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

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.

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

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

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

On May 30, 10:37*pm, walt wrote:
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

Hi Walt,
I initially made the Lazy H for 5/8th wave spacing on 10 meters.
When that did not work I reduced the spacing to 1/2 wave spacing on 10
meters. The 4 half wave elements are 1/2 waves on 10 meters. The
antenna design is really pretty simple. I did make some contacts with
this antenna and I received some good reports, but the dipole
consistently out performed the Lazy H, There was one contact in
Bermuda that said the Lazy H put in a stronger signal from South
Carolina, but there was alot of fading at the time. Even when the
Bermuda contact said the Lazy H put in the stronger signal the dipole
was receiving the stronger signal from Bermuda.

Michael

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 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

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

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