take my
estimation as solid proof. It is just a guess at best.

Michael


On Jun 2, 10:48*pm, tom wrote:
On 6/2/2011 1:27 PM, Michael wrote:



* *Just a quick update. *I am seeing some gain with the Lazy H now that
the feed line exiting the antenna has been moved to a 90 degree angle,
but I don't think I am seeing the 5.9 dbd gain promised in the ARRL
Antenna Handbook. *I would guess it is more around 3 or 4 dbd gain
with 1/2 wave length elements and 1/2 wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements. *It seems like alot of trouble to go to when an
extended double zepp at the same height as top wire of the Lazy H
might do just as well if not better. *The plus is the Lazy H may have
cleaner nulls off the sides which is helping with the occasional AM
carriers that are coming out of Central and South America.

Michael

Just curious, how are you measuring this -2 to -3 dB difference you are
referencing?

tom
K0TAR

On Jun 2, 11:03*pm, "Irv Finkleman" wrote:
Walt, you continue to amaze me with your apparently wonderful and extensive
knowledge
with antennas and transmission lines. *I look forward to finding threads
where you have
entered a discussion on some topic or other. *I have been a Ham since 1958.
I've studied,
and read lots on the subject and always wished, but was never able to really
understand the
aforementioned topics to any degree. *I've built and played around with many
antennas over the years.
Reading this newsgroup and many of the discussions has taught me a lot, but
your ability to relate various
aspects which might to me be seemingly unrelated, and put them into words
which are both meaningful
and understandable blows my mind. *Your replies advising Michael on just
this thread alone have been
great.

I've been meaning to say this for years -- now here it is --
Thanks for being around and sharing your goodies with us all.

Irv
VE6BP

"walt" wrote in message

...
On May 30, 9:31 pm, Michael wrote:



Thanks for your input Walt, but I already thought of those things.
I definitely made the antenna correctly. According to the ARRL
handbook when center feeding the Lazy H increasing the spacing beyond
1/2 wave makes the gain go up until the spacing reaches 5/8ths wave.
The handbooks states 5.9 dbd gain for 1/2 wave spacing and 6.7 dbd for
5/8ths wave spacing. In the real world this antenna does not have any
gain over a 1/2 wave dipole when center fed with 450 ohm ladder line
all the way back to the tuner. The phasing was correct. On 14 MHz
where it becomes two stacked dipoles the SWR comes down and the
performance goes up, but on 28 MHz it consistently lags behind a
dipole. I rebuilt this antenna twice. If you actually go to the
trouble of making one for 10 meters, and compare it to a real world 28
Mhz 1/2 wave dipole, the Lazy H will fall far short of the predicted
gain.
I have been a ham since 1986. I wondered why I had heard so few
hams using a Lazy H, and the one time I recalled hearing one the
signal was weaker than the other hams using a dipole. I assumed at
the time that I must have been off the side of the other ham's Lazy H,
but after my real world test who knows.
I'm going to remove the center feed from the antenna this week, and
rework the Lazy H for end feed with a twist, a matching stub, and 1/2
wave spacing. Hopefully the end fed version of the Lazy H will live
up to it's text book gain. I'd really like to have that 6 dbd gain
along with the nulls off the sides,

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

On May 30, 5:48 pm, walt wrote:

On May 30, 2:44 pm, Baron wrote:

Michael Inscribed thus:

Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire,
I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the
Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station
on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder
line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified.
A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will
consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a
20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build
a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to
the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.

Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy
H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;

1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line
feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time
in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and
hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.

In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

Hi Michael,

I'm sorry to hear you think the lazy-H sucks. I used one on 20m years
ago and it worked just fine--and no trouble in matching it with a
tuner.

However, I have a suggestion: Let's say you space the upper and lower
radiating elements by 180�, which is 1/2wl. If you now use 450-ohm
window line, the velocity factor for the line attaching the two
elements together makes the electrical length of the line greater than
1/2wl, which means the phasing between the upper and lower elements is
no longer correct, and therefore will not provide the expected gain.
I'm not sure how much phasing error that will produce, but it's an
issue you should consider. Correctly constructed, the lazy-H will
definitely out perform a 1/2wl dipole, so if it doesn't for you there
is sum ting definitely wong!

If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.

Just my thoughts,

Walt, W2DU

One other thought, Michael, is that if you made the lazy-H with 1/2wl
spacing for 20m and then use it on 10m, the spacing is now 1wl. I
haven't seen any figures for that spacing, but isn't it possible that
with that spacing the gain might not be what you expect? Especially if
it works properly on 20m?

Walt

This Lazy H is specifically made for 10 meters, the summer Sporadic E
season, and the steadily climbing solar flux. I almost never use 20
meters.

Michael
KS4HY

On Jun 3, 9:14*am, Michael wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:03*pm, "Irv Finkleman" wrote:









Walt, you continue to amaze me with your apparently wonderful and extensive
knowledge
with antennas and transmission lines. *I look forward to finding threads
where you have
entered a discussion on some topic or other. *I have been a Ham since 1958.
I've studied,
and read lots on the subject and always wished, but was never able to really
understand the
aforementioned topics to any degree. *I've built and played around with many
antennas over the years.
Reading this newsgroup and many of the discussions has taught me a lot, but
your ability to relate various
aspects which might to me be seemingly unrelated, and put them into words
which are both meaningful
and understandable blows my mind. *Your replies advising Michael on just
this thread alone have been
great.

I've been meaning to say this for years -- now here it is --
Thanks for being around and sharing your goodies with us all.

Irv
VE6BP

"walt" wrote in message

....
On May 30, 9:31 pm, Michael wrote:

Thanks for your input Walt, but I already thought of those things.
I definitely made the antenna correctly. According to the ARRL
handbook when center feeding the Lazy H increasing the spacing beyond
1/2 wave makes the gain go up until the spacing reaches 5/8ths wave.
The handbooks states 5.9 dbd gain for 1/2 wave spacing and 6.7 dbd for
5/8ths wave spacing. In the real world this antenna does not have any
gain over a 1/2 wave dipole when center fed with 450 ohm ladder line
all the way back to the tuner. The phasing was correct. On 14 MHz
where it becomes two stacked dipoles the SWR comes down and the
performance goes up, but on 28 MHz it consistently lags behind a
dipole. I rebuilt this antenna twice. If you actually go to the
trouble of making one for 10 meters, and compare it to a real world 28
Mhz 1/2 wave dipole, the Lazy H will fall far short of the predicted
gain.
I have been a ham since 1986. I wondered why I had heard so few
hams using a Lazy H, and the one time I recalled hearing one the
signal was weaker than the other hams using a dipole. I assumed at
the time that I must have been off the side of the other ham's Lazy H,
but after my real world test who knows.
I'm going to remove the center feed from the antenna this week, and
rework the Lazy H for end feed with a twist, a matching stub, and 1/2
wave spacing. Hopefully the end fed version of the Lazy H will live
up to it's text book gain. I'd really like to have that 6 dbd gain
along with the nulls off the sides,

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

On May 30, 5:48 pm, walt wrote:

On May 30, 2:44 pm, Baron wrote:

Michael Inscribed thus:

Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire,
I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the
Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station
on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder
line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements..
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified.
A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will
consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a
20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build
a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to
the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.

Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy
H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;

1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line
feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time
in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and
hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.

In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

Hi Michael,

I'm sorry to hear you think the lazy-H sucks. I used one on 20m years
ago and it worked just fine--and no trouble in matching it with a
tuner.

However, I have a suggestion: Let's say you space the upper and lower
radiating elements by 180�, which is 1/2wl. If you now use 450-ohm
window line, the velocity factor for the line attaching the two
elements together makes the electrical length of the line greater than
1/2wl, which means the phasing between the upper and lower elements is
no longer correct, and therefore will not provide the expected gain..
I'm not sure how much phasing error that will produce, but it's an
issue you should consider. Correctly constructed, the lazy-H will
definitely out perform a 1/2wl dipole, so if it doesn't for you there
is sum ting definitely wong!

If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.

Just my thoughts,

Walt, W2DU

One other thought, Michael, is that if you made the lazy-H with 1/2wl
spacing for 20m and then use it on 10m, the spacing is now 1wl. I
haven't seen any figures for that spacing, but isn't it possible that
with that spacing the gain might not be what you expect? Especially if
it works properly on 20m?

Walt

This Lazy H is specifically made for 10 meters, the summer Sporadic E
season, and the steadily climbing solar flux. I almost never use 20
meters.

Michael
KS4HY


Thank you Irv, for the nice words you posted about me. I was fortunate
to have been an antenna engineer with RCA for 31 years, where I was
surrounded with professionals who were in the top echelon of antenna
developers. I've had no other formal training in engineering other
than my close association with them, and studying their voluminous
text books. Learning as a ham (78 yrs continually licensed since 1933)
is clearly the root of my engineering knowledge.

Do you have a copy of my book, "Reflections--Transmission Lines and
Antennas? If not, some of the chapters from the book are available for
downloading at my web page at www.w2du.com.

Thanks again, Irv,

Walt, W2DU

Do you have a copy of my book, "Reflections--Transmission Lines and
Antennas? If not, some of the chapters from the book are available for
downloading at my web page at www.w2du.com.

Thanks again, Irv,

Walt, W2DU

Wow! Impressive resume Walt. It's funny you should ask about 'Refections'.
I never had the book, but did download
and study the available chapters from your website.

Due to some pretty serious illness and surgery during the past two years I
had to sell my house. At the same time my
prognosis was so limited that I gave away all my equipment, tools, parts,
and books -- most of it to other hams as well
as our local radio club. I had more antenna books than anything. We never
dreamed I would be in condition to operate
a station again and it wasn't easy giving up one of my great loves in
life -- HAM RADIO!

As per Murphy's Laws, my recovery was remarkable, but I had to move into a
seniors residence where nursing
assistance was available, and since then I have had restorative surgery and
am in pretty good condition again.
I am now ready to resume my participation in the hobby, but in a very
downsized manner. I just bought a
Yaesu FT-817ND (an all band/mode QRP rig, the only rig I ever bought brand
new) and am
in the process of building a magnetic loop antenna which I can cleverly
conceal on my balcony.
Basically it is a very simple project, considering the fact that I will be
operating either 5w or 2.5w
and do not have to go overboard on a HV tuning cap. I've always
been a low power operator, knowing that with a little operating skill, and a
'decent' antenna you don't need
a lot to have a bundle of fun. The snow has just cleared from my area
(Calgary, Alberta) and I should be up
and operating pretty soon (as soon as I can concoct a simple insulated
coupling between the tuning cap
drive motor and the capacitor). The principles of the magnetic loop are
simple, and I have been able to
download lots of good hints and kinks over the net -- more than I need.

So I'm a long way from dead, and looking forward to resuming the hobby which
has kept me fully
occupied for many years.

I've helped many fellow hams with invisible antennas -- now it's my turn and
I'm approaching it
with a very optomistic outlook. Starting over is not difficult -- once you
have the knowledge, the
rest is easy. Maybe we'll meet around the bands someday.

Thanks again for all you've given to the hobby! Ohm's Law was easy, but we
needed folks like
you for the antenna understanding.

Irv, VE6BP