What did you do in the shack today?

[CatSnoutSoup]

Dang, I was hoping to hear how well the Super DX feature worked.

FTM-500 has the same circuit, that's where it was developed.

 

[n1oty]

Oh, an EFHW. Those were all the rage a couple years ago. They have their share of haters, but I've probably gotten a thousand contacts with them. I only started using other antennas because I was tired of trying to find a suitable branch to get the end up in the air. I found it was good on 40/20/15/10. I just had to pay attention to where in the band I was operating, because you don't get the whole band.

A 45' high branch will give you about a 45 degree angle. I found that keeping the transformer near the ground, but not on the ground, helped get the lowest SWR dip.

Just a tip in case you plan on cutting the wire once you're happy with it. Folding it over isn't exactly the same as cutting, unless you're using bare wire. Callum (M0MCX, of DX Commander fame) says it's something like 1/3. So a fold of 1' actually looks like 4" of wire.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UwaIc3GdSA

I've never been a fan of EFHW. I've had much better luck with OCFD. YMMV.

 

[QTHNH]

Downloaded WFD rules and started making a plan for "Outdoor" operation with 3 operators, battery powered, +3 antennas, almost all bands covered.
I was hoping to see a multiplier for also smoking ribs on the BGE, but alas, no such luck.

 

[ToddDubya]

I've never been a fan of EFHW. I've had much better luck with OCFD. YMMV.

They both have their pros/cons. In the field, an EFHW is far easier to setup and doesn't require as much coax. Needing one clear branch at a good height is much easier than two clear branches and clear in between. The same can be true at home if you have a small lot and not ideal trees. An OCFD is likely more efficient on the designed band.

 

[n1oty]

They both have their pros/cons. In the field, an EFHW is far easier to setup and doesn't require as much coax. Needing one clear branch at a good height is much easier than two clear branches and clear in between. The same can be true at home if you have a small lot and not ideal trees. An OCFD is likely more efficient on the designed band.

I suspect that the quality that endears many to the EFHW is the ease of setup, as you mentioned.

 

[Gerbs54]

I suspect that the quality that endears many to the EFHW is the ease of setup, as you mentioned.

As a total new guy, I like that it’s small when packed away, cheap, multi-band and easy to set up. Time will tell I guess.

 

[ToddDubya]

@n1oty, you make it sound like they're a compromise of epic proportions used by lazy people. They work just fine. @Gerbs54 built it as his first antenna. As the saying goes: the best antenna is the one you're using. So he's got the best antenna.

In the end, an EFHW is a transformer and half a wavelength of wire in the air and an OCFD is a transformer and half a wavelength of wire in the air.

Most of the radiation (max current) is at the center of the antenna, just like any dipole, so a 40m EFHW sloped at 45 degrees will have most of it's radiation about 25' in the air, almost 1/4 wavelength. They're more omnidirectional than a flat top dipole, more like an inverted vee. The only real difference is the efficiency of the transformer.

Here are insertion loss plots of two winding methods: blue is the way most people do it, wound loosely with a crossover, and red is tightly wound. So the EFHW transformer can have an insertion loss of 2dB or less. Or in practical terms, about half of an S-unit worse than if you were using an ideal 4:1 in an OCFD. And a 40m EFHW gives you the 15m band that you don't get with an OCFD.




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1urC7O_Kyf4


In the end, the EFHW is a couple dB worse in terms of transmission efficiency, and significantly better in terms of transport/setup efficiency, plus it gives you an extra band.

Full disclosure: I've built a 40m OCFD that works just fine. I never use it because it is so difficult to find a suitable place to setup and if I do, is much more difficult to setup. It's also a lot bulkier/heavier to carry and requires a lot more coax.

For reference, these are two EFHWs I've built.
Loosely wound with crossover:


Tightly wound (note this is a 21:3 winding, vs 14:2 in above)...

 

[ToddDubya]

Downloaded WFD rules and started making a plan for "Outdoor" operation with 3 operators, battery powered, +3 antennas, almost all bands covered.
I was hoping to see a multiplier for also smoking ribs on the BGE, but alas, no such luck.

I've done this the last few years. I'm on the fence this year. There's a real emphasis on challenges and I find that a little distracting. I generally am just trying not to freeze to death or go hungry as I like to use my Super Secret Squirrel Location that has no power/heat/water/etc.

Getting 6 bands could tough because I'm generally not close enough for VHF, although I have used 2m SSB/CW in the past. I think my buddy was generous with how well he copied me. Maybe I could run out a spool of wire and try 160m. Every winter I think about 160m after it's already winter. D'oh.

Hmm, I do have a Weber grill up there now. I know it might struggle in the cold/wind, but I could probably cook up something nice.

Haha, looks like I went from "f*** WFD" to "I'm gonna smoke some ribs, build a few antennas, ..." in the course of a single post.

 

[n1oty]

@n1oty, you make it sound like they're a compromise of epic proportions used by lazy people. They work just fine. @Gerbs54 built it as his first antenna. As the saying goes: the best antenna is the one you're using. So he's got the best antenna.

In the end, an EFHW is a transformer and half a wavelength of wire in the air and an OCFD is a transformer and half a wavelength of wire in the air.

Most of the radiation (max current) is at the center of the antenna, just like any dipole, so a 40m EFHW sloped at 45 degrees will have most of it's radiation about 25' in the air, almost 1/4 wavelength. They're more omnidirectional than a flat top dipole, more like an inverted vee. The only real difference is the efficiency of the transformer.

Here are insertion loss plots of two winding methods: blue is the way most people do it, wound loosely with a crossover, and red is tightly wound. So the EFHW transformer can have an insertion loss of 2dB or less. Or in practical terms, about half of an S-unit worse than if you were using an ideal 4:1 in an OCFD. And a 40m EFHW gives you the 15m band that you don't get with an OCFD.

View attachment 942006


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1urC7O_Kyf4


In the end, the EFHW is a couple dB worse in terms of transmission efficiency, and significantly better in terms of transport/setup efficiency, plus it gives you an extra band.

Full disclosure: I've built a 40m OCFD that works just fine. I never use it because it is so difficult to find a suitable place to setup and if I do, is much more difficult to setup. It's also a lot bulkier/heavier to carry and requires a lot more coax.

For reference, these are two EFHWs I've built.
Loosely wound with crossover:
View attachment 942037

Tightly wound (note this is a 21:3 winding, vs 14:2 in above)...

View attachment 942038

My only complaint concerning EFHW antenna's is that common mode current issues are problematic unless great pains are taken to mitigate it. Yet, most proponents of the EFHW only stress it's "ease" of setup and rarely, if ever, consider adding a counterpoise to it or adding chokes to suppress the common mode currents.

 

[ToddDubya]

I don't use a counterpoise or choke and haven't ever had a problem at 100w. I use the "let your coax shield be your counterpoise" approach, which still "should" need a choke, but never bothered. I did initially use a counterpoise, and it only has to be a few feet (0.05 wavelength). But one day I tried it without and it made no difference, so I stopped bothering. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've built a number of them and it's always been fine. Everyone I see using them does it this way.

I keep the transformer close to, but not touching, the ground (a foot or so). That helps give me consistent SWR/resonant frequency. I always assumed it had to do with capacitance to ground, at least that's how my brain pictures it. Maybe it's helping me out with RF noise?

In general I try to setup any antenna as close to the way it was when it was tuned. This keeps the resonant point at the same frequency.

And mostly I didn't want @Gerbs54 to think the first antenna he built wasn't any good.

 

[n1oty]

I don't use a counterpoise or choke and haven't ever had a problem at 100w. I use the "let your coax shield be your counterpoise" approach, which still "should" need a choke, but never bothered. I did initially use a counterpoise, and it only has to be a few feet (0.05 wavelength). But one day I tried it without and it made no difference, so I stopped bothering. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've built a number of them and it's always been fine. Everyone I see using them does it this way.

I keep the transformer close to, but not touching, the ground (a foot or so). That helps give me consistent SWR/resonant frequency. I always assumed it had to do with capacitance to ground, at least that's how my brain pictures it. Maybe it's helping me out with RF noise?

In general I try to setup any antenna as close to the way it was when it was tuned. This keeps the resonant point at the same frequency.

And mostly I didn't want @Gerbs54 to think the first antenna he built wasn't any good.

Please don't take what I have said on this matter as negative criticism. On the contrary, I am simply trying to stimulate thoughtful discussion so that new hams in particular can learn. I am glad that he has experimented with EFHW. I hope he further experiments with scratch building other forms of antenna's and builds his own foundation of knowledge. He should take interest in learning about common mode currents because it can cause a number of problems. He needs to learn what it is, how it can affect operation, the EMI/RFI it can cause and, finally, what steps he can take to mitigate if it rears it's ugly head.

 

[Gerbs54]

And mostly I didn't want @Gerbs54 to think the first antenna he built wasn't any good.

Please don't take what I have said on this matter as negative criticism. On the contrary, I am simply trying to stimulate thoughtful discussion so that new hams in particular can learn. I am glad that he has experimented with EFHW. I hope he further experiments with scratch building other forms of antenna's and builds his own foundation of knowledge.

I am glad to have the advice or even just hear what others have experienced. I used a 49:1 build by Nelson Antennas, from eBay. I wanted to at least eliminate that as a variable buy getting it from someone fairly reputable vs building myself, at least for the first one. 1:1, 4:1, 9:1 all seem easy to come by but 49:1 seemed harder to find without it being a kit, overpriced for what it was or "home built" by someone else (which the Nelson is but at least there are some reviews to reference).

I don't have any test equipment for the most part, I used the SWR meter from the radio to tune the wire length. I had the transformer tied to the top of a plow marking stake, about 2.5 - 3 feet off the ground. I had a 6' counterpoise wire on the transform and I used a home build choke on the radio end. Only 2-3 feet of the counterpoise was on the ground, not sure if that is makes any difference. The choke is 12 turns of RG58 on a FT240-43 based on the following: Common-mode chokes

In the next deployment my goals are to get the wire higher, either a sloper or inverted V. If I go sloper I will get the wire 65' up in a tree, if I go inverted V I'll toss the wire over the barn, that would make the wire 20' at the peak, shooting for 90 degrees at the peak to the legs. I will keep the transformer elevated and I plan to move the choke to the feed point.

I am open to any suggestions. How do you tell if you are having an issue with common mode current coming back or anything for that matter other than subjected observation of how its preforming?

 

[n1oty]

I am glad to have the advice or even just hear what others have experienced. I used a 49:1 build by Nelson Antennas, from eBay. I wanted to at least eliminate that as a variable buy getting it from someone fairly reputable vs building myself, at least for the first one. 1:1, 4:1, 9:1 all seem easy to come by but 49:1 seemed harder to find without it being a kit, overpriced for what it was or "home built" by someone else (which the Nelson is but at least there are some reviews to reference).

I don't have any test equipment for the most part, I used the SWR meter from the radio to tune the wire length. I had the transformer tied to the top of a plow marking stake, about 2.5 - 3 feet off the ground. I had a 6' counterpoise wire on the transform and I used a home build choke on the radio end. Only 2-3 feet of the counterpoise was on the ground, not sure if that is makes any difference. The choke is 12 turns of RG58 on a FT240-43 based on the following: Common-mode chokes

In the next deployment my goals are to get the wire higher, either a sloper or inverted V. If I go sloper I will get the wire 65' up in a tree, if I go inverted V I'll toss the wire over the barn, that would make the wire 20' at the peak, shooting for 90 degrees at the peak to the legs. I will keep the transformer elevated and I plan to move the choke to the feed point.

I am open to any suggestions. How do you tell if you are having an issue with common mode current coming back or anything for that matter other than subjected observation of how its preforming?

There are a few ways that common mode current can present itself. You can get a coupling with other nearby conductors, EMI/RFI to your station equipment, increased noise floor and in some rare cases you can damage nearby station equipment or other electronics. Low power operation will generally not induce equipment damage though. It will frequently skew your antenna pattern as well. The coax can essentially act like a part of the antenna. Generally speaking, it is always best to choke at the antenna feedpoint, although I always tend to choke at the station end of the coax as well. I also choke non-coax cables that run in the vicinity of my coax. Case in point, I choke the control conductors that run my screwdriver antenna up/down because it literally runs with the coax from the truck cab to the antenna.

When you shop around for a meter down the road, select one that does more than just provide an SWR reading. You want one that also shows such things as radiation resistance, losses, etc. I personally use and enjoy the Rig Experts units that can also plot the Smith Chart. The older MFJ units like the 259 and 269 were also very good, but I heard that units made in the last few years were poor quality. If you find a clean looking 259 or 269 that is 15 years old and available for short money, it would make a great acquisition. The SWR meter in your radio is certainly a great tool, but presents an incomplete picture of the rest of the parameters that translate into having a good signal. Don't forget, a dummy load will present a nearly perfect SWR, but it will not transmit a signal very well.

Your 12 turns of coax will work very well at HF. Just remember to get those turns as close to the antenna feedpoint as possible.

 

[ToddDubya]

Please don't take what I have said on this matter as negative criticism. On the contrary, I am simply trying to stimulate thoughtful discussion so that new hams in particular can learn. I am glad that he has experimented with EFHW. I hope he further experiments with scratch building other forms of antenna's and builds his own foundation of knowledge. He should take interest in learning about common mode currents because it can cause a number of problems. He needs to learn what it is, how it can affect operation, the EMI/RFI it can cause and, finally, what steps he can take to mitigate if it rears it's ugly head.

No worries. I may have gotten carried away. There are a lot of haters out there who say they suck because they sucked back in the 60s. Who knows how people were making them back then, so I just try and clear it up when I can. I built my 40m OCFD because you always rave about them, and after I finally got it tuned it it was nice on 40/20/10. I wanted it for portable use, but it's too much work. I'll find a use for it.

I am glad to have the advice or even just hear what others have experienced. I used a 49:1 build by Nelson Antennas, from eBay. I wanted to at least eliminate that as a variable buy getting it from someone fairly reputable vs building myself, at least for the first one. 1:1, 4:1, 9:1 all seem easy to come by but 49:1 seemed harder to find without it being a kit, overpriced for what it was or "home built" by someone else (which the Nelson is but at least there are some reviews to reference).

I don't have any test equipment for the most part, I used the SWR meter from the radio to tune the wire length. I had the transformer tied to the top of a plow marking stake, about 2.5 - 3 feet off the ground. I had a 6' counterpoise wire on the transform and I used a home build choke on the radio end. Only 2-3 feet of the counterpoise was on the ground, not sure if that is makes any difference. The choke is 12 turns of RG58 on a FT240-43 based on the following: Common-mode chokes

In the next deployment my goals are to get the wire higher, either a sloper or inverted V. If I go sloper I will get the wire 65' up in a tree, if I go inverted V I'll toss the wire over the barn, that would make the wire 20' at the peak, shooting for 90 degrees at the peak to the legs. I will keep the transformer elevated and I plan to move the choke to the feed point.

I am open to any suggestions. How do you tell if you are having an issue with common mode current coming back or anything for that matter other than subjected observation of how its preforming?

Sounds like you did it right. If you have a counterpoise, you should put the choke at the feed point like you said.

You can tell if you have RF coming back if you get an RF burn when you touch something metal on the radio while you're transmitting. I've only experienced it once and my CW paddle was biting me. I've also had problems with things "acting funny" in the shack. Like I'd transmit and the USB keyboard would drop out for a few seconds. That was a dipole too close to the house. It's easier to figure out when it happens after you change something so there's a likely culprit.

If you enjoy building antennas, or even if you don't but you think you'll be doing more of it in the future, I can't recommend an antenna analyzer enough. They're pricey, but it's easily the most used piece of test equipment I have. It does a lot more than just tell you SWR. I have a RigExpert Stick Pro that's good up to 600MHz. Any RigExpert is probably good.

 

[ToddDubya]

I ordered some wire to try my hand at 160m. Nothing crazy, just a simple Winter Field Day setup. I'll miss the 160m DX contest this weekend, which might have been a good chance to get my feet wet. Oh well.

I also ordered DX Engineering's crimper to go with the jaws I flintily bought without the crimper (they fit another crimper I have, but it's a PITA to swap back and forth), and a book on using the NanoVNA.

 

[oldguy68]

I bought an EFHW 40-10m antenna. Going to slope it from the second floor of my house to the fence line.
Going to need a longer feed line to get to my kitchen table.
Made it to Utah today and Brazil. They were hard to understand and had to ask for their call signs a couple times.
Hopefully, the antenna being higher up will help. I've never been on 40 meters.
I think I'm going to have to ask the bog owner if I can borrow one of his trees to secure a line to it.

 

[Gerbs54]

Got the wire up over the barn & moved the choke to the feed point last night. Maybe it was just the conditions or it being a Friday but I was receiving many more stations than previously. Made my first contact with a skywarn station in FL. He gave me a 59, I had him 57 but lots of QRN on 40M. Heard Brazil really well but couldn’t hear anyone contacting him which made it hard to break in. SWR in 40m was really good right around 1.0, jumped up to 2.0-2.1 on 20m.

Is it worth getting a NanoVNA or should I have up for a rig expert?

 

[ToddDubya]

Got the wire up over the barn & moved the choke to the feed point last night. Maybe it was just the conditions or it being a Friday but I was receiving many more stations than previously. Made my first contact with a skywarn station in FL. He gave me a 59, I had him 57 but lots of QRN on 40M. Heard Brazil really well but couldn’t hear anyone contacting him which made it hard to break in. SWR in 40m was really good right around 1.0, jumped up to 2.0-2.1 on 20m.

Is it worth getting a NanoVNA or should I have up for a rig expert?

Nice results. My vote is for a RigExpert. A NanoNVA will work but there's more setup every time you use it. You have to calibrate any time you change parameters like the frequency range you're looking at. I don't have much experience with the NanoVNA, but I know I wouldn't be without an antenna analyzer. They are pricey though.

Another nice feature of the RigExperts (I assume all of them) is the ability to connect to a computer (via USB) or phone (via BlueTooth). The phone app has been wonky since the war in Ukraine started. They're made in Ukraine, so I assume that's why. I've also learned to save the charts of my antennas. It's handy when something suddenly doesn't seem right, or you can't remember where in the band an antenna is resonant. Or to illustrate the difference as you raise or lower an antenna.

 

[Parker Duofold]

Used a remote Elecraft K4D-K4D to connect to a friend's station in Indiana and did some 160 meter ARRL contest last night. 257 Qs in 2 hours.



I haven't had a 160 meter antenna since 1974 - 1980 when I had a full size dipole. I think that was in the LORAN days on 160 so working anything on Top Band then was difficult.

 

[Parker Duofold]

Nice results. My vote is for a RigExpert. A NanoNVA will work but there's more setup every time you use it. You have to calibrate any time you change parameters like the frequency range you're looking at. I don't have much experience with the NanoVNA, but I know I wouldn't be without an antenna analyzer. They are pricey though.

Another nice feature of the RigExperts (I assume all of them) is the ability to connect to a computer (via USB) or phone (via BlueTooth). The phone app has been wonky since the war in Ukraine started. They're made in Ukraine, so I assume that's why. I've also learned to save the charts of my antennas. It's handy when something suddenly doesn't seem right, or you can't remember where in the band an antenna is resonant. Or to illustrate the difference as you raise or lower an antenna.

I think I have a Rig Expert somewhere around here. I bought it at Dayton a few years ago for something and I'm not sure I ever used it. If you're interested in it I'll look for it.

 

[Gerbs54]

I think I have a Rig Expert somewhere around here. I bought it at Dayton a few years ago for something and I'm not sure I ever used it. If you're interested in it I'll look for it.

If you happen across it I could be interested. At this point I know nothing about the different models or options but it sounds like I’ll need something sooner or later.

 

[ToddDubya]

Used a remote Elecraft K4D-K4D to connect to a friend's station in Indiana and did some 160 meter ARRL contest last night. 257 Qs in 2 hours.

View attachment 942893

I haven't had a 160 meter antenna since 1974 - 1980 when I had a full size dipole. I think that was in the LORAN days on 160 so working anything on Top Band then was difficult.

That's better than 2/minute! I wouldn't even think there were that many people on 160. Awesome.

I bet back in 1974 you never thought you'd be connecting to someone else's station from states away to operate in a contest. A friend of mine has a Flex and it blows my mind when he pulls it up on his phone to show me something.

 

[Parker Duofold]

That's better than 2/minute! I wouldn't even think there were that many people on 160. Awesome.

I bet back in 1974 you never thought you'd be connecting to someone else's station from states away to operate in a contest. A friend of mine has a Flex and it blows my mind when he pulls it up on his phone to show me something.

In 1974 there were no "WARC" bands 30, 17 and 12 meters. The new bands were added in 1979. There was still LORAN on 160. Morse code requirement for all licenses, most exams in our area at the FCC office in Boston. We did have sliced bread and indoor plumbing.

The only connectivity I can think of was running phone patches mostly to military personnel. That was just connecting the phone lines at either end to the radios. I was first licensed in 1965. My "Elmer" was first on the air in 1912. He told some great stories about the dawn of radio communication.

I connect with my station in Maine also. Very different propagation.

 

[ToddDubya]

In 1974 there were no "WARC" bands 30, 17 and 12 meters. The new bands were added in 1979. There was still LORAN on 160. Morse code requirement for all licenses, most exams in our area at the FCC office in Boston. We did have sliced bread and indoor plumbing.

The only connectivity I can think of was running phone patches mostly to military personnel. That was just connecting the phone lines at either end to the radios. I was first licensed in 1965. My "Elmer" was first on the air in 1912. He told some great stories about the dawn of radio communication.

I connect with my station in Maine also. Very different propagation.

I'm glad to live in a more modern era. I enjoy the WARC bands, and I was glad to have been licensed without having to learn CW. And I'm glad I learned CW. I just looked up a QSO sample of what would have been given for the 20wpm test, and I got some of it but not all. I imagine if I practiced listening to "strict" QSOs to get the flow down I could do much better.

I've been doing a lot of reading/watching about simple transmitter/transceiver builds and it goes over my head quickly. I can't even imagine trying to build anything in the vacuum tube days without the internet to help me. I have a few older books from the 70s and their sample builds all use tubes. Forget it. I find transistors confusing enough.

 

[UJay]

An Awesome day/weekend.

Was part of a big Multi-OP for CQWW CW which got my ham juices flowing to make a couple hundred QSOs in the 160m this weekend and today we stripped my 'temporary tower' of 6, 2, 222, 432, 1296 md 903 and put a 10m 5el beam up (~30') for next weekend's contest.... All systems go....

I noticed my 160m was broken... I have a fiberglass mast for about 30' (Is actually a SteppIR element with a piece of wire inside attached to a balcony staircase) feeding a flat-top marconi style antenna. The IR element was snapped.... PoS.....
anyway.... I worked 4 DX, but that K4D is a pretty awesome RX once I adjusted it according to the K4 email reflector suggestions. I have not tried K4-K4 remote, @Parker Duofold but it seems interesting... All QSOs for me were S&P and most were remote from inside the house using RustDesk and diversity with a single DXE active vertical on the second receiver... it plays well!

SOHP(A) ~600W


N1MM Says 5 hours..... no running.

Might use DXLog for the 10m if I go single op, if we go multi-single with a couple buddies working things remote (RustDesk/AnyDesk) every one is used to N1MM.

UJay

 

[ToddDubya]

Update: I figured it out. Holy crap is that convoluted. Heaven forbid I can just search from the main folder by a key word in the title and find it.

1. Look in the back of the book at the "Project List" and if it's in "Online Content", continue with this horrible process...
2. Look at the "Online Contents List" pdf and search for the name of the project you're looking for. They're sorted by chapter, so now you know the chapter it was referenced in.
3. Go back to the "Supplemental Files" folder
4. Go to the Chapter you found in step 2.
5. Go to the appropriate folder within that folder
6. The project should be in there

Original:
I bought the ARRL 100th Anniversary Handbook last year and I never really looked at it much. I busted it out yesterday and it's really good. BUT, there are a ton of things that are "included" as Online Content, including a list of projects three pages long. I cannot for the life of me figure out how to find it.

I have the PDF version too (it's free if you buy the book), and if I even search for one of them, it comes up empty or at best brings me to the list, which does me no good.

Anybody know how to find this stuff?

 

[ToddDubya]

In other news, my order from DX Engineering came today. I already put my PowerPole crimper back together and put the coax crimper jaws on the new crimper body. I can't believe I didn't lose any pieces of the PowerPole jaws while I had it apart.

I started reading the NanoVNA book. I'm really hoping that's useful because I don't find the NanoVNA terribly intuitive to use. Maybe once I get some time on it it'll be easier. And the third part of that order is the wires for the 160m antenna I want to try for WFD (simply two 132' wires with ring terminals).

Back to this antenna idea I had. I'm not sure why it won't work, but the lack of people doing it tells me there's something wrong with the idea. I took the idea from the vertical whip with raised counterpoise that has been serving me well. It's the premise behind the Buddipole system. Allegedly the direction of the counterpoise gives it some directionality, but I have not found that to be the case. In my mind, the raised counterpoise acts more like the other half of a dipole instead of a ground radial trying to couple to the Earth. So I'll run one leg out straight as high as I can reach, and the other leg will go up like an Inverted L or possible Inverted Vee.

My Super Secret Squirrel Location is not what you'd call ideal ground. It's glacial till, AKA granite boulders and rocks covered in a dusting of dirt. So ground radials don't work well. But a raised counterpoise has done very well for me on higher bands.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

FTM-500DR is set up and I have been programing it. I am using RT Systems software which was only a $25 outlay as the radio uses the same data cable as my FTM-100.

The current location as seen below is temporary, I will separate the chassis and move it a short distance away out of sight while the control head will remain on the desk.

The internal speaker really is quite good but once sperated I will be using an external speaker. In fact the chassis has two speaker jacks that can allow you to have seperate speakers for the main and sub VFO.

Receiver sensitivity seems markedly better than the FTM-100 getting full quieting on some machines that were scratchy on the FTM-100.
The display allows 16 characters for memory names (tags) which is also an improvement over the FTM-100 which allowed just 8.

Have not really spent a lot of time with it so those are just a couple things about it off the top of my head.

Although to address @ToddDubya 's question, the Super DX circuit does bring a weak signal up a little but it was not dramatic in the one instance I tried it with a simplex signal from a distant public service station. Helpful but not "super" helpful.

This photo, in its temporary spot on top of the FTDX10, is from just after I initially switched it on.
It is a really pretty radio...

 

[Evtide]

FTM-500DR is set up and I have been programing it. I am using RT Systems software which was only a $25 outlay as the radio uses the same data cable as my FTM-100.

I have one of these in my pickup, and it's a great radio RF-wise, audio-wise, erfgonomics-wise. The RT Systems software is, in my opinion, a must have for this and any other radios that can use it.

Two pretty significant Yaesu fails that I bet could have been addressed before this radio was released, and are more relevant to operating the radio while driving vs. as a base: 1, There doesn't seem to be a way to group memories together for scanning. I routinely travel around the North East and it would be nice to have a group of repeaters and public service freqs in separate banks for different areas. I do have files loaded up on the SD card for different areas but it's a klunky solution to what should be an easy firmware fix. And 2, there's not a one-button solution to locking out a memory channel in a scan rotation. This can be done, but to the best of my understanding you have to drill down into the menu a few levels to take a channel out of the scan rotation.

The ergo and RT Systems programming greatness outweighs the negatives I've mentioned, and I'm sure you'll enjoy the radio.

 

[ToddDubya]

I saw a couple demo videos of the Super DX function and they didn't really show it pulling in stations you couldn't already hear, but it was a real improvement in the audio. It went from workable sound quality to pleasant sound quality.

@Evtide , can you assign the skip function to their quick access functions? If so that might save a few button presses.